Why Get a Sound Card?

_SBradley_ · 29 Aug 2009 at 14:01

Hi guys!

Sorry for the completely newbie question. I've been using the on-board sound in my current PC for the past five years. However, I'm currently planning a new build -- something significantly better than what I got last time.

Could you tell me, why should I include a sound card in my new build? What are the top reasons for using one over the on-board sound? Is it purely the audio quality, or are there other reasons (more inputs/outputs, for example)?

Thanks!

AbsenceJam · 29 Aug 2009 at 14:22

Better quality, far less or no interference (hissing) and more functionality (EAX, virtual surround etc).

_SBradley_ · 29 Aug 2009 at 14:36

I'm not sure I'd have much use for EAX, but (for the same reason: the main (sound-related) use of my PC is for stereo music reproduction) better quality is probably reason enough for me to get a sound card. The only question now is: Which one?

Thanks for the response!

Maccy · 29 Aug 2009 at 15:13

You're using your PC for music reproduction and you haven't got a Sound Card?!?!?!

p4radox · 29 Aug 2009 at 15:18

Maccy said:
You're using your PC for music reproduction and you haven't got a Sound Card?!?!?!

I read "music reproduction" as simply "listening to music". Probably not music production.

An external DAC is often worth considering over a sound card. What amp/speakers do you use?

_SBradley_ · 29 Aug 2009 at 19:13

p4radox said:
I read "music reproduction" as simply "listening to music".

Yes, sorry, I just meant listening to music.

What amp/speakers do you use?

Oh, I just have some inexpensive Creative PC speakers at the moment. My PC is hidden away in the box room, so I only really listen when I'm working at the PC.

However, with a house move imminent, my study will have room to expand considerably -- hence the thoughts of improving my sound "reproduction" abilities.

I guess I could get thinking about an amp/speaker upgrade, too!

Randomface74 · 29 Aug 2009 at 21:12

It takes audio processing away from the CPU. It also ends up with better sound quality than your average on-board sound.

_SBradley_ · 29 Aug 2009 at 21:32

billysielu said:
It takes audio processing away from the CPU.

That's a pretty good reason I hadn't considered!

theforce · 30 Aug 2009 at 00:15

If you are mainly listening to music l would get something like the M-Audio "Studiophile BX5a Deluxe" or the "Studiophile BX8a Deluxe" and an Asus Xonar Essence STX

hohum · 30 Aug 2009 at 01:25

It takes audio processing away from the CPU.

We're moving away from hardware accelerated audio though, what with Vista/7 being entirely software-based on the audio stack (although there is still OpenAL of course, but even that isn't used much).

Nowadays there is little to no performance benefit when using hardware acceleration - could certainly be justified back when PC hardware wasn't particularly fast, but these days CPUs are able to deal with high quality positional audio without so much as breaking into a sweat. Don't tell Creative though, as it's one of their only remaining selling points.

_SBradley_ · 30 Aug 2009 at 08:24

theforce said:
If you are mainly listening to music...

Thanks! I'll get researching. I suspect that one might be a bit beyond my budget, but we'll see.

hohum said:
Don't tell Creative though, as it's one of their only remaining selling points.

Heh! I'll keep it under my hat.

Thanks for the info!

PermaBanned · 31 Aug 2009 at 17:17

There's a big difference between onboard sound to say, a £10 sound card. And then there's a big difference between a £10 sound card and a £60 sound card, and so on in such a fashion.

bledd · 31 Aug 2009 at 18:33

Sennheiser HD555 or HD595 headphones or
Goldring DR100 or DR150 headphones

+

Asus Xonar DX(or D1) or Creative Xfi Xtreme Music

Euphoria · 31 Aug 2009 at 19:10

many years back i use to use a sound card but after onboard got much better i went to onboard. only recently with the issues with the intel chipset, sound and hdmi have i started buying seperate sound cards to avoid the static and hissing.

I guess sometimes you get lucky other times you get design faults that just make it impossible to use onboard sound

trackrat · 31 Aug 2009 at 19:18

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=SC-002-AS

I have got this one in my new build and it is very good and a lot cheaper than the previous Xonar that was linked to.

_SBradley_ · 31 Aug 2009 at 23:04

The price on that last one falls nicely within my budget.

It seems the Asus cards are preferred to the Creative ones. Would somebody mind describing briefly the difference(s) between the Xonar D2 and D2X boards? (The D2 is £2 more than the D2X, but is this one of those cases where the better product is cheaper?) Thanks!

Namak · 31 Aug 2009 at 23:28

Maccy said:
You're using your PC for music reproduction and you haven't got a Sound Card?!?!?!

I do. Before i upgraded my computer I couldn't afford one an since i have the onboard is such an improvement over my old mobo that I'm not sure I would notice the benefit enough.

All plugged into an ageing Cambridge Audio Amp and freestanding speakers. Not sure if that means I theoretically need a sound card more or less than rubbish PC speakers.

DarkWhisper · 2 Sep 2009 at 00:21

i run my pc though my cyrus separates. with mission 771, cord company speaker cable, and paradigm ps1200 sub. at night using my sennheiser hd 500

Uriel · 2 Sep 2009 at 00:23

_SBradley_ said:
It seems the Asus cards are preferred to the Creative ones. Would somebody mind describing briefly the difference(s) between the Xonar D2 and D2X boards? (The D2 is £2 more than the D2X, but is this one of those cases where the better product is cheaper?) Thanks!

They're almost exactly the same. The D2 is the PCI version. The D2X is the PCI-E version.

_SBradley_ · 2 Sep 2009 at 07:32

Uriel said:
They're almost exactly the same. The D2 is the PCI version. The D2X is the PCI-E version.

Ah, I didn't notice that. Good job I asked. Thanks!