Some Sound City Guidance

  • Thread starter Thread starter DRZ
  • Start date Start date

DRZ

DRZ

Soldato
Joined
2 Jun 2003
Posts
7,643
Location
In the top 1%
I don’t often come in here but when I do, I cant help but notice a general lack of understanding when it comes to purchasing sound equipment for your PC. This thread is to help you guys out when deciding what to do :)

A PC is an electrically “noisy” place and as such, isn’t the best at producing pure HiFi unless you opt for an outboard sound card and/or use a digital output. Having said that, unless you are really into your hifi (which you probably aren’t if you are reading this) that extra bit of noise probably wont bother you too much.

So, you have choices to make:

Do I stick with my onboard sound card?

Almost certainly not! If you can afford to do it, get yourself a decent sound card! From spending just a little more on your sound card, the jump in quality is immense!

What card should I buy?

A good question and one that is certain to be argued over. All I will say on the matter is that if you avoid ANY creative product, you shouldn’t go wrong. Creative are good at marketing and not at all good at making sound cards. Look towards better cards such as M-Audio or E-MU. There are better on the market, but at least they aren’t Creative!

Once you have picked a sound card, you then have the trickier part – the minefield that is the world of speakers. There are an awful lot of threads where people are going out and spending £240 on speakers believing they are good value for money – they are not!

As a surround sound system, they are barely capable of producing a convincing sound stage and for music reproduction they are woefully inadequate! For the same money or less you can purchase a separate hifi system that will beat any PC speakers hands-down. Admittedly, you will find it impossible to get a surround setup for the same money but the gains to be had as far as stereo is concerned are more than enough to make up for that. Indeed, some posters here have done away with surround sound systems costing several thousand pounds to focus on stereo reproduction that rivals that of the old surround system!

What is an amplifier? Why does this make a difference?

An integrated amplifier takes a signal from a sound source such as a PC or CD player and amplifies it to a signal capable of driving a pair of speakers. There are a few different types of amplifiers on the market these days but the ones that are primarily used in HiFi amps are transistor amps varying in power between 30w/channel and 500+w/channel. The two other types of amplifier are valve amps (old technology but sounds different and some people prefer this) and digital amplifiers. Digital amplifiers, for the most part, are absolutely terrible and are what you find in cheaply made things like PC speakers.

Power isn’t everything! A speaker has a sensitivity – this is how much sound it produces for one watt of input power, measured in decibels. Typically, this is between ~85 and 90dB. A “normal” listening level should be kept below 94dB to avoid hearing damage. It takes double the power for an increase of 3dB. From this, you can see that for normal listening you aren’t going to need more than just a few watts from your amplifier before you get to a point where you are going to begin to damage your hearing! Disregard power almost completely when deciding on an amplifier! I cannot stress this enough!

Lots of factors can affect sound quality from an integrated amplifier. “Integrated” means that it contains both parts of the amplifier – the preamp stage and the power amp stage. A preamp basically lets you adjust volume and choose an input whilst the power amp just takes one input (from the preamp) and amplifies that by a fixed amount to drive the speakers. The quality of both of those stages are important and ultimately decide how good the amp is. The components used by more expensive amplifiers often have a better frequency response (and hence sound better).

That’s the basics of a normal stereo amplifier – a surround sound amplifier/receiver is basically the same but with more channels on the power amp stage and a decoder in the preamp stage to take a digital signal and turn that into 6/7/8 signals to be sent to the power amp & subwoofer. If you want a surround sound system, you need one of these types but they do cost a lot more pound for pound – a £600 A/V amp generally sounds about the same as a £200 stereo amp for music!

So, what do I get for £240?

Well, you COULD go and buy a “THX” certified PC speaker system. George Lucas grants the THX certification to anything, it is a meaningless standard that does not require the product to be of a high quality at all.

If you want an easy solution or want surround for that kind of money no matter how poor the quality, the above mentioned speaker packages are for you!

If you wish to purchase something a lot better for the same money, carry on reading! Buying new (a wise choice for a fledgling in the world of Hifi without some “expert” guidance) a trip to somewhere like Richer Sounds throws up a few possibilities, such as getting a Cambridge Audio A1 at £79.99. Whilst to many Hifi enthusiasts, this amp is considered “poor”, compared to the amplification offered by PC speakers, they are an entirely different league.

This leaves you £160 to buy speakers and speaker cable…

At this point, its no longer a case of what is “better” than the other – it is down to what music you listen to and what you like to hear from a speaker. Everyone is an individual and people do have preferences but I would nominate these three:

Mission M70S - £79.95
Mourdant Short 902 - £99.95
TDL KV1 - £99.95

Then throw in some Gale XL cable, £1 a metre and you are away, saving yourself up to about £70 in the process too! You might want to invest in some stands for the speakers to put them on, but if you don’t have space for that simply blu-tacking them to your desk should be sufficient! :)

If your PC is the centre of your lifestyle at home, the chances are that you will benefit massively from this upgrade!

Another point that I just want to make quickly before the end:

Turn off ALL equalisation settings!

Turn them off and leave them off – I would suggest you totally forgot they were there. If you must, turn them back on after a week of not using them and I am fairly certain that you will leave them off for good.

ALL of the best kit comes totally devoid of any sort of equalisation/tone control because its not “the music” as it was intended, you are tampering with it and it generally sounds rubbish for it too.
 
I've been trying to tell people a more condensed version of this every time someone buys and X-fi and Z5500 combo. It's good that someone has written something more official. However, my advice normally falls on deaf ears, I just hope people listen to you!
 
I don't think you should be so biased against Creative.

The X-Fi has several sound enhancing features designed with the sole intention of improving PC SPEAKERS. I noticed quite a big improvement and I'm on a Hi-Fi.
 
tom_nieto said:
I've been trying to tell people a more condensed version of this every time someone buys and X-fi and Z5500 combo. It's good that someone has written something more official. However, my advice normally falls on deaf ears, I just hope people listen to you!

Probably not, but rather than type it out each time you have something to link to ;)

I forgot to add that its not the definitive guide by any means - there are a lot of omissions and approximations that dont bear heavy scrutiny but as an introduction, its not bad :)
 
Tommy B said:
I don't think you should be so biased against Creative.

The X-Fi has several sound enhancing features designed with the sole intention of improving PC SPEAKERS. I noticed quite a big improvement and I'm on a Hi-Fi.

The reason Creative have to make these sound 'improving' features is that PC speakers are crap. It's just a fancy equaliser that is much better switched off. I would be willing to bet that it boosts volume output rather than improves the sound. To most ears louder = better. Hi-fi shops sometimes use this trick to get people to buy one system over another.
 
tom_nieto said:
The reason Creative have to make these sound 'improving' features is that PC speakers are crap. It's just a fancy equaliser that is much better switched off. I would be willing to bet that it boosts volume output rather than improves the sound. To most ears louder = better. Hi-fi shops sometimes use this trick to get people to buy one system over another.

Yes I know PC speakers aren't great, but the X-fi helps them sound a bit better.
For someone who just wants loud and bass, PC speakers are great.
 
Tommy B said:
I don't think you should be so biased against Creative.

The X-Fi has several sound enhancing features designed with the sole intention of improving PC SPEAKERS. I noticed quite a big improvement and I'm on a Hi-Fi.

I would like that to be the case, but its simply not true :) Anything in the signal path that changes the signal is unwelcome. I want the exact information from my CD or MP3 to reach my ears with as little change as possible - this means as little noise and "enhancement" as possible.

By emphasising certain frequencies it is possible to give an untrained ear an impression of quality without any actual substance - it is noteworthy that BOSE are masters of this - if you have a look at the frequency response of their equipment you will see that huge areas of actual information are totally absent from the output!

To give you an example, Creative on one of their cards (and I forget which) gate the output and then quote their impressively low noise levels after the gate!

For the amount of money they cost, you can do significantly better.

Obviously as an X-Fi user this isnt exactly what you want to hear but its my opinion formed after a long while in the game and one I am not about to change readily :)
 
DRZ said:
I would like that to be the case, but its simply not true :) Anything in the signal path that changes the signal is unwelcome. I want the exact information from my CD or MP3 to reach my ears with as little change as possible - this means as little noise and "enhancement" as possible.

By emphasising certain frequencies it is possible to give an untrained ear an impression of quality without any actual substance - it is noteworthy that BOSE are masters of this - if you have a look at the frequency response of their equipment you will see that huge areas of actual information are totally absent from the output!

To give you an example, Creative on one of their cards (and I forget which) gate the output and then quote their impressively low noise levels after the gate!

For the amount of money they cost, you can do significantly better.

Obviously as an X-Fi user this isnt exactly what you want to hear but its my opinion formed after a long while in the game and one I am not about to change readily :)

When I'm playing my Dark Side Of The Moon SACD lossless rip, I agree - it sounds best as it is!

When I'm playing a 128kbps MP3 file, I find the X-Fi has a massive improvement on the quality. I'm doing tests with it now, and almost all of my compressed music just sounds better with Crystalizer ON.

Some people also just prefer exaggerated bass. Velvet Revolver's album is an awful recording, and simply sounds better with the EQ turned on. I only use the EQ with rock music tbh.

I just think with Hi-Fi, if you truly want awesome sound you have to dish out one hell of a lot of money. I still have no idea how good my Eltax Symphony 6s are in the "Hi-Fi" world.
 
DRZ - some excellent points and this should be a sticky :)

I would like to stick my 2p-worth on this whole sound "enhancement" issue tho. As an ex-audiophile (can't afford to be one these days :) ) I agree that with "proper" hi-fi you don't want the sound going through any unnecessary circuits - hence hi-end amps being pretty much a box with a volume knob and nothing else. Purity is everything in the audiophile world.

When it comes to playing music on a PC things are a bit different tho. MP3's are inherently quite poor quality - it's a copy of the original and is a compromise between quality and file size most of the time. In this case I think some enhancements are worthwhile. On my X-Fi I use the 24bit crystalizer feature (I leave the EQ off) and I like it....it works. Especially low bit-rate MP3's - it just gives them a nice lift. It doesn't bother me that the sound has been messed with in some way - because the sound was less than perfect in the first place.

I guess I'm trying to say that if pure, untouched hi-fidelity sound is what somebody is after then I wouldn't be playing it off a PC in the first place. Spend the money on proper hi-fi kit instead. But for me anyway, the X-Fi and the enhancements it offers are a good compromise between audio quality and the convenience of having my music there on the PC instead of a separate audio system.

Just for the record, I use Sennheiser EH250 headphones with my X-Fi....I can't comment on how the enhancements would sound through a bog-standard pair of PC speakers, but again, seeing as they're probably poor quality anyway I think any aspirations of pure hi-fi audio reproduction are just a dream, and anything that can give the sound a boost of some sort is probably a good thing for most people :)
 
Well, we should not forget that most users on this forums are PC Gamers.

- An X-Fi would is more suited for gaming compared to every other card.
- If you want the absolute best for music, and music alone, you probably would want a dedicated DAC anyway.
- The X-Fi Elite Pro is pretty much an EMU1212 with X-Fi features. One would say they are overpriced, but they are no more costly than getting an EMU1212 and an X-Fi and toggling between the two.

If you look at my previous post, you would notice that I have mentioned the EMU line before. But while they are much better value for music, they may not be the best choice for a gamer.

The other thing I would argue is... I don't believe that purity/neutrality is the end and all. I know there are many purist who are against touching the sound one bit.. ye know, no EQing, etc. I know I am picky too, I always pick lossless if it's an option, and I test all headphones with no EQ at first, amongst other things most people don't care.
But no equipment is neutral in the first place. You are probably not using the same equipment as they used in the studio while they are mixing. Hence you are not hearing what they hear. Ever saw debates on what gear is better even amongst the high-ish end gear? It -still- come down to personal preference in the end anyway. Here's a good example with headphones (I admit that I don't know much about hi-fi speakers): Sennheiser HD650 and Beyerdynamic DT880. Both are considered "reference" cans by many, yet Beyer has more high, and the Senns more bass - which one is better? Well, both have their fanbase really. But I don't think it is a blasphemy to add some bass to, say, the DT880 when you are listening to dance music. The Grado is considered the most "colored" by many, and a few would go as far as calling them rubbish for that reason. Fair point if their ear can't stand the sound, but totally missing the point of this hobby IMO, if it is just because it is not as neutral as other cans.

Now I think the claims of features like the Crystalizer are marketing nonsense (then again, I don't really haven't gone out of my way to test them with poorly encoded MP3s). -But- if someone actually think their music sound better with it, then more power to them!

To sum up, I think people should try neutrality at some point to have a reference point.. but to tweak the sound, whether by hardware or software until they are happy with the music they hear.
 
Last edited:
!Controversy alert! :eek:

I conducted a blind test - MP3 against CD.

Over 90% of those tested could not tell the difference between a properly encoded 128k MP3 and the original.

Poorly encoded MP3s sound rubbish no matter what the bit rate - well encoded ones do not.

Before anyone says "but I can hear it! I can hear it! How dare you question me" then I will say this: PROPERLY blind test yourself - where you do not know what is playing and THEN you can give answers that you know are true. If you are even slightly aware of what you think are the "correct" answers the test is useles!!
 
Tommy B said:
I just think with Hi-Fi, if you truly want awesome sound you have to dish out one hell of a lot of money.

No you don't. I paid under £250 for amp, cd player, speakers and stands, all What Hi-Fi five star winners (not that you should read too much into What Hi-Fi ratings). The sound is beyond anything PC speakers can produce.

Also no one should simply want loud speakers with lots of bass. They should want accurate linear sound reproduction, as close as possible to the original recording, with lots of detail and as little distortion as possible. If they don't they need educating.
 
DRZ said:
!Controversy alert! :eek:

I conducted a blind test - MP3 against CD.

Over 90% of those tested could not tell the difference between a properly encoded 128k MP3 and the original.

Poorly encoded MP3s sound rubbish no matter what the bit rate - well encoded ones do not.

Before anyone says "but I can hear it! I can hear it! How dare you question me" then I will say this: PROPERLY blind test yourself - where you do not know what is playing and THEN you can give answers that you know are true. If you are even slightly aware of what you think are the "correct" answers the test is useles!!

What were you playing the CD's from?
 
Curio said:
What were you playing the CD's from?

Original audio track, compressed (in a few different ways) and then an ISO made. Burned to CD and played in any CD player of choice. I actually put the ISO on the web and let people download it and give me the results back.

Shocking how many people got it wrong!
 
Tommy B said:
128kbps MP3s are crap. Everyone knows that.


I have done scientific research into this and you come along and rubbish it with a one-line post containing absolutely 0 fact, research or any apparrent thought whatsoever.

Please, if you want to enter into a discussion with me about this, please educate yourself and come back with some semblance of a respectful demeanour.
 
DRZ said:
I have done scientific research into this and you come along and rubbish it with a one-line post containing absolutely 0 fact, research or any apparrent thought whatsoever.

Please, if you want to enter into a discussion with me about this, please educate yourself and come back with some semblance of a respectful demeanour.

I myself am no audiophile, but I have spoken time and time again with people like yourself; all say that compressed audio - in any form - is nothing like the origional source recording when played back on a decent Hi-Fi. A lot of information is lost in 128kbps MP3s, and there's no denying that - hence the term compression.
 
information is lost, but peopel have widly inaccurate opinions on just how difference mp3's are to the original source. As DRZ said, a well encoded mp3 is hard to spot. @ 128k, its fairly obviously when blindy tested using a decent amp and speakers. >160k, and your heading towards almost impossible without resorting to using some high end headphones.

That's the cold truth of it. I've had arguements on here before because people wont accept how faithfull a decent encoded mp3 actually is. People here have tried to tell me MPC is so much better than 192k lame encoded mp3's that it's obvious to even them, when they are using nothing more than some entry level pc speakers. That's so untrue its laughable.
 
Last edited:
@DRZ: I find your finding surprising. You sound like someone who do have decent gear, and 128kps, is, IMO, not that hard to differentiate.

For reference, I -have- done a lot of ABX-ing using Foobar (perhaps you know of the feature I speak of?). Much of my collection is already ripped using EAC/FLAC, and I have used Foobar to transcode a song I am familiar with into various LAME encoded MP3 format. I added 128kps CBR for completeness, although I was mainly testing the APS/APE/API settings. And yes, I have to say that 128kps CBR is not my choice even for portable use. APM is similar in size if I remember, and is better.

And would you believe this was done through an onboard soundcard attached to the Grado HF-1? :eek: Not the epitome of audio gear (although it seems the HF-1 are fairly easy to drive and do sound good/capture a lot of detail even with poor sources).
 
Back
Top Bottom