Can a soundcard run surround sound speakers meant for a traditional av receiver run setup?

[KeiserSouzai]

Ok I'm not sure how to  phrase this question so I'll give you an idea of what I want to do. Basically I want to build a home theater system with some audiophile quality speakers that I can connect directly to my computer. Not the PC fair speakers (logitech et al) you get from your local computer retailer. Not that there is anything wrong with them. They're just not meant for a dedicated media room. And I'm not sold on these 'bars' that are becoming popular, not really surround capable. I've got a pc which will be my streamer and media player. Am going to be forced to buy a receiver as well? 

[johnt]

3 hours ago, KeiserSouzai said:

Ok I'm not sure how to  phrase this question so I'll give you an idea of what I want to do. Basically I want to build a home theater system with some audiophile quality speakers that I can connect directly to my computer. Not the PC fair speakers (logitech et al) you get from your local computer retailer. Not that there is anything wrong with them. They're just not meant for a dedicated media room. And I'm not sold on these 'bars' that are becoming popular, not really surround capable. I've got a pc which will be my streamer and media player. Am going to be forced to buy a receiver as well? 

Yes, you need an amplifier to power "audiophile" speakers. A computer is not going to be able to push 5 to 7 speakers. Plus, Windows is pretty stupid at decoding surround sound signals. And forget about room corrections and bass mamagement. It's a lot easier to buy a receiver that can do all of this. Be sure to buy a receiver with HDMI and then run video and audio from your PC to the receiver. 

[Bestlink101]

On 10/8/2016 at 4:33 AM, KeiserSouzai said:

Ok I'm not sure how to  phrase this question so I'll give you an idea of what I want to do. Basically I want to build a home theater system with some audiophile quality speakers that I can connect directly to my computer. Not the PC fair speakers (logitech et al) you get from your local computer retailer. Not that there is anything wrong with them. They're just not meant for a dedicated media room. And I'm not sold on these 'bars' that are becoming popular, not really surround capable. I've got a pc which will be my streamer and media player. Am going to be forced to buy a receiver as well? 

get an external dac, if you have a really small room, better off getting a integrated amp and getting two quality speakers then running in stereo

[JZStudios]

Since this topic in slightly in the same vein as what I'm looking for, is there any 5.1 (or preferably 7.1) receiver that isn't loaded with all the bells and whistles I don't need or care about? I just want to run audio through the receiver, not 4k 60hz 3d Blu-ray streaming from WiFi or Bluetooth, or dumb "room correction presets" like sewer pipes and dive bars. These receivers cost a lot of money for what seems to be bloatware that almost no one is going to use. I just want 5.1 or 7.1 of just straight audio receiver.

[spwath]

On 10/8/2016 at 11:05 AM, JohnT said:

Yes, you need an amplifier to power "audiophile" speakers. A computer is not going to be able to push 5 to 7 speakers. Plus, Windows is pretty stupid at decoding surround sound signals. And forget about room corrections and bass mamagement. It's a lot easier to buy a receiver that can do all of this. Be sure to buy a receiver with HDMI and then run video and audio from your PC to the receiver. 

Yes, I've experienced the troubles of PC surround. You need- receiver with hdmi, and to be using a standard 1080p monitor to be problem free.

 

But a hdmi receiver can be cheap used. I got a denon avr-590 for $30. The guy said it has a problem with turning off randomly. I've had it for a year, no issue.

 

 

[johnt]

On 10/16/2016 at 11:37 AM, JZStudios said:

Since this topic in slightly in the same vein as what I'm looking for, is there any 5.1 (or preferably 7.1) receiver that isn't loaded with all the bells and whistles I don't need or care about? I just want to run audio through the receiver, not 4k 60hz 3d Blu-ray streaming from WiFi or Bluetooth, or dumb "room correction presets" like sewer pipes and dive bars. These receivers cost a lot of money for what seems to be bloatware that almost no one is going to use. I just want 5.1 or 7.1 of just straight audio receiver.

I think you need to do a little more homework... it's evident you are not well versed in receivers.

[KeiserSouzai]

On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 4:21 AM, JohnT said:

I think you need to do a little more homework... it's evident you are not well versed in receivers.

No need for that... You're not being helpful at all.

[KeiserSouzai]

On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 4:37 AM, JZStudios said:

Since this topic in slightly in the same vein as what I'm looking for, is there any 5.1 (or preferably 7.1) receiver that isn't loaded with all the bells and whistles I don't need or care about? I just want to run audio through the receiver, not 4k 60hz 3d Blu-ray streaming from WiFi or Bluetooth, or dumb "room correction presets" like sewer pipes and dive bars. These receivers cost a lot of money for what seems to be bloatware that almost no one is going to use. I just want 5.1 or 7.1 of just straight audio receiver.

Could not agree more. You spend $2000 on speakers because you want good sound, and then you're forced to spend another $500 at least on on something thats just gonna sit there. "Oh but it has sewerpipes and garage and arena sound settings!" Meh...

[johnt]

8 minutes ago, KeiserSouzai said:

Could not agree more. You spend $2000 on speakers because you want good sound, and then you're forced to spend another $500 at least on on something thats just gonna sit there. "Oh but it has sewerpipes and garage and arena sound settings!" Meh...

Holy smokes it's evident you need to do more homework also

[KeiserSouzai]

3 minutes ago, JohnT said:

Holy smokes it's evident you need to do more homework also

You need to be elsewhere... not here.

[MarcWolfe]

I'd go the route of a receiver using some sort of digital input, whether HDMI or digital coax. A lot of motherboards have a spdif headers that is used for coax and optical. Just a FYI, digital coax is the exact same as optical; one pulses electricity and the other pulses light. Digital coax is the orange RCA plug, in case you didn't know. I feel the same way about a lot of these new receivers. If you want surround because you just want the sound to come from all directions and/or the ability to use a seperate sub, look for a stereo receiver that run 2 sets of stereo speakers simultaniously. 1 speaker in each corner of the room, so the sound surrounds you without being... surround sound.

[Stagea]

On 10/25/2016 at 0:52 PM, MarcWolfe said:

I'd go the route of a receiver using some sort of digital input, whether HDMI or digital coax. A lot of motherboards have a spdif headers that is used for coax and optical. Just a FYI, digital coax is the exact same as optical; one pulses electricity and the other pulses light. Digital coax is the orange RCA plug, in case you didn't know. I feel the same way about a lot of these new receivers. If you want surround because you just want the sound to come from all directions and/or the ability to use a seperate sub, look for a stereo receiver that run 2 sets of stereo speakers simultaniously. 1 speaker in each corner of the room, so the sound surrounds you without being... surround sound.

Digital coax implementations often do not offer galvanic isolation. This sometimes causes issues (mostly locking issues and related noise) from ground loops and electrical noise. Optical has a greater chance of success in most cases.

[MarcWolfe]

14 minutes ago, Stagea said:

Digital coax implementations often do not offer galvanic isolation. This sometimes causes issues (mostly locking issues and related noise) from ground loops and electrical noise. Optical has a greater chance of success in most cases.

lol Where did you hear that bullshit? Do I need to point out Linus' video about expensive digital cables. Is your monitor cable optical? Does it have electrical noise? 

The reasons optical took over the mainstream are 1) gimicks A.K.A. "optical is awesome" 2) Most people didn't understand what that orange plug that looks just like an RCA plug was and how it could possibly be better than analog RCA plugs. That's it.

[Stagea]

On 10/17/2016 at 2:37 AM, JZStudios said:

Since this topic in slightly in the same vein as what I'm looking for, is there any 5.1 (or preferably 7.1) receiver that isn't loaded with all the bells and whistles I don't need or care about? I just want to run audio through the receiver, not 4k 60hz 3d Blu-ray streaming from WiFi or Bluetooth, or dumb "room correction presets" like sewer pipes and dive bars. These receivers cost a lot of money for what seems to be bloatware that almost no one is going to use. I just want 5.1 or 7.1 of just straight audio receiver.

Look at Arcam, Cambridge Audio, NAD, Anthem, etc. if you want quality with less functionality. You wouldn't find a new one for little money though.

[Stagea]

1 minute ago, MarcWolfe said:

lol Where did you hear that bullshit? Do I need to point out Linus' video about expensive digital cables. Is your monitor cable optical? Does it have electrical noise? 

The reasons optical took over the mainstream are 1) gimicks A.K.A. "optical is awesome" 2) Most people didn't understand what that orange plug that looks just like an RCA plug was and how it could possibly be better than analog RCA plugs. That's it.

You can call Linus in if you want to. He would know what I'm talking about.

 

The spec for optical was built for a reason. It is supposed to remove any electrical connection between equipment. This is the same reason why pro gear require galvanic isolation as part of the AES3 interface.

[MarcWolfe]

If ground being connected creates an issue, it's not because of the ground, it's because you bought the wrong shit made by a company that half asses their shit.

[MarcWolfe]

Your blind loyalty isn't funny. Wake up damn it.

[Stagea]

1 minute ago, MarcWolfe said:

Your blind loyalty isn't funny. Wake up damn it.

I sure hope you know what you're talking about.

[MarcWolfe]

Just now, Stagea said:

I sure hope you know what you're talking about.

It's not that complicated, really it's not. Even the best brands fuck up and cut corners, and they often blame it on anything but themselves.

[Stagea]

8 hours ago, MarcWolfe said:

It's not that complicated, really it's not. Even the best brands fuck up and cut corners, and they often blame it on anything but themselves.

I worked for the engineering arm of Matsushita for a number of years, so I admit that there are corners cut everywhere for every brand out there. What I can tell you is that the coaxial SPDIF spec does not require the use of isolation transformers or even simple coupling caps, and it has caused frequency lock problems in multiple instances (especially at higher sample rates). It works most of the time (especially for less elaborate systems), but issues with it on more complex builds (with many connectors between a lot of equipment) do not surprise me.

 

Toslink has its own issues (particularly optical transmitter/receiver module bandwidth for many models), but it does not exhibit the same electrical gremlins as coaxial SPDIF.

[Stagea]

This is only part of the explanation, but it is the biggest reason for the difference: Coaxial SPDIF equipment are usually speced to lock to a 100mV signal. Most are sensitive down to 50mV or less to account for tolerances. A potential that small between devices is thus enough to mess with signalling (isolation would've solved most of this but since it is not a requirement for compliance, most devices don't have it).

 

This is in stark comparison with HDMI for example that benefits from differential signaling and a minimum total swing spec of 800mV (8x as high as coaxial). HDMI has its own issues, but it is less prone to being disrupted by the same electrical issue.

[MarcWolfe]

It shouldn't have to be in the spec because it's ground, if there's a problem it's because somebody fucked up. I doubt the spec calls for that week of  a signal, anyway.

[Stagea]

On 10/29/2016 at 9:44 AM, MarcWolfe said:

It shouldn't have to be in the spec because it's ground, if there's a problem it's because somebody fucked up. I doubt the spec calls for that week of  a signal, anyway.

The spec calls for receiving devices to be compatible with a 200 mV signal, with most makers specifying devices to half that for maximum compatibility (more tolerant to longer cable runs and larger voltage drops). The interface is unbalanced and depends on a signal from a ground reference. A difference in ground will shift the reading up or down. Since isolation is not required and the SPDIF spec only allows up to a 50 mV offset, events outside the device (turning on other devices, distant lightning strike, etc.) can be enough to push the system out of spec (and cause an unlock/relock event). The higher the sample rate, the higher the clock rate (shorter pulses) and the more prone is the connection to momentary spikes caused by these events. At 192/24, SPDIF runs at 12.3 MHz and a cel is 81 ns. With a rise/fall time allowance of 20 ns, 61 ns is left for receiving each cel state (this is further reduced by the allowance for jitter). A shift in reference for that small fraction of time is enough to insert error into the data (many systems just mask it off, making it inaudible for many), and in some cases cause an unlock. Since the devices are within spec, it's really incompatibility of the spec with certain use cases.

 

Some makers just include pulse transformers in their designs to improve tolerance to out-of-spec conditions. Unfortunately most PC sound boards and motherboards do not have this (a coupling cap is what people could hope for). It'd be nice if the receiving gear has some form of isolation to compensate.

[Stagea]

On the other side of the camp is EIAJ Optical (Toslink) which is highly immune to electrical issues, but more selective in component quality when used for longer distances and higher clock rates. The performance of the transmitter and the receiver should be adequate for the bandwidth intended, for example. Most devices ship with 13 or 16 Mbps modules (especially PC components), which aren't speced to work with the 25 Mbps needed for 192/24. Cable bandwidth and coupling are other items to consider, especially on longer runs. Fortunately, the 13 Mbps transmitters integrated into most PC motherboards and sound cards are usually enough to max out mainstream builds (the typical inexpensive receiver downsamples higher resolution sources and processes internally at 24/48). HDMI is almost always superior for high res multi-channel sources, however (due to available bandwidth and compatibility with copy-protected formats).

 

[JZStudios]

On 10/18/2016 at 11:21 AM, JohnT said:

I think you need to do a little more homework... it's evident you are not well versed in receivers.

I think you need to.... nevermind. I don't know what your problem is, but there was a time before bluetooth, myriad arrays of wifi, 4k, 3D, etc. etc. and the 5.1 or 7.1 still recieved true surround sound, so I'm under the impression that these companies keep adding all this crap to increase their asking price. And without your completely useful help I found that Sony actually has some 7.1 receivers without all the bells and whistles for under $400, instead of the customary $700+. Unfortunately their quality seems to be of concern.

In any case as to you other two, I'm honestly not going to read those because I'm not interested in either of those forms of connection, as I've read they only support compressed 5.1, and not 7.1