Sound card vs. Onboard - Personal testing

[Timmyfox]

Backgound

Okay, so I'm coming from a Sound card as high end as the Asus Xonar STX which I've had for quite a few years now and always been really happy with. At the time of getting it I remember it being a huge step up over the on-board of the mobo I had back then when I got the sound card. Since then however my PC has gone through several upgrades and I've sorta just neglected the onboard as being pretty terrible.

 

After all this talk lately about how the above isn't really true anymore, in addition to the way my setup has been upgraded recently (rendering the sound card redundant), I decided to perform some personal non-scientific testing to just see if I could tell the difference.

 

My Setup

• Mobo: Asus P8Z68-V/Gen3.
• OS: Windows 8.1 (x64)
• Headphones: Sennheiser HD598 and Sennheiser Momentum
• Graphics card: HD 7970 (Reference design, MSI)
• Speakers: Yamaha, 5.1 (5 satellites + sub)
• AVR: Yamaha RX-V773

Everything is connected to the Yamaha RX-V773 which in turn powers both my speakers and is also what I plug my headphones into.

Volume adjustments is done on the AVR and "Pure direct" is enabled during the headphone test. Since stereo music is 2.0 and not 2.1, I won't get any bass from the sub with PD enabled during speaker playback and thus the AVR is set to "Straight" to ensure that minimal processing is done. Essentially the same settings I'd use during everyday listening.

No EQing is done since I prefer the way my setup sounds good enough as it is without coloring the sound.

 

The various output configurations I've used for this are as follows:

• Onboard analog out (from rear IO panel, green port)
• STX analog out (RCA out)
• Onboard digital (optical S/Pdif)
• GPU card digital (HDMI)

The latter two are both digital and I already know there's not really any differences between them - lately I've been using those exclusively to offload the audio processing to my AVR instead of using any DAC inside my PC (hence I said my sound card had gotten fairly redundant).

 

My AVR was set around -20dB and -25dB and Windows volume was set up 100%

 

The testing

Pretty straight forward, not really very scientific;

1. First I load my Foobar up a with a playlist of my favorite songs in my music library (mainly self-ripped FLAC is anyone is interested)
2. Then whilst playing I simply swap between the various output options I have and at the same time switch over my AVR to the corresponding input channel in the middle of playing some songs, sometimes just randomly and sometimes during key points of the song to compare how it sounds
3. When I finished comparing I plugged in my headphones and did the same comparisons again but with the headphones

Results

Bit to my surprise, I could barely spot any difference between any of the configurations!

 

I did note that the onboard analog out was ~3-4dB quieter than all the other configurations (that's at least how much I adjusted on my AVR in order for it to sound about the same volume). I assume this is likely due to either the onboard having a weaker amp or perhaps (and very likely) the internal dampening in the cables/adapters used to make the 3.5mm > RCA connection.

 

If anything, I think the onboard DAC might (and that's a big 'might') be oh so very slightly brighter in the sound signature than that of the one inside my AVR. The difference is so small I barely even notice it in direct comparison and it may very well be just a placebo. but I just experienced the sound to be very slightly warmer with the optical outputs and thus using the DAC inside the AVR. The difference though is negligible and potentially a placebo as I had to struggle a tad to notice it.

 

Conclusion

So as said, I can conclude that any differences that might exist are so small they won't be noticed during everyday listening unless you have superhuman hearing (i.e. 'Audiophile symptom' and/or suffer strongly from the placebo effect) or is willing to spend time looking at meaningless testing charts performed with specialized testing equipment and whatnot.

 

I'll probably stick to using the digital outputs most of the time for convenience as I can't do 5.1 over analog (my AVR only does 5.1 over digital coax, optical or HDMI).

[MayflowerElectronics]

The difference in volume is simply due to the stronger amp on the STX. Of course this is a total waste of money since the STX is $200 I think?

Anyway, was there in loss or muddy-ness? In the bass and lower regions with the sound card?

[Timmyfox]

The difference in volume is simply due to the stronger amp on the STX. Of course this is a total waste of money since the STX is $200 I think?

Anyway, was there in loss or muddy-ness? In the bass and lower regions with the sound card?

The comparison was more between the Yamaha AVR and the onboard than the STX, so I didn't really note the difference between the STX and the other configurations, but indeed, as mentioned, the AVR should naturally have a stronger amp.

 

I know the STX would be a waste at this time but, as mentioned, I've had it for several years now and, back when I got it, it felt like quite the upgrade from the fairly outdated board I had at the time.

 

With the AVR I did, as mentioned, get the impression that the sound was very slightly warmer with the bass being slightly very stronger than with the onboard analog, although it might very well just be a placebo. Regardless the difference was so little I can't say I'd notice it unless comparing side by side (and even then I need to listen for it).

 

I'll probably perform a few more comparisons (although I pulled out the STX now since doing the testing) but I can't say there was any difference in pure sound quality.

[h264]

Of course this is a total waste of money since the STX is $200 I think?

 

B-B-But it looks so cool and it's all gold and stuff ;_;

 

With the AVR I did, as mentioned, get the impression that the sound was very slightly warmer with the bass being slightly very stronger than with the onboard analog, although it might very well just be a placebo. Regardless the difference was so little I can't say I'd notice it unless comparing side by side (and even then I need to listen for it).

 

Unfortunately it may sound that way because we in effect told you that it should and you approached the test expecting to hear it that way.  This is why I've been resistant to describe measurements in a cause and effect basis, since just TELLING people the measurement's given effect is enough to make them believe they hear that difference.  That's why I depend on people like @Barnacules to notice such differences with no knowledge that they should be there, since I'm affected by those same biases.  If anything kills the credibility of any subjective headphone review I ever do, it's that, which is why I shy away from discussing sound quality in specific and colorful ways.

 

This bias is most apparent in forums where one person says a headphone sounds a certain way and then everyone else who listens to the same headphone either approaches it with that information believing the original individual or not, which then shapes their opinions on the headphone one way or another.  Most notable is the old head-fi monikier that the Sennheiser HD650 is "veiled", whatever that means.

[ShearMe]

 Most notable is the old head-fi monikier that the Sennheiser HD650 is "veiled", whatever that means.

 

Makes sense compared to certain other headphones...

[Timmyfox]

Unfortunately it may sound that way because we in effect told you that it should and you approached the test expecting to hear it that way.  This is why I've been resistant to describe measurements in a cause and effect basis, since just TELLING people the measurement's given effect is enough to make them believe they hear that difference.  That's why I depend on people like @Barnacules to notice such differences with no knowledge that they should be there, since I'm affected by those same biases.  If anything kills the credibility of any subjective headphone review I ever do, it's that, which is why I shy away from discussing sound quality in specific and colorful ways.

I haven't really read too much into the differences prior to testing it, I just decided to see if I could hear any major differences. I believe myself not to be too strongly affected by the symptom you describe as well in certain regard. I'm not saying I'm not affected by it at all or that this is entirely true (since, at the end of the day, it's still subjective) but I did for instance go from hating Windows 8 and thinking it's the most stupid change they've done to any Windows OS to paying for it and actually liking it within 3 days of deciding "Screw it, I'll actually try it before judging".

 

Anyhow, I think maybe it's bit more that the song I listened to whilst comparing just switched from a fairly bass-heavy section to a bit more mid-highs focused section when I swapped and the first thing I noticed was the lack of bass. I need to test this more, preferably do a blind test, to be sure if this is placebo or not. Otherwise I usually prefer when the bass is a little more relaxed and a sorta bright signature like that, so it's interesting the placebo would go in favor of the configuration I originally was the most biased against.

[mr moose]

 Most notable is the old head-fi monikier that the Sennheiser HD650 is "veiled", whatever that means.

It means the headphone is about to get married...  YAY!! 

 

 

Typical bloody nonsense terms.  The science world strives over and over to develop nomenclature that helps to avoid errors and miscommunication. The legal fraternity developed what is essential a language that is as specific as possible,  the financial auditors of the world developed rules and reporting systems to avoid mistakes in financial records. Why oh why do we not have the same level of effort going into (not just audio) all marketing and consumer advice? 

[h264]

It means the headphone is about to get married...  YAY!! 

 

 

Typical bloody nonsense terms.  The science world strives over and over to develop nomenclature that helps to avoid errors and miscommunication. The legal fraternity developed what is essential a language that is as specific as possible,  the financial auditors of the world developed rules and reporting systems to avoid mistakes in financial records. Why oh why do we not have the same level of effort going into (not just audio) all marketing and consumer advice? 

 

You can't convince yourself it's EXACTLY what you want if they don't say it in glittering generalities.

[BlackMirror]

Gud test!