The Anatomy of a Sound Review (User Experience)

The factors included in an end user experience are much more straight-forward than the technical electrical performance of audio hardware. Of course, they are highly interconnected. The listening experience and quality of audio recorded by hardware is a direct result of the electrical capabilities of the hardware as discussed in the previous section. Talking about listening on a qualitative level is very difficult, especially when trying to give others good advice about what to buy. We can sit here and say that: if a device with one set of numbers (dynamic range, THD, etc.) is played on $50000 speakers, it will sound different than a card with worse numbers. What we can't say is how great this difference will be (because the speakers will still likely introduce more distortion).

Random PC speakers are not going to show many differences unless a sound card is essentially broken.

Again, it's difficult to listen to hardware and know what you're hearing. Our approach was to listen to a track over and over and over on one device and then immediately switch to another in order to listen for differences. If there are any, we try to determine what they sounded like, and why they are there.

For high quality audio testing, we used Sony MDR-7509 studio monitors (open air headsets were evaluated, but since we're testing near computers, and henceforth noise, isolation was desirable). For surround and gaming testing, we used Logitech Z-5300 speakers.

This brings us past audio quality and into something that AnandTech readers will be familiar with: performance. We tested how many direct sound channels that we can run (and at what CPU overhead). We will also look at how much of a performance hit it is to enable audio in Unreal Tournament 2004. We had run numbers for Doom 3 as well, but the fact is that there just isn't a performance difference - these newer games are simply too bound in other areas to exhibit any performance difference on different audio cards.

We also need to look at audio API support. As Creative is the mover and shaker in the industry, they bully most companies into using their EAX for audio in some way or another. For example, they forced Id to incorporate EAX into Doom 3 by leveraging John's "Carmack's Reverse" shadowing algorithm against him - Creative holds the patent on depth fail stencil shadows through 3DLabs. Then there's Sensaura, which Creative now also owns. The latest versions of Sensaura include support for EAX 2.0. In our look at Unreal Tournament 2004, we will see performance under software 3D, hardware 3D using OpenAL, and hardware 3D + EAX.

We like the idea that Id has in playing audio straight to surround channels through DirectX. You get better results than using DS3D (or any other 2 channel) positional audio and it's more accurate than upmixing using features like Creative's CMSS 3D. When actually creating true surround sound, the developer has full control, and since Id did it with no performance hit, there's obviously more than enough CPU power to go around these days for doling out audio. Of course, in implementing audio this way, the game developer must give up the comfort of the built APIs and the HRTF (head related transfer functions) that they implement, and build a sound engine to keep track of everything themselves. The major problem of implementing real positional sound then becomes lack of convenience rather than lack of hardware power.


The Anatomy of a Sound Review (Electrical Analysis) The Cards
Comments Locked

89 Comments

View All Comments

  • PrinceGaz - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

    It's good to see soundcards and onboard audio being reviewed again here. The three products you chose were a good start (the Audigy 2 ZS Platinum Pro and Audigy 4 Pro are so similar that the small differences measured are almost irrelevant, which is no surprise as Creative rarely updates their hardware).

    I was surprised that high quality extrnal DACs and ADCs hooked up to a reference card with SPDIF connections wasn't used for the RMAA tests, as the way it was done seriously compromises all the results. There's no way to tell how good the output-circuitry and input-circuitry of each card is, and as the input-circuitry is usually the weaker on all but high-end cards, it was probably the main factor in your results. The possibility of a ground-loop also throws a serious question-mark over their accuracy. Retesting all three (or four) cards with high-quality external DACs and ADCs hooked up to a second card is essential for good reference results that can be used with future tests (which must also use the same improved testing methodology).

    The CPU utilisation results were more interesting and useful given the above, but why not use RightMark 3DSound to more thoroughly research the issue, rather than just the basic tests offered by RMAA?

    Anyway I look forward to more cards being tested (Envy24 based solutions for the low-end certainly) as well as onboard audio. Onboard audio will vary from mobo to mobo so unless every mobo Wesley reviews also undergoes an audio test, the mobo audio testing will only apply to the few select boards chosen (another board using the same audio solution could be much better or worse because the choice and layout of the analogue circuitry is critical).

    www.digit-life.com does some very thorough soundcard reviews covering almost every aspect (but unfortunately for only a lmited selection of cards) that are well worth taking a look at.
  • S0me1X - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

    Oh yeah, don't visit head-fi: its evil.
  • SDA - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

    Nice article! I'd like to see more cards reviewed, but the fact that the article doesn't compare every single sound card ever made doesn't bother me so long as we'll be seeing more things like this in the future :D

    Speaking of the future, I'd agree with #54 and whoever else said it: the E-MU 0404 and 1212m are definitely worth considering in future articles due to their excellent analog (stereo) sound output and wide feature set (well, mainly on the 1212m, but the 0404's not bad for the price). The cheap Chaintech AV-710 may also be worth a look, as its sound quality in "High Quality" mode (stereo only, again.. sigh) is surprisingly good for the price. Also, it has optical out. The Revo 5.1 and 7.1 are, of course, also worth considering.

    I'd also say that you might want to try other speakers and headphones out. I'm not saying you should use really expensive high-end stuff, mind.. what I AM saying is that synergy occurs to a surprising degree with sound equipment, and besides, it wouldn't hurt to try out other pieces of gear that might be within the price range of the typical computer hardware enthusiast.

    One last thing. I read this article while taking a break from building a power supply that just happened to use an LM1086. Creepy.
  • S0me1X - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

    While the Gina3G has an external DAC, it is doesn't look like it has its own power supply!? It is not a standalone DAC.

    I meant external DACs like this one
    http://www.benchmarkmedia.com/catalog/product_info...
  • S0me1X - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

    Some very good cards for pure music playing are EMU0404 and EMU1212.

    External dacs can get quite costly, but you get the benefit of isolation from noisy power, and much better analogue output.

    I think Benchmark DAC1 is one of the best DACs for use with PC because its very jitter resistant, has fantastic DAC performance, can be used in many different ways (it has a decent built in headphone amplifier, it can be used in a preamp-less speaker system, etc.).

    Right now, I'm using a Benchmark DAC1 (toslink input from computer), Sennheiser HD650, Grado RS1, and a Dynahi amplifier (http://www.headamp.com/dynahi.shtml). The DAC1 sounds many magnitudes better than SoundBlaster.
  • vaystrem - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

    I understand people's concerns regarding subjectivity but lets have a go with that for a second. I use relatively high quality headphones with my laptop (Grado SR-225s) and I will be building another desktop system agian son.
    Something that I have noticed in my experience with audio is that some hardware is more 'fatiguing' than others.

    This 'may' to some degree show up in tests, distortion in upper frequencies, poor crosstalk, etc etc. But simply listening to the "source" (the soundcard) for a long period of time with as a previous poster pointed out 'well made' cables (DIY stuff is fantastic if you have the knack, I don't :) and a revealing good quality speaker can reveal this 'subjective' element.

    People see to varying degrees, I have poor sight others have very good sight. Some have good night vision, others have comparatively poor vision. Similarily audio sensitivity varies from person to person, and fatigue is important but subjective. Audio fatigue contributes to a negative music & gaming experience.

    A brief rant on the 'source first' school of Audio thought. Essentially audiophiles seek information preservation. We want to be able to hear the conductor drop thier baton, the violin tuned improperly, the subtle ebb and flow of underlying melodies. If any of this information is NOT transmitted by the source, the AMP, Cables, Pre-amp, and finally speakers. All contribute to information loss.

    The quality of the original information is therefore of the most importance, hence the importance of soundcard/source reviews in general. The other school of thought is that the source doesn't matter 'so much' or that all sources are roughly equal.

    As you've demonstrated, already, with the measurements in this small sample of soundcards. There is a variance in the quality of the soundcards and their measurable performance, with some of those differences being audibly different.

    So.... all to say. Subjective tests may be of some use. Especially if you begin, as I suspect you will, that soundcards will have a slightly different sonic character. In my own in house review of about 7 different CD players, determining what is different - was not a problem - determining which was BETTER, was.
  • DerekWilson - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

    CSMR is on the right track --

    though, I will say that we do want to find a balance between the audiophile and the computer enthusiast.

    Our goals in reviewing PC audio cards are rooted in our history as a computer hardware site, but we aspire to more than simply spitting out RMAA numbers and benchmarks.

    We do want to bring something for the audiophiles and musicians as well, so all feedback is appreciated. As usual, we will strive to bring coverage beyond what other computer hardware sites offer, so you can be sure that we will pay attention to what you guys have to say.

    Derek Wilson
  • CSMR - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

    A subjective element to the tests, with better hi-fi equipment, is not appropriate. It is not a competence of AnandTech; the sites you mentioned have much more info and reviewers there have greater experience and expensive equipment; moreover their readers are entirely audio enthusiasts, unlike AnandTech's.
    For those interested in audio cards, Head-Fi and the audio asylum are good places to go for info.
  • lsman - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

    may be get your hands on those for less noise signal?

    http://www.kuroutoshikou.com/products/etc/no-pci+....
  • lsman - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

    may be get your hands on those for less noise signal?

    http://www.kuroutoshikou.com/products/etc/no-pci+....

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now