The Anatomy of a Sound Review (Electrical Analysis)

Sound hardware is one of the most straight-forward, and yet difficult, components of a computer system to review. The human aural system is ill-equipped compared even to the eyes when it comes to judging subjectively the "goodness" of one audio system versus another, especially when there is any time between the tests. Of course, this doesn't mean that listening to a high quality consumer electronics audio system isn't head and shoulders beyond listening to analog audio from a PC based system.

Running digital audio streams from a PC into a receiver or speaker system will usually be higher quality than running analog audio (depending on the DAC), but such a vast majority of PC users either run PC speakers, headphones, analog surround systems, or some other such setup that the DAC (digital to analog converter) on the sound card becomes hugely important factor in the overall sound quality. Also key is opamp (operational amplifier) selection. Opamps are transistor-based analog components that can be used for a number of purposes. In the case of the sound card, opamps take the output analog signal from the DAC, and both isolate the input from the output while amplifying the signal to a proper level. Opamps can also be used for level control. The way that the circuit is built would be different from vendor to vendor, but the way sound output is designed lends itself to viewing maximum output level as 0dB and everything else as an attenuated signal. Testing of (and indeed listening to) analog sound output is better done at full scale (0dB - the maximum output level of the system as an input to the rest of the chain).

Electrically, the components are easily testable (provided you have no unforeseen cabling or interference issues). Ideally, we would use a signal generator, a spectrum analyzer, and other high end equipment to test each audio card. Unfortunately, this equipment is expensive, of limited use other than in sound testing (to us), and just not worth it at this point. RightMark Audio Analyzer is an excellent stop gap solution to expensive measurement device route. RMAA allows us to plug the output of one card into the input of itself or another and analyze the signal. This is excellent, except for the fact that it depends on the ability of cards to do high quality recording as well as playback. Consumer level cards are targeted at higher quality playback than recording, and a loopback test is really a composite test of both. As long as we consider this going into the situation, we won't have any problems.

Of course, the glitchy cable or bit of interference is a curse that doesn't go away. One combatant to interference when running analog audio is to use balanced signaling. This is a method by which one audio channel is communicated via two signals and a ground. The noise or interference introduced between the source and destination can be kept to a minimum. While musicians who record using analog equipment and audiophiles who listen to music without going digital will already know and love balanced signaling (while loathing cable prices), consumer audio cards do not enable balanced connections. The standard 1/8 th inch stereo mini jack is not the best connection for audio, falling short to stereo RCA. Quarter inch is better for analog, especially of the balanced TRS variety. Balanced XLR cables are the preferred audio connection for musicians who use analog recording equipment.

There are a few select pieces that we are testing when looking at analog audio quality on a PC. In sending sound out to speakers, the card must convert audio to analog using a DAC, then prepare this signal for output using opamp circuits. On the input side, the ADC (analog to digital converter) is tested as well. The metrics for these tests are explained here:

Frequency Response - This has to do with a system's ability to reproduce sinusoidal signals at different frequencies. In our tests, we will vary our signal from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and measure the amplitude of the received signal. The plot that we will see from RMAA is a plot of amplitude in dB below FS (fullscale) versus frequency. Ideally, we would like to see a flat line indicating no change in amplitude over frequency, but invariably, there will be some drop off at higher and lower frequencies, especially at sampling rates lower than 96 kHz. This measure is very dependant on opamp quality being very high.

Noise - The noise measurement here will represent the ambient noise present on the line when nothing is being played or received. The limiting factor on this is a combination of the DAC and the analog circuitry. Just as with Dynamic Range, the number of bits used to encode audio really dictates minimum noise levels. With 16bit audio, when looking at dB output, it is only able to generate a minimum of -96dB below full scale, so it is obvious that any noise that gets introduced into the system (any bit twiddling) will increase the dB level of the noise to above the theoretical limit of -96dB.

Dynamic Range - Recently introduced in the graphics industry, the push for higher dynamic range is a push to increase the difference between the largest and smallest reproducible values in a given data set. In the case of audio, dynamic range signifies the effective range of amplitudes that the hardware can reproduce. This range, as we will report it, is in A-weighted dB, and RightMark simply measures the difference between the peak output level of a 1 kHz signal and the noise floor. The theoretical limit on maximum dynamic range (and thus, minimum noise) comes from the fact that every 6dB increase in signal represents a doubling in power output. As we use bits to represent linear increases in power, 16bits represtents 16 "doublings" in power or 16 * 6 dB = 96dB in maximum dynamic range. The dynamic range (and noise level) of a 16 bit system is generally limited by the bit width of the data. In a 24 bit wide setup (such as is used on DVD audio and SACD formats), the maximum on dynamic range is 144dB, and this is limited by analog circuitry. The voltage levels that would be needed to drive a signal at low enough levels to extract the maximum dynamic range from a 24bit system on current ADCs is way too low to be feasible. It may be that with some sort of biasing and tweaking, it would be possible to get at these extremely subtle changes in sound. Of course, this is not currently practical or necessary.

Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) - When a tone is generated at a frequency (called the fundamental for this test) on a non-linear device such as an amplifier, tones are also found at the harmonics (integer multiples of the fundamental frequency) at lower levels than the fundamental. To find THD, the dB level of harmonics is added together and total output power is looked at as a percent of the fundamental's power. In actual music, this happens for all frequencies played, so having THD as low as possible is desirable.

Intermodulation Distortion (IMD) - When two sinusoids are generated at the same time (at frequencies F1 and F2), they produce intermodulation distortion. This comes in the form of attenuated tones at frequencies: F1+F2, F2-F1, 2F1+F2, 2F2+F1, 2F1-F2, 2F2-F1, etc. This continues, but at decreasing levels per intermod. Also, if any of these values are larger than the nyquist (samplerate/2), they will wrap around from DC. We look at the total power of the intermods as a percentage of the total power of the signals at F1 and F2 (for RMAA's test, F1 is at 5dB below FS, and F2 is at 17dB below FS). So, now that we know what this is, we need to tackle what this means. Let's say that there are two high frequency signals separated by 1 kHz. IMD could easily muddy up both the mid-range and low end at the same time (since distortion wraps around after passing the nyquist). Low end intermods will also affect the whole frequency range, but in order to really get an idea of IMD performance, multiple frequencies must be tested (which RightMark now has an option of doing). Frequencies with a 1 kHz separation are tested across the audible range.

Stereo Crosstalk - This is the amount of signal that bleeds through from one channel to the other at a given frequency as measured in dB. Obviously, the lower, the better, and the result of not seeing good measurements here is that the signal which should come through on one channel will show up a little on the other.

In the end, the speaker is usually the weakest link of the audio chain. Of course, introducing a minimum number of problems along the way definitely helps, and we won't pretend that it's a good idea to go with inferior audio hardware. We also won't tout the glory of owning the most expensive sound card on the market for its analog listening potential. The human ear is, again, not the most highly tuned instrument. With training, it is possible to understand and recognize the differences between a high quality audio system and an average one. Listening to an average system and then listening to the same audio on a high quality system immediately thereafter should make it apparent to everyone that there is a difference. Most people will just say that the well-built system will sound "better" and leave it at that. Audiophiles may say that the average system sounds "colored" or talk about hearing artifacts.

It is not possible to tell when a note wasn't loud enough because of poor frequency response, to hear a harmonic tone at certain frequency, and to notice an intermodulation distortion at another. Music, and indeed most audio (with the exception of some electronica and a few choice academic projects), is continuous. Our tests are based on at most two sine waves played at the same time. There is distortion everywhere in all audio no matter what you do, and controlling it toward a desired state for a specific application is the key in audio system design.

Moving on from the technical side of audio analysis, we look at the end user experience.


Index The Anatomy of a Sound Review (User Experience)
Comments Locked

89 Comments

View All Comments

  • DerekWilson - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

    Sorry for the confusion guys,

    We had originally just picked on card from each end of the market (onboard, addin, pro) and then decided that we needed to do both the audigy 2 and 4 because they're so similar. It's really meant to be an intro piece on sound and a look at an example of each market segment.

    We certainly weren't trying to be all inclusive, and we do want your feedback. These cards will be our "comparison point" cards in each market segment. When we look at onboards solutions, we'll talk about how it compares to the ALC880, and on the Pro side, we'll match up the Gina3G with whatever we're looking at.

    And when we do a targeted review as for proaudio we will absolutely spend time setting up a workstation and running some latency tests and we'll talk about asio/gsif support more in depth.

    We will be reviewing more sound cards :-)

    We didn't want to review all of them at once and spoil the fun though. :-D
  • MarkM - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

    I second #5's request -- esp concerning the onboard, which is more relevant for most new builds

    >on board nvidia audio would be interesting as well as an older sb live 5.1 card for reference
  • LoneWolf15 - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

    Not a single card based on the VIA Envy24 setup...no M-Audio Revolution, no Terratec, no Chaintech AV-710 (all Envy24-based)...I can't believe Anandtech left one of the largest enthusiast chipsets out of the roundup. There's just not enough representation here of available solutions to make a good comparison, it's either Intel or Creative, and Intel isn't an option for AMD users.
    If you're going to make onboard comparisons, why not (even if it's a poor solution) add the ALC850 found on most Socket 754/939 boards, seeing as AMD users can't exactly get Intel/Azalia HD audio?
  • hondaman - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

    More cards please!!! Soundstorm, older audigy/Live and m-audio sure would have made this article a whole lot better, as thats what a lot of people are using.
  • bob661 - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

    If mid-range cards are an order of magnitude better in objective sound tests than onboard solutions, I might actually go back to buying sound cards.

    I would like to reaquest testing the onboard Realtek's on the Athlon64 motherboards. I would be interested in seeing how they perform compared to mid-range and high-end sound cards.
  • EddNog - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

    Yep; gotta' have at least a halfway decent setup, from head to tail. I'm pretty happy with my setup:

    foobar2000 kernel streaming FLAC/Monkey's Audio to
    Echo Audio Mia MIDI with sample rate locked to 44.1, out via 75ohm impedance silver coax S/PDIF to
    Onkyo TX-SR501, out via silver cabling to
    a pair of Paradigm Studio/20 Rev. 3 sitting on
    Atlantis Reference stands

    "I'm lovin' it."

    -Ed
  • OrSin - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

    Most people are not gaming with 800 sound cards.
    I would be suprised if gamers are using $100 sound cards. When people list out thier RIGS 8 out 10 don't even lsit thier sound card. And the other 2 have $100 or less cards. I'm all for a review of $200+ cards but almost all are not using them for gaming.

    Also in order to hear better sound from $100+ card you need a better and better speak system. Not just speaker, but a good in home setup. I threw down $1000 on a speak system and it sound ok. WhenI had my friend come over and setup it up right. It sounded great. It more then just buying them and plugging them in. It take a lot to get a quailty setup. High end sound cards only will not do it, so for some it just not worth going beyond a $100 card.
  • Araemo - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

    [Self-serving]
    Could we get an onboard audio review for the Soundstorm on the Abit NF7-S v2? ;P[/self-serving]

    Seriously though, good review.. but I'd like to know where my current system stands.

    And does anybody know how much "THX Certified" is worth? I have logitech Z-2200s connected to my nForce onboard right now(My Audigy developed an odd crackling noise during gameplay that I couldn't get rid of.)
  • yodel - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

  • YellowWing - Thursday, February 3, 2005 - link

    What about AC3 digital encode? The next PC I build will be a HTPC, and digital encode for a single connection to my receiver is of great importance. I doubt if any of the sound systems analog sections would be used.

    What is the overhead of the digital encode? Does it slow a frame rate or not seem to matter?

    Can you hear the difference between the digital and analog output with a good home theater setup?

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now