Surprising Quality of PC sound card
 

"Heinz Kiosk" wrote in message


So... is this (surprising result to me) what the experts out there
would expect, and how much better are the more expensive PC cards eg
RME 968pad, lynxone, lynxtwo? In a permanent setup I would buy one of
the more expensive cards if they are audibly superior to the m-audio
2496. Or would I be better off taking a digital output from the 2496
card and using a separates DAC?

Welcome to the world of diminishing returns.

Yes, the AP2496 is a credible performer, particularly for consumers.
However, the conclusion that 10 times better technical performance (LynxTWO)
would sound better at all, is unwarranted by the relevant facts about human
perception.

Surprising Quality of PC sound card
 

If I post this enough times maybe it'll eventually appear in the 'groups....
Sorry if you've seen this posting before but I cannot see it at all.

I decided to trial an "M-Audio Audiophile 2496" card which cost me well
under £100 to see how viable "PC as source" is. I usually listen to a Denson
Beat B500/Linn Kairn/LK2/Acoustic-Energy-AE1 and I simply plugged the PC
output into the Kairns Aux-1 inputs. The PC is a Dell 8300 which is
reasonably near to being silent (I can't hear if it is switched on from
across the room)

I am simply amazed at the performance of this cheap PC card. With a variety
of music styles from Eminem to Hornsby to Mozart I find it hard to
distinguish between the Denson and the PC, and my wife and son claim to be
completely unable to tell which is playing. I had understood that PCs were a
poor environment for a DAC and I was very surprised at this result. If
pushed I would say that the Denson is warmer and more musical but the
difference is sufficiently small that I am not convinced that it is not my
subjective knowledge of the source coming through.

So... is this (surprising result to me) what the experts out there would
expect, and how much better are the more expensive PC cards eg RME 968pad,
lynxone, lynxtwo? In a permanent setup I would buy one of the more expensive
cards if they are audibly superior to the m-audio 2496. Or would I be better
off taking a digital output from the 2496 card and using a separates DAC?

Tom

Surprising Quality of PC sound card
 

"Heinz Kiosk" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Heinz Kiosk" wrote in
message

So... is this (surprising result to me) what the experts out there
would expect, and how much better are the more expensive PC cards eg
RME 968pad, lynxone, lynxtwo? In a permanent setup I would buy one
of the more expensive cards if they are audibly superior to the
m-audio 2496. Or would I be better off taking a digital output from
the 2496 card and using a separates DAC?

Welcome to the world of diminishing returns.

Yes, the AP2496 is a credible performer, particularly for consumers.
However, the conclusion that 10 times better technical performance
(LynxTWO) would sound better at all, is unwarranted by the relevant
facts about human perception.

Thank you Arny, I couldn't see the AP2496 on your PCAVTech comparison
sheet so I wasn't sure where it would fit in your measurements.

Delta 66 or Delta 1010LT.

I think that you mean that it wouldn't be worth me buying a better PC
card as my ears will not up to hearing the difference when played
through my consumer (or any?) equipment...

Your ears, my ears, everybody's ears.

This feels like something
I'd love to test aurally but I think I am unlikely to be lent a
variety of cards to audition.... It goes against the grain of my past
experiences with consumer hi-fi that such a cheap DAC cannot be
meaningfully bettered for CD sourced data playback purposes. Anyone
want to lend me a Lynxxxx?

The LynxOne is about midway between the AP2496 and the LynxTWO in terms of
measured perforamnce. Sonically, they can all get most normal record and
playback jobs done just fine. If you want to optimize your system further,
look elsewhere.

Surprising Quality of PC sound card
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Heinz Kiosk" wrote in message


So... is this (surprising result to me) what the experts out there
would expect, and how much better are the more expensive PC cards eg
RME 968pad, lynxone, lynxtwo? In a permanent setup I would buy one of
the more expensive cards if they are audibly superior to the m-audio
2496. Or would I be better off taking a digital output from the 2496
card and using a separates DAC?

Welcome to the world of diminishing returns.

Yes, the AP2496 is a credible performer, particularly for consumers.
However, the conclusion that 10 times better technical performance
(LynxTWO)
would sound better at all, is unwarranted by the relevant facts about
human
perception.

Thank you Arny, I couldn't see the AP2496 on your PCAVTech comparison sheet
so I wasn't sure where it would fit in your measurements.

I think that you mean that it wouldn't be worth me buying a better PC card
as my ears will not up to hearing the difference when played through my
consumer (or any?) equipment... This feels like something I'd love to test
aurally but I think I am unlikely to be lent a variety of cards to
audition.... It goes against the grain of my past experiences with consumer
hi-fi that such a cheap DAC cannot be meaningfully bettered for CD sourced
data playback purposes. Anyone want to lend me a Lynxxxx?

Tom

Surprising Quality of PC sound card
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Heinz Kiosk" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Heinz Kiosk" wrote in
message

So... is this (surprising result to me) what the experts out there
would expect, and how much better are the more expensive PC cards eg
RME 968pad, lynxone, lynxtwo? In a permanent setup I would buy one
of the more expensive cards if they are audibly superior to the
m-audio 2496. Or would I be better off taking a digital output from
the 2496 card and using a separates DAC?

Yes, the AP2496 is a credible performer, particularly for consumers.
However, the conclusion that 10 times better technical performance
(LynxTWO) would sound better at all, is unwarranted by the relevant
facts about human perception.

I think that you mean that it wouldn't be worth me buying a better PC
card as my ears will not up to hearing the difference when played
through my consumer (or any?) equipment...

Your ears, my ears, everybody's ears.

The LynxOne is about midway between the AP2496 and the LynxTWO in terms of
measured perforamnce. Sonically, they can all get most normal record and
playback jobs done just fine. If you want to optimize your system further,
look elsewhere.


OK, this begs another question. I can put together a silent-ish PC with the
AP2496 for well under £1000, probably around £800 with a big enough HD to
store 400-500 lossless CDs. You have compiled technical evidence that
implies that for listening to CD originated music this source cannot be
*meaningfully* bettered for consumer purposes (I think, correct me if I am
misunderstanding you). Why, therefore, would any consumer pay more than this
for a home CD replay system. eg From memory the Linn CD12 retails for around
£12,000 and presumably the people who buy it are happy with the
value-for-money when they listen to the music. What sonic advantage is the
purchasor of such a system gaining? Are these high end systems introducing
deliberate "euphonic distortion" that makes the music sound better? Or what?
Tom

Surprising Quality of PC sound card
 

"Heinz Kiosk" wrote in message


OK, this begs another question. I can put together a silent-ish PC
with the AP2496 for well under £1000, probably around £800 with a big
enough HD to store 400-500 lossless CDs. You have compiled technical
evidence that implies that for listening to CD originated music this
source cannot be *meaningfully* bettered for consumer purposes (I
think, correct me if I am misunderstanding you).

That's pretty much it.

Why, therefore, would any consumer pay more than this for a home CD
replay system. eg
From memory the Linn CD12 retails for around £12,000 and presumably
the people who buy it are happy with the value-for-money when they
listen to the music.

....not a lot of people.

What sonic advantage is the purchasor of such a system gaining?

The issue of computers as audio front ends has been discussed here many
times.

As I said, not a lot of people buy $10,000+ CD players. Non-audio factors
such as appearance, adulation in the press, pride of ownership no doubt are
part of their perceived value. Comared to mid-fi CD players in the $150-300
range, many would argue that there never was any sonic advantage or even
sonic difference.

Computer audio front-ends have plusses and minuses. If you compare the $1000
HTPC to comparable DVD players, you find that the DVD player generally costs
a lot less. Traditional audio players play media directly, so you don't have
to spend a lot of time ripping CDs to load their hard drives.

Are these high end systems introducing deliberate
"euphonic distortion" that makes the music sound better? Or what?

I don't think that high end optical disc players have ever been found to
have sonic advantages over good mid-fi players in time-synched,
level-matched, bias-controlled listening tests. The best that can be said
for the sound of the computer-based player is that it sounds pretty much the
same.

People either perceive the computer juke box concept as being a plus or a
minus. For the most part the SOTA in juke box type players has passed to the
portable players, which have roughly equal sound quality, at least out to
their output jacks.

Surprising Quality of PC sound card
 

"Heinz Kiosk" wrote


OK, this begs another question. I can put together a silent-ish PC with
the
AP2496 for well under £1000, probably around £800 with a big enough HD to
store 400-500 lossless CDs. You have compiled technical evidence that
implies that for listening to CD originated music this source cannot be
*meaningfully* bettered for consumer purposes (I think, correct me if I am
misunderstanding you). Why, therefore, would any consumer pay more than
this
for a home CD replay system. eg From memory the Linn CD12 retails for
around
£12,000 and presumably the people who buy it are happy with the
value-for-money when they listen to the music. What sonic advantage is the
purchasor of such a system gaining? Are these high end systems introducing
deliberate "euphonic distortion" that makes the music sound better? Or
what?
Tom


OK, now that Arny seems to have learned that best approach in a UK newsgroup
is *not* to try and batter retired MDs in their 50's around the head with a
'figurative baseball bat', I would be the first to say he's probably the
best person here to advise on PC Audio matters (bar none) and will, no
doubt, set you straight.

If, however, you draw a response from the aptly-named 'Rosie Bull****ter' I
suggest you disregard it entirely, as whatever he says will be very highly
'tinted' by your mention of the word 'Linn'' (at the very least)!

Wait and see...... ;-)

Surprising Quality of PC sound card
 

"Keith G" wrote in message


OK, now that Arny seems to have learned that best approach in a UK
newsgroup is *not* to try and batter retired MDs in their 50's around
the head with a 'figurative baseball bat', I would be the first to
say he's probably the best person here to advise on PC Audio matters
(bar none) and will, no doubt, set you straight.

The negative impact that the usual list of suspects on RAO has had on RAO
veterans cannot be discounted.

Surprising Quality of PC sound card
 

Keith G said:

OK, now that Arny seems to have learned that best approach in a UK newsgroup
is *not* to try and batter retired MDs in their 50's around the head with a
'figurative baseball bat', I would be the first to say he's probably the
best person here to advise on PC Audio matters (bar none) and will, no
doubt, set you straight.

As the Kroobeast is prone to say, that's an opinion you get to have.

Regardless of which newsgroups a thread might inhabit, Krooger is a
compulsive liar. As soon as somebody offers the slightest disagreement
with anything he has posted, you can forget about the thread offering
further useful information. It will degenerate quickly into one of
Krooger's infamous "never admit error" last stands against logic.
There are a multitude of examples of this scenario littering the
Usenet archive.

So if you, or anybody, thinks Krooger has offered useful information,
my advice is to retain what you believe is useful, and not to correct
his omissions, misstatements, or deceptions. It's not worth it.

Surprising Quality of PC sound card
 

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


crap snipped


Great!

Why do I *never* spot the crossposting 'til it's too late?