If I would have said "try 96kHz or 192 kHz because I think it is better" then I would have understood you. I might be wrong but it is the my general perception and I'll be glad if you describe TOS #8 more detailed than the Wiki. Therefore they throw TOS #8 around like crazy to make them feel like one. I get the feeling that this forum is a place for those who always dreamed of being police but never for any reason became it. That must be like someone saying they use ogg and then we tell him he violated TOS #8? I did not share my opnions of it being better or worse.
I only said what settings I use and I did not say anything about it being better. About the TOS #8, I don't know how I violated it. Basically, Arnold is pointing out that you shouldn't remind other people about TOS#8 while also violating it. I suspect that you misunderstand what the phrase means. When you are me you can subliminably call me an idiot. Physician, cure thyself! All that high-sample rate processing likely has no audible consequences. Consider the hard rules in TOS #8 which is often mentioned when describing what you hear. I do the same in Linux using Pulseaudio in the file /etc/pulse/nf.
#Creative sb0410 vs realtek alc1150 windows#
In Windows I set audio sample rate in playback settings to 96kHz or 192kHz. Quote from: punkrockdude on 00:34:46 First of all, using these built-in converters I always oversample in Windows and Linux. Try to borrow a good pair of headphones (not in-ear, not beats audio) and you will hear a difference. Sadly your speakers are dedicated for gaming, they have no musical qualities, their internal amplifiers add so much distortion and noise that you will not hear any difference. in order to HEAR that difference you will need good sound sources (FLAC files at minimum, no mp3's) and good speakers/headphones. That means lower noise, lower distortion. The Audigy 2 card has better DAC's than on-board sound. My speakers are the Corsair SP2500, in other words rather decent (I guess?). Which one of these would give the best sound? Now people in general seem to think that a dedicated sound card is always better than onboard sound, but the Audigy 2 is much older than the onboard sound.
So I have an old Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 laying around and I'm currently using my onboard Realtek ALC889. Just remember that a measured difference isn't always an audible difference.
You can also perform RMAA Tests, or search to see if someone else has already done them. (The line input on many soundcards is acceptable, but the mic preamp is often low quality and it's simply the wrong interface for a good recording/performance microphone with a balanced low-impedence connection.) If you are recording with microphones and you want high-quality, it's best to get an external "audio interface" with proper XLR microphone inputs, rather than a regular soundcard. If you like using those effects, you might prefer one soundcard over another if it has better effects, or a better configuration utility.Īnd if you are doing any recording, you might want to compare the input/recording noise also. Many soundcards come with a utility that includes an eqalizer andother "enhancements". (There are much better ways to improve/change your sound., such as using an equalizer or changing your speakers.) So if you are not hearing noise or some other defect, a "better" soundcard may not sound better. If there is any audible difference, it most-likely will be noise.ĭistortion and frequency response for most soundcards are generally very good (probably better than human hearing). If the on-board soundchip sounds OK (especially if you are not hearing any noise) I'd go ahead and use it. Quote Now people in general seem to think that a dedicated sound card is always better than onboard sound,Not always.