is Audigy 2 Platinium still a revelant sound card? Im looking

>>62155938
Sure, if you have a PCI slot for it. My personal go-to is the Audigy2 ZS. Great linux support, great fidelity, and even a good level of amplification for some of the less-sensitive headphones out there.

>>62155938
if you're a real enthusiast then to completely cut out interference then you need to do your own shielding, which isn't very difficult.

Optical out + desktop amp. Keep the signal digital as far as possible.

>>62155938

I bought one off eBay the other day for $11 shipped. I wanted surround sound on my old Dell HTPC running Kodi, and it works like a champ.

Off board amp/DACs are all the rage

File: tehtop.jpg (167KB, 1080x1232px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 1080x1232px

I've still got an Audigy 2 ZS Platinum in my old PIII machine with external control box and remote. It was a great setup but nowadays you'd be better served with an external DAC.

>>62155938
It's a nice sound card for a Win98 built. Sure.

>>62157354
>>62157434
>>62157444
>>62157722
External DAC is just a fad. The affects of EMI on audio paths within a case is wayy wayy wayy overstated. If your sound card has a good design, it will perform just as well as an external DAC.

>>62155938
Sure, they are good if your onboard is shit

>>62158288
Onboard is mostly always shit unless you literally have a 1000€ motherboard.

>>62157330
>>62157722
I have a extremely modded 2 ZS also, for years already. Too bad typical consumer sound cards these days outperform it. I would love to use it daily.
It's a beast, recap with high end caps, new op amps, overclocked, fully shielded. It's in my Voodoo 2 SLI build nowadays.

Audigy/Audigy 2ZS - Creative's crowning glory. I've got one of each. Werks with Window 98 - XP, I think Creative released a Windows Vista/7 driver for them to, but I ain't sure. The Asus Xonar DGX ain't bad either. It's what I use right now.

sound cards are a meme.

Sound literally cannot get any better, unless you're the .1% audiophile masturbators that claim other wise; 44.1KHz PCM or bust.

>>62158414
nah. depends how shitty your motherboard is. still a lot of shit out there.

>>62158254
Yes, but offboard is far simpler, the USB interface can work with any number of devices.

>>62158414
Yes, they are a meme. A.k.a an actually good niche that normies think is dumb.

>>62158447
I can't tell the difference. Sound frequency is the same through out.

Seriously, what the fuck is the difference aside from interface, such as optical vs standard 3.5mm headphone?

>>62158450
USB is still USB, I don't know how external is a bonus, internal is direct PCIe and clutter free.

We are talking about desktops, not laptops, compatibility isn't the key here.

>>62158461
I'm not really sure how I should feel about this post.

Should I feel insulted, or are you agreeing with me?

>>62158475
Stop listening to those 192kbps youtube mp3's then.
Onboard is usually far shittier than any cheap consumer internal sound card. Unless you really have an expensive motherboard.

>>62158499
I'm agreeing that it's a meme. Memes like SSD and 32GB RAM (basically, they are actually good if you're not a dumb neckbeard).
There's no need to feel insulted just because you don't understand something.

File: 2017-08-29 22_51_00.png (229KB, 1032x510px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1032x510px

>>62158486
Would it make you happy if a DAC used thunderbolt?

What clutter do you think exists on USB anyway?

Not to mention you have motherboards that come with USB ports dedicated for off-board DACs.

>>62158529
>Would it make you happy if a DAC used thunderbolt?
It would still be clutter and why does it need to be external in the first place? Computers have a case inside where parts go. Good sound cards won't have any noise problems inside or outside the computer.

>What clutter do you think exists on USB anyway?
Like cables and an external box? Instead a neat and tidy ports behind your computer where you can plug in your audio equipment.

>Not to mention you have motherboards that come with USB ports dedicated for off-board DACs.
Now this is _LITERARY_ a gaymur /v/ meme.

>>62158520
>Stop listening to those 192kbps youtube mp3's then.
Onboard is usually far shittier than any cheap consumer internal sound card. Unless you really have an expensive motherboard.

Yes, there is clearly a difference with compressed audio. I 100% agree. What I'm trying to get at is most integrated motherboard audio is capable of 24-bit 96k sample rate. It's the limit of human hearing.

Anything above this limit, then you're only catering to a very select few that happen to be on the far right of the bell curve in terms of what people can actually hear. Then you're also limited by your speakers as well.

This is what I'm trying to get at. A feel as long as an audio chip can produce 16-bit 44.1 Sample rate its already OK.

>>62158529
>noisy USB ports
Yeah, no. Stop buying shit.

Even back in the day when noise on USB ports was a problem, I used to make my own filters for USB port power. Good times.

Sound cards are still better than external DACs. Mostly it's no different, but direct connection and not wasting CPU cycles over USB seems just cleaner.

>>62158597
You realize thunderbolt is literally just PCI lanes but in a different form factor...right?

Besides, you can't make a statement like
>Good sound cards won't have any noise problems inside or outside the computer.
Since many times the sound card itself wouldn't be the issue, it would be the motherboard causing EMI because the PCI traces are too close to power delivery traces in the PCB or some other shit like that. That's not something you can change by just getting a good sound card, which is a big reason why external DACs have taken off, they can be taken easily to any other computer, laptop, etc. As long as it has USB, optical, or similar (depending on DAC of course), it'll work.

A sound card that is internal only works in a desktop. That's far more limited.

>>62158646
>Sound cards are still better than external DACs
You're literally retarded if you think this. At least at the consumer level.

>>62158633
>What I'm trying to get at is most integrated motherboard audio is capable of 24-bit 96k sample rate. It's the limit of human hearing.
Just because it's capable of doing that, does not mean it's going to be good quality.
I can sell motherboards with cheapest of the cheap components that doe 24-bit and 96k sample rate audio, yet a proper sound card that does the same bitrate and sample rate is going to sound better.

>This is what I'm trying to get at. A feel as long as an audio chip can produce 16-bit 44.1 Sample rate its already OK.
It's not related what it can output, but the quality of the components and how much noise and interference it has, how much raw power it can push out and how good it's bass fidelity is for example.

>>62158653
>You realize thunderbolt is literally just PCI lanes but in a different form factor...right?
Never said it wasn't. That's pretty common knowledge you know, don't make yourself seem dumb trying to seem smart.

>Since many times the sound card itself wouldn't be the issue
Sound cards with good shielding and power filtering are pretty OK with shitty motherboards too.
Thanks for agreeing that motherboards have issues and onboard will obviously be shit also on such motherboards.
Those motherboards will still be noisy over USB, your external DAC won't help much.

All in all, if you cheap out, you eat your own cheap shit. Deal with it.

>>62158664
>You're literally retarded if you think this. At least at the consumer level.
What's consumer level to you? Expensive high end sound cards exit in the consumer market.

Also, why did you leave out USB on purpose? I said external DACs on USB, why have USB in the middle if it's not needed? Like one anon said abou Thunderbolt, even that would be a better alternative. In that regard, internal (or external Thunderbolt) will always be better because they are talking directly to the CPU and not over USB.

Your posts start resembling more and more shitposts. Did you buy a cheap chink DAC and try to justify it?

>>62158690
understood. Alright, I get it now.

That would be a hell-a expensive setup then.

Quality audio chipset, quality interface, quality cable, quality speakers.

Fucking christ man, that can become a $3000+ setup just for audio. What's the point if you're not going to be producing, and only listening?

Hmm...I suppose you could say the same about gamers when you tell them just run something at high settings, instead of ultra high, and use 2x AA, instead of 8x AA.

OK, i concede.

>>62158475
>I can't tell the difference
Then your motherboard's sound implementation is probably good, or your hearing sucks.

>what's the difference
No difference in output types, they both have 3.5/spdif/whatever. The difference is in the literal design of the circuit. Motherboard manufacturers sometimes cut costs on sound and do not implement the recommendations of the sound chip manufacturer with regard to power circuitry and supporting components. This leads to noisy audio output on some motherboards.

>>62158763
See
>>62158341
Never cost me 3000 bucks, more like 130 bucks.

There are a lot of manufacturers still that use proper quality components on consumer hardware, most motherboard manufacturers though cheap out on "small details" like audio out, because "you won't probably hear the difference anyways", even when it's noticeable.

File: 2017-08-29 23_09_06.png (113KB, 2274x567px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 2274x567px

>>62158715
>Those motherboards will still be noisy over USB
Generally not true, it CAN be true, but not generally not. And you can also buy things like this.

http://www.schiit.com/products/wyrd

>>62155938
Just get the cheapest xonar you can find.

>>62158792
That's what I used to do as DIY >>62158646

Generally not needed anymore when you have a proper PSU and motherboard though.

>>62158756
Do you REALLY think USB is causing some massive degradation to your audio quality? Even $2000+ DACs use USB inputs.

>>62158826
No. But it's not needed.
You can get the same DAC internally. I have more free PCIe lanes then bandwidth and CPU cycles on USB ports, even if it's not a problem to use either, why not do things as perfect as possible?

>>62158879
Because a USB DAC can be used on ANYTHING that accepts USB audio devices.

Having a party? Android phones or laptops can hook up and play music. Going to a friends house and want to bring your expensive ass headphones to show off like a cunt? Just unplug your amp and DAC and bring it along. etc

>>62158917
Well, as OP posed an internal PCI sound card, I think the discussion is about desktop PCs and not compatibility between devices.

>>62158963
So because most people aren't aware of external options we should ignore them altogether?

And as evidence will show, there are FAR greater variety of external DACs than there are internal sound cards, and with an external DAC you can get any headphone or speaker amp you might need for higher end headphones or speakers.

>>62158984
>So because most people aren't aware of external options we should ignore them altogether?
We are on /g/, why are we talking about normie marketing and awareness now? Where did that come from?

>And as evidence will show, there are FAR greater variety of external DACs than there are internal sound cards, and with an external DAC you can get any headphone or speaker amp you might need for higher end headphones or speakers.
Maybe because...
-they are usually cheaper to make
-they don't require any experience to use
-they have a bigger market because normies can't into installing PCIe cards
...pretty obvious why external DACs are no popular. Popular =/= Good though.

I've used mine for about 13 years now, not because of interference problems but because it always sounded cleaner and louder to me than all on-board audio that I've tried over the years (Using analogue outputs)

Any cheap creative/ASUS card should do fine if you're not using s/pdif

What is the general consensus on Thunderbolt? I'm in the process of building a studio PC and opted for a "Thunderbolt-Capable" motherboard and a Thunderbolt AIC PCIE card. I have a Focusrite Clarett 8Pre X and an OctoPre MkII connected via Thunderbolt.

amidoinitokay?

>>62155938
>Not going digital Out
Analogue a shit

Looking around it appears there really isn't much difference between thunderbolt and USB for audio purposes.

>Round-trip latency as low as 1.6ms at 96kHz via Thunderbolt and 1.9ms via USB make recording a trouble-free endeavor

Looks like ~0.3ms difference on an $800 audio interface.
https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/8A

>>62159414
Depends on who writes the drivers, thunderbolt inherently will have less latency from the get go, but you can get USB to be just as good with decently written drivers. Most don't bother with good USB support because 90% of there customer base is Macs and anyone using USB is going to be on windows

>>62158407
You can use kXdriver on Windows 10 even. I used to have a Audigy 2 ZS, but my new PC has no PCI slot so I can't put it in there. I miss it.

Decent DACs have their own filtered PSU rather than relying on USB power. You're only feeding them a digital signal, which isn't sensitive.

>>62158597
>gaymur /v/ meme

If they're self powered sure. If they're running exclusively off USB gotek they not only need a high current port but also one that has a stable, clean supply.

>>62159269
Thunderbolt is basically PCIe spliced into a mini-displayport or usb-c cable for external use.
Kind of like eSATA only not as fail because it can actually supply power to the connected device.

>>62158414
I cant manipulate audio at 44.1 kHz without artifacting.

Asus Xonar DX
£25 on eBay now
Pci&-e
Great sound

Used Audigy 2 ZS Gold for six months before buying X-fi Titanium (not HD) for 10€. I guess the audigys gold plated connectors snake oil me because I remember it sounding a bit better.

You idiots never talk about the best feature Creative cards have (for gaming): CMSS3D simulation.

File: absolutely_proprietary.png (239KB, 480x451px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 480x451px

>>62155938

Any decent mobo is going to have isolated audio caps, high end DAC, and quality output interfaces.

>>62158646
>Sound cards are still better than external DACs
they're not

>wasting CPU cycles over USB
literally doesn't matter if you have a CPU faster than 80486

>>62155938
going from internal to graphics card hdmi to high quality amp is so great,
if you're playing the correct audio

>>62162094
Sorry to disappoint, but it's not worth it. It's not any better than onboard audio found in today's motherboards. It has better quality gold plated jack outs, but that's really it. It doesn't provide any more power than onboard audio and quality of DAC itself is basically the same. Also Asus drivers are complete garbage.
I say it as someone who used to use Xonar DX (still have it in box) and now uses $100 Pcie sound card with replaceable opamps.

>>62155938
If you're gonna pay for placebo, just pay me $1000 instead. I'll promise your ears will enjoy music much more.

>PCI
>2017

TOP KEK

>>62158633
>sample rate
>limit of human hearing
Typical sample rate is 2x the limit of human hearing, that's why they chose 44.1kHz

File: 111.jpg (57KB, 661x885px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 661x885px

>>62158646
>I used to make my own filters for USB port power.

>>62155938
>Realtek ALC887 which has terrible electrical interferrence
check your cables, i moved my cpu power cable away from the back side to the front and the interference was gone.

Literally SupremeFx is the only onboard solution today that is even close/on the same level than 10$ eBay Creative cards. Just fucking buy one used you cheapass shit.

If you find Titanium HD buy that at any (under 100$) cost.

>>62155938
Did you misspell platinum or are you Russian?

>>62162907
You didn't even read the thread, did you? Shame on you.