Digital Audio

Is there a significant sound quality difference vs analog?

Other urls found in this thread:

innerfidelity.com/images/AudioTechnicaATHM50.pdf
en.goldenears.net/4726
installgentoo.wikia.com/wiki/Headphones?file=1335901596068.png
en.goldenears.net/10034
youtube.com/watch?v=7UrKy1EuO0k
twitter.com/AnonBabble

There is but you're not going to make use of it if you don't have very good sound card and speakers/headphones.

Yes

To add on, im asking because my reciever is ancient and only supports rca and i need to know if i should invest in a new one or if it is a meme.

if the rest of your setup is very amazing then yes replacing the receiver might improve audio, if it's just average shit you might as well keep what you have

>Is there a significant sound quality difference vs analog?
Yes, it's worse.
SPDIF (which is outdated) only transmits two channels uncompressed and used lossy compression for more channels, reducing the audio quality.
Digital audio also always adds lag/delay, while analog audio is real time.

Every sound has to be converted to analog before reaching your speakers so everything depends on the cables that you're using (balanced vs unbalanced) and what DAC and amp you're using.

...

Buy that new receiver, use HDMI for audio.
Just place the 800x600 (need to be equal or higher than 720p for HDCP to be fooled) "second monitor" that the HDMI tricks the computer with down in the right so you never accidentally move your mouse there.
Enjoy 8 channel lossless audio.

Who am I kidding...
Go for the gold plated, black hole vacuum silver coated optical cable.

I laughed so much, thank you.

The short answer is "No"

The long answer is "Depends on your setup, 99% likely to make it worse"

Yes, it significantly reduces the rotational velocidensity.

what is this from? I actually laughed.

>Just place the 800x600 (need to be equal or higher than 720p for HDCP to be fooled) "second monitor" that the HDMI tricks the computer with down in the right so you never accidentally move your mouse there.
Simply clone the output of the first monitor on the HDMI port.

The HDMI can't render a resolution that high.

Akiba's Trip

You probably don't want to watch it though, it's actually kinda lewd.

How much delay are we talking about here?

the answer is : it depends

if you buy shit gear then yes, but the same is true for analog. garbage in = garbage out

digital audio is not inherently worse than analog. and all audio, no matter what set up, has delay. if the delay is

>HDMI can't render 4K
It can.

>How much delay are we talking about here?
Up to half a second.

I just use this, for both my computer and TV speakers. Sounds alright I guess.

>spreading lies
You need a special gold pin hdmi cable from monster to support 4k.

If you have a good receiver/amplifier there is a real drawback in using your internal DAC, unless you have a really expensive audio card

You have got to be shitting me. Try hdmi or optical and realize what you have been missing all of these years

I don't fee like buying a bunch of new shit that supports it honestly. I'm not too crazy on audio.

The sound is using HDMI from my GPU to the TV, but obviously analogue when it goes from my TV to the stereo to the speakers.

>If you have a good receiver/amplifier there is a real drawback in using your internal DAC, unless you have a really expensive audio card
The internal HD audio DAC of any PC made in the last decade has a 97dB SNR.

amazing how few people realize that 4k is simply a hardware upgrade to the sending and receiving end and the hdmi cable does not need an upgrade.

only bullshit part is the requirement for hdmi 2.0 for hdcp reasons.

What about consoles?

Also
>SnR is the only measure of quality

Well my graphic card in the PC I'm using as an example does not have HDMI 2.0, neither does my receiver.

This.
SNR is just one factor.
It's like those retards that only use Megapixels to compare camera quality.

Answer-Yes big difference

Here are some more audio answers for Sup Forums since you guys are morons when it comes to audio

Soundcards are garbage, buy an external amp dac or nothing
Optical audio is worse than USB
ATH-m50s are garbage, stop defending them just because you're poor
Stop buying headphones with no soundstage for gaming, that's fucking stupid

Older HDMI cables can only do 30HZ.

I mean, it's a five dollar upgrade for an Amazon basic cable, but yeah. I had one somehow.

If you've got a nice 2.1 setup with a good receiver and speakers/woofer, there's nothing wrong with straight-up analog stereo OR uncompressed 2CH stereo coming from digital coax/optical, and if you have a surround setup, supported games will either bitstream in-game 5.1 DD or just support multichannel audio

In the long-run, whether it's digital or analog isn't nearly as big a deal as your speaker setup, and if you ARE just using the 3.5mm for a boxed set of PC speakers, you'd get a huge boost if bought a 3.5mm-to-coax cable and hit up local thrift stores/yard sales for an old receiver and speakers from a good brand, Onkyo, Panasonic, and Pioneer being ideal

You can turn an Audigy 2 ZS into a modern card that destroys onboard Realtek shit using the Daniel_K drivers, and there's a digital output jack that's actually downsized digital coax, and with an adapter, can connect/bitstream to a receiver. If you sperg over jitter and don't want to use the optical out all current onboard/PCIe sound cards use, this is preferable

A woofer is optional and mostly just for nicer BASS, assuming you find full range speakers, and 99% of the woofers you find at thrift stores and shit only work with the receiver setup they were paired with, and is usually nowhere to be found

still proves those stupid expensive monster cables are not needed.

not to mention most modern devices include hdmi cables anyway so you likely have a new enough one for 4k.

I agree with almost everything but what's this about optical being worse than USB

I would elaborate on it but I really don't want to much
Optical has less bandwidth, can maybe only support a max of 24 bit 192, where as USB is much more common and supports higher bandwidths

>ATH-m50s are garbage
Nah you're fucking retarded, for 140 dollars you can't beat the price/performance

Found the m50 fanboy
The only people who defend the m50s are those who currently use them or those who actually used them for what they were designed for (studio monitoring)
Once you actually get a pair of better headphones you realize how absolutely shit they were, even the mdr 7506 has better more natural sound and it's not even 100 dollars

Citation needed

M50s are great for any purpose whether it be for listening to music or what ever. Just because they're advertised for studio support doesn't Magically mean they're shit for anything else. Post benchmarks

Ok
innerfidelity.com/images/AudioTechnicaATHM50.pdf
Compared to a decent pair of headphones
en.goldenears.net/4726

>better natural sound

What the fuck does this even mean?
installgentoo.wikia.com/wiki/Headphones?file=1335901596068.png

You can argue that one set of phones over another with mids and bass or what ever you're comparing on but "natural sound" isn't a metric

Accurate
even better than the m50s for studio monitoring

>The only people who defend the m50s are those who currently use them or those who actually used them for what they were designed for (studio monitoring)

Why would studio monitoring headphones be bad?

What does natural sound sound like?

it's Akiba'Strip

>AV cabels
>TV

Studio monitoring headphones blow out the highs and go overboard with the treble so you can know if in a track your dog farted in the other room and you need to fix it. Studio monitoring headphones are great for listening over to a track to find impurities but not for gaming and actually LISTENING to music due to the complete lack of soundstage, over the top highs and shadowed mids, and muddy bass

Yes. No interference. But if your speakers aren't good enough, who gives a heck?

They're virtually the same, you aren't going to be able to tell the difference over a few mhz let alone khz. Their frequency responses are on par with any other headphones. The M50s are more recommended for their comfort and features over the mdr due to the mdr pads deteriorating like the mdrv6 has. Also the long term comfort on the mdr is noted as a flaw. Even then the M50s are more noted for balance than anything else even if they aren't for gaming (which I don't use them for exclusively anyway)

Wouldn't that make studio headphones more natural? If you're wearing headphones to omit sound, how is that natural?

>you need better bass

I'm not a nigger so no. There's nothing wrong with having elucidated treble

>stone that magically improves sound quality by placing it on top of the player

Reminds me of those speaker blocks they were selling several years ago for $35 a pop. Literally just a block of sanded wood that was supposed to improve the listening quality of a speaker setup.

>complete lack of soundstage, over the top highs and shadowed mids, and muddy bass

What does this mean?

The 7506 have too much sibilance for my taste. Care to recommend something else around that price?

Not him but that's the entire point. Idiots suggest things that want bass because they want that fucking thump when really they can just tweak an equalizer in their driver if they want it. You don't actually get that bass irl so it's far more natural

How can I objectively decide what sounds better to other people like you?

No they aren't
No it makes them unnatural so you can hear sounds nobody normally listening to would hear
I'm saying the over the top bass is bad user

It's his fucking opinion.

You don't really get music in nature either. All of it is man-made.

It's not an opinion, the measurements prove it
lol m50 fanboys get so defensive so quickly over their garbage reddit tier headphones

>No they aren't
Yea they are, their response and impulse curves are virtually the same save for some frequency ranges you can't even hear.

It's far better to have an elucidated treble because you don't actually hear that bass. Sure in music you actually want to hear a base guitar but that's not hard at all if you're just listening for it. Allowing yourself to hear the flaws is often what makes music sound human instead of those fake samples that play the exact same note ever time.

>No it makes them unnatural so you can hear sounds nobody normally listening to would hear

This doesn't make any sense.

Why are you so angry? I genuinely want to know what it means because it sounds like a bunch of buzzwords

>the metric proves it
They're virtually the same.
>you're so defensive
Because I don't want excessive base and your call for "overshadowed muddy base" is completely unfounded

>post an opinion
>what does this mean?
>it's his opinion
>lol u mad
It's literally his opinion that the "bass is muddy" there is nothing else to take away from it

But why are you so angry about it? You must be the guy I was responding to. Maybe you shouldn't use buzzwords as fact if you can't explain what they mean.

This and above is just more proof to the claim I made here/v/ is absolutely retarded when it comes to audio

>he used the word "fucking" so he must be angry
No

>he keeps pretending to be someone else reffering to himself to fight the cognitive dissonance

sad

Not me, moron

en.goldenears.net/10034

You didn't even look at the M50s benchmark, the M50xs are way more accurate and flat on frequency response than the 7506 in their benchmark spec

Youre fucking stupid if you think the 7506 are more accurate

If you want more bass then turn it up on an equalizer

You haven't explained why ATH-m50s are objectively bad. You seem to imply that because they're a certain price, that they're bad, which is an appeal to wealth, a logical fallacy.

>Using software EQs
>Thinking flat=accurate

>make overgeneralized, umbrella statement
>someone points out how that's not entirely true
>lol M50s fans so defensive

>he edits html just to make people on an anonymous image board believe he's not defending himself as a supposed third party

lmao, so sad

Yes the flatter the response the more accurate it is to the intended frequency input hence a "frequency response" it's the most looked at benchmark

How can headphone benchmarks mean anything, let alone as a measure of natural sound, when we don't have benchmarks for the only natural tool we have; ears?

>optical
>less bandwidth
Have you hit your head recently?
Because that's fucking retarded.

I've talked about how horrible their sound signature is you are just ignoring it
Here is a list
>Low impedance
>Bad sound signature
>Shitty stock earpads
>Low frequency response
>Muddy bass
>No soundstage
>Having to pay extra shekels to get the detachable cable you should've gotten in the first place
here is a review from someone who is better with words
youtube.com/watch?v=7UrKy1EuO0k

We have certain tools that can objectively measure the quality of sound

For example don't ever go near beats by Dr Dre because they're shit, made with garbage drivers and aren't accurate in the least. They're actually so bad you can hear it

>You probably don't want to watch it
>it's actually kinda lewd.

I'm referring to S/PDIF ports primarily on new motherboards, not optical in general

>spend less than $300 on a set up
>audiophiles who spend over $2,000 for their set up can't tell the difference

>The first thing that you should keep in mind before you read the following discussion on how the frequency response reflects on what a product actually sounds like is that listening for yourself is worth a thousand words. There is no better way of getting a feel for how the frequency response translates to sound than comparing what you hear to a graph side-by-side.

So yes the flatter the better, it's more accurate to what the music truly sounds like

None of your fallacious opinions reflect any of your claims at all

>m50 fanboys still in denial
literally just go buy a better pair of headphones and you will throw the m50s in the trash, the only reason you are defending them is because they are all you have and can afford

>You probably don't want to watch it though, it's actually kinda lewd.
what are you, a little bitch?

But you haven't actually explained how any of that translates into being worse than another option.

>Bad sound signature
>Shitty stock earpads

What do these even mean? They're meaningless distinctions. Your post is shitty, bad, awful and garbage.

How is he gonna buy better headphones if the m50's are all he can afford? Idiot.

Sup Forums and Sup Forums would be flipping their shit if they saw the amount of people defending the m50s in this thread

Show me a benchmark on human ear drums, otherwise it's meaningless to claim one headphone sounds more natural than another.

Natural meaning the way the master intended it to sound

>you're in denial for pointing out how unfounded my opinions of your choice in headphones are
You're delusional

>go buy a better pair of headphones
>better headphones = more money
>entire argument started with how the M50s were overpriced
>gets btfo by his lack of understanding how frequency response works

So that means the M50s are more accurate than the 7506 hence they have a more natural sound

This entire goddamn thread is a good reason to not bother with "premium" sound playback in any fucking way beyond buying a set of headphones/Monitors/Speaker Stack that sound good TO YOU.

If you can't get to something physically before buying then take a goddamn gamble and refund it if necessary.

Fucking Audiophiles. Bunch of jackasses being fleeced of their money.

It had nothing to do with cost
>wahhh anyone with a better setup than me is just an audiophile SNAKE OIL SNAKE OIL

>It had nothing to do with cost
You literally started with the 7506 and the first benefit you mentioned was they're under 100 dollars you fucking retard

Owned a pair of m50s for about 3 years, thought they were the best thing since sliced bread. Bought a pair of dt990 pros and despite how much I hated the Sup Forums shaped sound I realized how bad the M50s really were. Now owning a t1 tesla gen 2 and an nfb-11 it's completely apparent how bad they really were

>people enjoying a much cheaper solution
>It's shit! It's all shit! My sound system is OBJECTIVELY better, even though I can't properly explain it. You just wouldn't understand! Buzzwords!

I was thinking of getting another set like the 990 but there's nothing wrong with my M50xs now so if it's not broke don't fix it

>MINE IS BETTER CAUSE I OWN IT YOU CAN'T GIVE ME BENCHMARKS DESPITE DESCRIBING THE SOUND SIGNATURE AND EVERYTHING BAD ABOUT IT THAT'S ALL JUST BUZZWORDS WAAAHHH

just do it
buy them for a day or so and then just return them, but you seriously won't, you will ditch the m50s in a heartbeat

What's wrong with them?