192khz Sound Card

[ericgcollyer]

I recently have gotten fed up with my current sound card. Its not the greatest card but has served me decently well for the past couple of years (although the drivers have been super buggy the whole time). I have finally saved up a bit of money to replace it. My budget is up to $250. I do quite a bit of recording and editing and I do most in 192khz. I am looking for a sound card that can play audio back at that sample rate. I do not need a whole lot of connections, standard 1/8 inch connections are fine. I do some work in 5.1, so I would need a card that supports 5.1. Has anyone had a particularly good experience with a particular card?

[wevsspot]

The four that I would consider and that stay within your budget;

 

1. Creative X-Fi Titanium HD - (my current card)

1. HT Omega Claro Halo (PCI) - never owned but gets great reviews

2. HT Omega eClaro (PCIe) - never owned but gets great reviews

3. Asus Xonar Essence STX - used for about 6 months then sold because I needed the cash

 

I loved the headphone amp on the Xonar STX.  The Omega Claro Halo also has a discrete headphone amp.

[d6bmg]

^^ I had 3 of them at some point of time or another.

Currently I'm using Xonar STX, and believe me, it's wonderful for it's price.

Edited June 25, 2013 by d6bmg

[Tjj226_Angel]

How exactly is your system setup now? 

 

Are you using your sound card for your mic as well, or do you have a dedicated capture device for your music?

 

What sound card were you using before?

[ir_cow]

the only one I can recommend is the Sound Blaster ZxR because of TI BURR-BROWN audio chip. Best sound chip around (I think) , makes low quailty audio sound great. Now that being said Creative sucks at support and that fact they dropped all support for older cards the second vista came out and I was burnned on $200 card. I won't buy from them again.

 

edit: I have a few stand-alone players with Burr-Bown in it. SACD, Blu-Ray, AVR.  really great chip if you want high quality audio. But again it depends on the quality of everything else, the chip can only do so much. I don't think many people really understand audio and anything past on-board is amazing. I can hear the difference between CD, MP3, Loseless and Lossy. sucks my speakers only go to 25khz as do 99% of home audio. you have to pay big bucks for 44khz and i don't think anything exist for 192.

[Tjj226_Angel]

the only one I can recommend is the Sound Blaster ZxR because of TI BURR-BROWN audio chip. Best sound chip around (I think) , makes low quailty audio sound great. Now that being said Creative sucks at support and that fact they dropped all support for older cards the second vista came out and I was burnned on $200 card. I won't buy from them again.

 

edit: I have a few stand-alone players with Burr-Bown in it. SACD, Blu-Ray, AVR.  really great chip if you want high quality audio. But again it depends on the quality of everything else, the chip can only do so much. I don't think many people really understand audio and anything past on-board is amazing. I can hear the difference between CD, MP3, Loseless and Lossy. sucks my speakers only go to 25khz as do 99% of home audio. you have to pay big bucks for 44khz and i don't think anything exist for 192.

 

 

Like anything, it depends on the particular burr brown chip they used and how the design of the particular DAC utilizes it. Wolfson (again, depending on the particular chip and design implementation) generally make better dac chips. 

 

No offense, but dafaq are you talking about? 

 

Your speakers have a frequency response that is rated for XXhz all the way up to XXkhz. This is the frequency of the actual sound. The "average" range of human hearing is 20hz-20khz. Some people are capable of hearing frequencies beyond these ranges, and some people fall short of the normal range. Your millage may vary. If your speakers say they go from 20hz-25khz......you are just fine. 

 

The 192 he is referring to is called the sample rate. Technically it also needs a bit depth to go along with it, so it should say 24bit/192kHz sound card. Really, the best way to explain it is with a piece of paper, but thankfully we have youtube, so enjoy this video 

[ir_cow]

ever look at speaker frequency response? unless it's a studio monitor or a 2k speaker you are not going to find anything above 27khz response. This is why it's not very important for sample rate / frequency. Well I take it back 24-bit alone sounds better no matter the frequency because it's just holding more data.  What is important is DAC and from the research ive done Burr Brown hands down is the best.

[Master Binky]

Psh, made some plasma speakers before, best audio response possible.

[ir_cow]

Psh, made some plasma speakers before, best audio response possible.

[Tjj226_Angel]

ever look at speaker frequency response? unless it's a studio monitor or a 2k speaker you are not going to find anything above 27khz response. This is why it's not very important for sample rate / frequency. Well I take it back 24-bit alone sounds better no matter the frequency because it's just holding more data.  What is important is DAC and from the research ive done Burr Brown hands down is the best.

 

Your still confused. 

 

The sample rate and frequency response are two totally separate values. Your speaker frequency response is the range of sound wave frequencies your speaker can produce. If your frequency range is 20hz to 20khz than your speakers can not produce sound waves at frequencies higher than 20khz or lower than 20hz. 

 

The sample rate is how many sample of the music per second can your dac can handle per second. 

 

24bit/192khz is the highest digital recording quality there is (on the consumer market that I know of). The higher your sample rate and bit depth, the better QUALITY your music will be. ((((in theory)))). The sample rate has absolutely NOTHING to do with frequency response. 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

burr brown, wolfson, texas instruments (you almost never see them), and several others all make different spec chips. Saying anyone of them is the best (regardless of research) without hearing the rest of them is......lets say not accurate. 

 

I have heard many wolfson dacs that sound superb, and I have heard many burr brown dacs that are great as well. Plus, the dac quality is not measured by the chip alone. It is just not that simple. You still have to also consider the quality of capacitors and resistors and all sorts of other things. You can also have tube dacs which sound better still. So it is far from being cut and dry. 

[ir_cow]

I think we both been arguing the same point lol . your last post is what I've been saying all along . but you are not going to find any 44khz speaker less than a few hundred, that's why I was saying a super high quailty sound card is pointless . just need a decent one .

[Tjj226_Angel]

I think we both been arguing the same point lol . your last post is what I've been saying all along . but you are not going to find any 44khz speaker less than a few hundred, that's why I was saying a super high quailty sound card is pointless . just need a decent one .

 

.....maybe? These are the comments that keep leaving me with a big question mark. 

 

"sucks my speakers only go to 25khz as do 99% of home audio. you have to pay big bucks for 44khz and i don't think anything exist for 192."

 

All speakers can play back 192khz sample rate so long as they have the dac that can convert a 192khz source into a analog signal. I know of almost no speaker that can produce a 44khz sound wave without being something like an electrostatic speaker or a plasma speaker. Plus it would be stupid to may money for that feature considering there is no way on earth that you would be even able to hear that type of sound anyways. 

 

Am I missing something? Was this a joke that I took out of context perhaps? 

 

"ever look at speaker frequency response? unless it's a studio monitor or a 2k speaker you are not going to find anything above 27khz response. This is why it's not very important for sample rate / frequency."

 

This could be poor wording, or me staying up till 2 trying to get a project done. 

 

At face value, this is untrue. Again, sample rate (at an extremely basic level) has to deal with the quality of the analog signal being produced, or it refers to the level of quality the digital source retains from the analog signal. 

 

Frequency response should not be in the same conversation as sample rate. 

 

Unless you are talking about the controversy between 44.1khz sample rates (CD quality) vs 96khz or 192 khz sample rates? But then why bring up frequency response?

 

"but you are not going to find any 44khz speaker less than a few hundred, that's why I was saying a super high quailty sound card is pointless . just need a decent one . "

 

The ONLY reason it would be silly to get a high end sound card is if you could have gotten dedicated hardware for the same price of the sound card. 

 

Usually higher end sound cards have more features and a better design than their lower end counterparts. Case in point, there is a massive sound quality difference between the asus DX and the asus stx. 

 

If you believed I am still confused, please tell me so I don't keep stealing this thread. 

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

@OP: I would still like to know what your current setup is?