Analog & Digital connection confusion

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

mexican equivalent <mexican_equivalent@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I've always thought that both methods would produce identical sound
>fidelity. Am I wrong? Would the so-called "digital connection"
>method be of any improvement from the "analog connection" method?

If the converters in your receiver are better than the converters on your
soundcard, the sound will be improved. If the converters on the soundcard
are better, the sound will be degraded.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Logan Shaw" <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iphld.7701$pu3.3911@fe2.texas.rr.com
> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> mexican equivalent <mexican_equivalent@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've always thought that both methods would produce identical sound
>>> fidelity. Am I wrong? Would the so-called "digital connection"
>>> method be of any improvement from the "analog connection" method?
>>
>>
>> If the converters in your receiver are better than the converters on
>> your soundcard, the sound will be improved. If the converters on
>> the soundcard are better, the sound will be degraded.
>
> And based on what I've been hearing about most cards from Soundblaster
> (of which I believe the Audigy 2 is an example), the convertors on
> the receiver are probably better.

Good converters are getting so cheap that *everybody*, even Creative Labs
are using them. They even re-engineered the SoundBlaster Live! to have
really pretty good converters (for mid fi consumer gear). 3 years ago the
receiver might have had a clear audible edge, but this year...

I suspect the more likely difference is in the surround decoding. If you
decode surround with a decoder in a PC, you're most likely using a software
decoder that is part of the program that plays the DVD. If you decode with a
receiver, then you're using a DSP in the receiver to decode the sound.

Based on my experiences, I'd favor using the decoder in the receiver. If
nothing else, using it cuts the CPU load on the PC by quite a bit.

Also, its my general philosophy to delay any conversion to analog as far
down the signal chain as resonably possible. Signal degradation shows up in
an analog chain after fewer steps. If you keep a signal digital, it is more
likely to remain unchanged.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Carey Carlan" <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95A0A7391CDDFgulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.189.191
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in
> news:v86dnWgcTuoTcgjcRVn-2A@comcast.com:
>
>> Good converters are getting so cheap that *everybody*, even Creative
>> Labs are using them. They even re-engineered the SoundBlaster Live!
>> to have really pretty good converters (for mid fi consumer gear). 3
>> years ago the receiver might have had a clear audible edge, but this
>> year...

> The one advantage the receiver will keep forever is being farther
> away from all the hash inside the computer box that pollutes the
> signal coming out of the sound card.

This outdated thinking has been debunked many times. The inside of a modern
receiver, is hardly pristine. The quietest audio interfaces around are
wholey contained on PCI cards. Case in point - the LynxTwo which is entirely
on a PCI card and about 15 dB quieter than the M-Audio Delta 1010, whose
analog and conversion circuitry is in a separate box.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Carey Carlan" <gulfjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95A170A891229gulfjoehotmailcom@207.69.189.191
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in
> news:v_OdnYeXc_LW2grcRVn-sQ@comcast.com:
>
>>> The one advantage the receiver will keep forever is being farther
>>> away from all the hash inside the computer box that pollutes the
>>> signal coming out of the sound card.
>>
>> This outdated thinking has been debunked many times. The inside of a
>> modern receiver, is hardly pristine. The quietest audio interfaces
>> around are wholey contained on PCI cards. Case in point - the LynxTwo
>> which is entirely on a PCI card and about 15 dB quieter than the
>> M-Audio Delta 1010, whose analog and conversion circuitry is in a
>> separate box.
>
> In the specific case of a Lynx Two and other high quality and
> expensive sound cards I will agree to some extent.

> The OT has a Sound Blaster Audigy.

So what? The major source of analog noise in an Audigy is the chips on the
board.

> It fails the "move the mouse and don't hear it" test.

Not always, and if it does happen, its rarely if ever due to "hash inside
the computer box that pollutes the signal coming out of the sound card". If
you have problems with mouse movements interfering with an Audigy, the cause
is almost always bus domination by the video card. This is not an electrical
noise problem.

I've run Audigys many times, with zero interference from mouse movement.

The results of the "move the mouse and don't hear it" test are almost
always irrelevant to "hash inside the computer box that pollutes the signal
coming out of the sound card". This problem usually relates to bus
domination by the video card. It is often even more problematical in the
same PC with audio interfaces (examples: USB and Firewire) whose audio
circuitry is outside of the PC box.