Best Sound out of laptop

[BigBen 0]

Having sorted a laptop (see here) I am now keen to here about preferences to connectivity. Currently, I take the source direct from the headphones socket - Gasp! I hear you all say! Well, I used to use a SoundBlaster Extigy external sound card and I could never tell the slightest difference so all the extra wires and stuff stay at home now.

 

However, the shiny new lappie is just another phase in the replacement of all gear process. The speakers were replaced first, then the lappie; new mixer and cd-player in the coming weeks. Naturally, I want this setup to sound as good as possible so I am weighing up the alternatives with laptop sound output. I could dust off the Extigy but I expect newer gear will have even better technology that will squeeze a bit more quality out of the sound.

 

So, what do you guys recommend?

[Digital discos 0]

Echo Indigo PCMCIA card?

[Jimbo55 0]

The one BIG advantage that a good external soundcard can give is the full use of the cue channels available in the software. (There are quick and dirty ways around this but it results in mono outputI). If you have a multi output sound card on a laptop (Very rare) they are usully top quality. I have three High end latops and have not noticed any real difference is sound quality between internal and external sound cards. I have used the Extigy and came to the same conclusion.

 

Jimbo

[buskersball 0]

I have three PCs running at the moment (one laptop, one mini pC and one full size) and my soundcards are Echo Indigo, Alcatech Inca and a Creative Extigy. I would say the difference in quality is to all intents and purposes inaudable, especially given the variable acoustics of rooms and the background noise of a 'party'.

What gives the Inca the edge (so I presume the Maya too) is the breakout box where you can connect standard jacks. It may be psychological on my part, but I know if one of the leads fail I have a number of replacements...whereas the tiny stereo jacks I use with the other two don't quite instill the same confidence...especially as there is only one stereo out, whereas the Inca has two mono outs.

I'd certainly look for this in a soundcard over any marginal 'claimed' improvement in sound quality

[transeurope 0]

I know that my hearing is more sensetive to compression effects than many people. I say this because my response will be atypical of your crowd and you may want to bear that in mind.

 

When I say "compression effects" here I include both the MP3 compression, and the lack of dynamic range and resolution induced by low-end sound cards.

 

I have never come across a laptop soundcard that sounded good. I think the Creatives are not great either. When a friend of mine upgraded to a Mya I could tell even though I didn't have access to the DJ box during the night. The resolution and dynamics were so much better.

 

In the end he agreed and re-ripped his MP3s to 320kbps from 128kbps, because HE began to notice compression artefacts when he was using his new card, which he had never noticed before.

 

He had sworn to me before that I was being too fussy by ripping at 320.

 

At another disco I confidently predicted to a friend before seeing his setup that he had changed sound card.

 

He hadn't! Due to delivery mess up, he had no laptop and was running on CDs!

 

Some people can tell these things and some can't. I guess its up to you to decide whether the minority in the crowd are important enough to buy high quality sound cards.

 

PS: I'm not totally over the top on sound. I find 320kbps and a good soundcard quite enjoyable.

[analyst 0]

QUOTE

In the end he agreed and re-ripped his MP3s to 320kbps from 128kbps

Now that statement is one I've heard before, and it worries me http://www.dj-forum.co.uk/html//emoticons/fear.gif

Please, please tell me you meant it to say,

". . .he agreed and re-ripped his CD's to 320kbps . . "

 

You cannot and must not re-encode an mp3 to a higher bitrate. What's lost is lost forever. All you will get is a crappy 128kbps mp3 locked in a 320kbps bloated file, with no gain in quality. You have to go back to the original CD and re-encode it to mp3 at your chosen higher bitrate.

 

Now when it comes to the other issues (prepare to be bored once again)

 

I agree 128kbps CBR is over-compressed for quality sound.

I disagree that 320kbps CBR is necessary for quality sound. In fact, since very few components of a music track ever demand 320 kbps encoding, you will find a good part of your 320kbps file is made up of fresh air and now't else. Go on kidding yourself if you must.

 

The biggest quality failure in mp3's happens because people use crap CD Rippers, and then also use crap mp3 encoding engines, and all that is further compounded by using over-compression, i.e. too low a bitrate. Then, to really finish 'em off, they play them using crap mp3 decoding engines.

 

The answer is simple and I've said all this before, but for the sheer hell of it, I'll say it all again.

 

If you use Exact Audio Copy (EAC) as a CD ripper you will be guaranteed perfection ripping. This isn't some idle "preference" I'm expressing here. It is simple proven fact, enthused by audiophiles the world over. No other CD ripper works quite like it. If EAC finds a fault as it is ripping it simply keeps on resampling till it gets it dead right.

 

OK, now we come to mp3 encoding, another minefield.

Believe it or not, people are still using Xing encoders - though many probably don't even know what encoding engine is inside their proprietory "mp3 maker" software package.

 

I would first recommend ditching Continuous Bitrate Encoding (CBR) in favour of Variable Bitrate Encoding (VBR) - the early issues with players not recognising VBR header info to give accurate track lengths is really old hat.

 

Using a LAME encoder, and a preferred preset for high quality VBR (say about 192- 200 ish kbps) will give you an mp3 which is indistinguishable from an original CD.

 

I'd defy 99% of people to show an accurate preference on a properly constituted double-blind test.

 

But we haven't finished yet.

Having got a high quality mp3 encoded, it can all be ruined by using a crap decoding engine, and there are plenty of those around too. So yeah, even with a perfect mp3, if you go on and play it using a poor quality decoder, it will sound flawed and not as good as a CD.

 

And then, after all that, we come to the quality of the soundcard . . .

[RobbieD 0]

Hi analyst,

 

Some very useful info there.

 

QUOTE (analyst @ Jul 17 2006, 05:14 PM)

Having got a high quality mp3 encoded, it can all be ruined by using a crap decoding engine, and there are plenty of those around too. So yeah, even with a perfect mp3, if you go on and play it using a poor quality decoder, it will sound flawed and not as good as a CD.

So is the decoding engine part of the DJ playback software (OTS, PCDJ, BPM Studio, etc) or is it seperate software that you can change, regardless of the DJ software?

 

What are the best decoding engines for our use?

 

[FDDJ 0]

Just to add to this, I found this post on the Hydrogen Audio forum very helpful for explaining LAME settings.

 

It also explains how to set up LAME for EAC.

Edited July 17, 2006 by StevJam

[transeurope 0]

While I agree with some of your points analyst, I was very careful to say, and he was very careful to do RE-RIPPING, not transcoding.

 

So yeah, obviously there is nothing to be gained from transcoding uprate, we kinda all know that, except maybe for raw beginners, so maybe your point may prove useful to them.

 

I can tell the difference between 320 and WAV and 320 and lower bitrates. I use LAME, virtually everybody I know does.

 

EAC is falling off its perch for ripping against the new WMP though. Check out modern audiophile forums for a lot of dissatisfaction with EAC and the way it handles modern CDROMs and modern CDs.

 

This is hardly surprising given the comparative difference in resources between EAC and Microsoft. MS never targetted media properly before now. Vista will be a ground-up media-centric system. Now they're playing it for real.

 

On my own PC you are far more likely to get a DAE with EAC and to add insult to injury it reports no errors! Even quite audible pops! It wasn't always like this though, only in the last year or so.

 

 

[analyst 0]

QUOTE (RobbieD @ Jul 17 2006, 04:38 PM)

So is the decoding engine part of the DJ playback software (OTS, PCDJ, BPM Studio, etc) or is it seperate software that you can change, regardless of the DJ software?

no, it isn't separate and you can't normally change it as it is integrated within the package

 

QUOTE

What are the best decoding engines for our use?

This is a very complex issue to deal with here.

However, Dave Robinson at Essex University did some excellent work on this as part of his PhD research some time ago.

 

However, if you accept that it is rather dated now, but nevertheless it is quite an education in its own right, you can enjoy some bed-time reading here