Onboard Sound Vs. Add in Sound Card

[tweakpower]

Originally Posted by Mufflore

No matter what sub you have (as long as it is powerful enough), you still tune it to the same level SPL.
But there are reasons why you should use a large sub and reasons why you should use a small one, can you think of any?

Can you provide any proof of your claim about smaller subwoofers?

Well, i can't give you any "proof" whatsoever. But, ask some professional musicians (those who have ear..hmhmhm ) and I'm 100% sure they will tell you the same, more power = less quality. Optimal quality vs. power for Hi-Fi systems is 8" for sub woofer. Again, it depends on other things ofc.

Best way to test it, if you ever heard live bass (natural bass, counterbass, don't know name sorry), and then try to find speaker that will reproduce sound close to it, none of them will do as original instrument, but some will be closer, and there is that comes to play.

Originally Posted by RagDoll_Effect

LOL, well any 8 inch sub that's from a brand for home theater

Here's a sub 14 inch woofers

http://www.definitivetech.com/Produc...erCube_Trinity

Goes from 10hz-200hz 2000 watts rms

regards,
RagDoll.

I get some error , but 10HZ, there, all subs play the same Silence ofc.

[Mufflore]

Originally Posted by tweakpower

Well, i can't give you any "proof" whatsoever. But, ask some professional musicians (those who have ear..hmhmhm ) and I'm 100% sure they will tell you the same, more power = less quality. Optimal quality vs. power for Hi-Fi systems is 8" for sub woofer. Again, it depends on other things ofc.

Best way to test it, if you ever heard live bass (natural bass, counterbass, don't know name sorry), and then try to find speaker that will reproduce sound close to it, none of them will do as original instrument, but some will be closer, and there is that comes to play.

I am an ex pro musician, what you said is incorrect.
Tell us how a smaller sub is better and why.
Tell us how larger speaker subs are not as good, as you claim.

[tweakpower]

Originally Posted by Mufflore

I am an ex pro musician.
Tell us how a smaller sub is better and why.
Tell us how larger speaker subs are not as good, as you claim.

Ok i will try.

Subs are not the same as other speakers, for all speakers box and membrane are important parts, for tweeters for example, box is not that important, for middle range, it is, but not so much, and for subs, you know that without good box, sub is nothing.

Same goes for membrane, as it is a part of speaker, and it makes sound. Now larger membranes, if we follow logic will more often deform then smaller, also, it will move slower on some parts then smaller, and that's where they loose quality.

I'm not saying it is better, at the end, it really depends what your aim is, power or better quality. Take for example studio recordings, in very professional studios, you can't see large speakers. Now ask yourself why, it is not mine claim, it is well known fact for more then 100 years or so

[Mufflore]

That would mean larger bass cones have problems running up to their crossover frequency, say 100Hz.
It isnt the case.

The size of the cone allows for a certain displacement of air.
This helps determines the maximum power a sub can generate.
The amount of power you need is determined by the space the sub is placed in and how loud you want it to go.

Larger cones have a lower natural upper -3dB point and respond lower too, but they are easily within operational limits in a hifi.
If you want to experience everything your music and movie collection has to offer, you wont get it from an 8" cone.

[tweakpower]

Originally Posted by Mufflore

That would mean larger bass cones have problems running up to their crossover frequency, say 100Hz.
It isnt the case.

The size of the cone allows for a certain displacement of air.
This helps determines the maximum power a sub can generate.
The amount of power you need is determined by the space the sub is placed in and how loud you want it to go.

Larger cones have a lower natural upper -3dB point and respond lower too, but they are easily within operational limits in a hifi.
If you want to experience everything your music and movie collection has to offer, you wont get it from an 8" cone.

Ok, and there is a catch, 6-8" cone (now i know the term on English) are perfect for all freq. With larger cones, you get a "booming" effect, ant that's not a good thing, when you hear "boom" when actually that "boom" douse not exist. But, yet we can argue about this till tomorrow, there is no use, and we get a bit off topic also.

[RagDoll_Effect]

Originally Posted by tweakpower

Ok, and there is a catch, 6-8" cone (now i know the term on English) are perfect for all freq. With larger cones, you get a "booming" effect, ant that's not a good thing, when you hear "boom" when actually that "boom" douse not exist. But, yet we can argue about this till tomorrow, there is no use, and we get a bit off topic also.

LMAO, that's doesn't sound right to me, lol pun intended

[tweakpower]

Originally Posted by RagDoll_Effect

LMAO, that's doesn't sound right to me, lol pun intended

Ok, everyone have a right for it's own opinion . It's not that important, but i know I am right. Power vs. quality, always been, and always will be. Take for example soccer players

[Mufflore]

Originally Posted by tweakpower

Ok, and there is a catch, 6-8" cone (now i know the term on English) are perfect for all freq. With larger cones, you get a "booming" effect, ant that's not a good thing, when you hear "boom" when actually that "boom" douse not exist. But, yet we can argue about this till tomorrow, there is no use, and we get a bit off topic also.

8" cones have a resonant frequency too, the speaker parameters are included in the cabinet design to prevent this being a problem, same for larger cones.
A decent subwoofer will give a pretty flat response along its specified operating range, it will tame internal and speaker resonance.
But this doesnt necessarily translate into a flat response with no resonance when put in a room.
So the sub may need EQing in some fashion and the room may need treating to reduce resonance, positioning can help too.

This is very normal.


8" cones do not respond very well to lowest registers, they need to be forced with a lot of power to compensate if you want them.
This reduces max headroom.
They are frequency and headroom limited compared to a larger cone.

[sykozis]

Originally Posted by tweakpower

Ok, and there is a catch, 6-8" cone (now i know the term on English) are perfect for all freq. With larger cones, you get a "booming" effect, ant that's not a good thing, when you hear "boom" when actually that "boom" douse not exist. But, yet we can argue about this till tomorrow, there is no use, and we get a bit off topic also.

If you're getting a "boom" effect....either the cabinet, source(power) or environment isn't proper for the sub....fact. If the sub is placed in the proper cabinet and environment and provided proper power....that "boom" effect will never occur. (That is according to a man with over 30 years doing professional audio. Everything from recording studios to home theatre to music halls.)

[tweakpower]

Originally Posted by Mufflore

8" cones have a resonant frequency too, the speaker parameters are included in the cabinet design to prevent this being a problem, same for larger cones.
A decent subwoofer will give a pretty flat response along its specified operating range, it will tame internal and speaker resonance.
But this doesnt necessarily translate into a flat response with no resonance when put in a room.
So the sub may need EQing in some fashion and the room may need treating to reduce resonance, positioning can help too.

This is very normal.

8" cones do not respond very well to lowest registers, they need to be forced with a lot of power to compensate if you want them.
This reduces max headroom.
They are frequency and headroom limited compared to a larger cone.

Larger subs are also limited, as you know, sub freq is not just 30Hz, it is below 100Hz, so subs should be capable of doing whole range and more. It is harder for larger subs to do all freq. response properly. There is a difference between doing it, and doing it properly, who ever heard some good acustic bass will spot it easily.

Originally Posted by sykozis

If you're getting a "boom" effect....either the cabinet, source(power) or environment isn't proper for the sub....fact. If the sub is placed in the proper cabinet and environment and provided proper power....that "boom" effect will never occur. (That is according to a man with over 30 years doing professional audio. Everything from recording studios to home theatre to music halls.)

Then you know when u use JBL or EV bass bins (with 15" subs), you get that very same "boom" effect no matter what you do. At the end, it is not bad for concert etc. but when you compare it to say symphony orchestra, you get clear picture . Those are professional speakers made for power, they can't do much quality. Thee are also pro speakers for studios, and they are always in range of 6-8".

[Mufflore]

Originally Posted by tweakpower

Larger subs are also limited

Explain how they are limited.
I already told you they have no trouble in their upper response and have better lower response.

as you know, sub freq is not just 30Hz, it is below 100Hz, so subs should be capable of doing whole range and more

Sub bass extends well below 30Hz, so by your definition, a sub that cant do that isnt up to the task.
You're starting to understand the limitations of a small cone, it cant produce the lower tones.

It is harder for larger subs to do all freq. response properly.

How so, what is it they cant do?
Be precise, you dont want to be misunderstood.

There is a difference between doing it, and doing it properly, who ever heard some good acustic bass will spot it easily

Define properly.

[Mufflore]

Originally Posted by tweakpower

Then you know when u use JBL or EV bass bins (with 15" subs), you get that very same "boom" effect no matter what you do.

Simple solution, learn to set it up.

[tweakpower]

Originally Posted by Mufflore

Explain how they are limited.
I already told you they have no trouble in their upper response and have better lower response.

Sub bass extends well below 30Hz, so by your definition, a sub that cant do that isnt up to the task.
You're starting to understand the limitations of a small cone, it cant produce the lower tones.

How so, what is it they cant do?
Be precise, you dont want to be misunderstood.

Define properly.

Well, you told me, but that's not true, tell me how they have no trouble in higher freq.? I mean, i can't really explain to you in teh. terms.

By definition, sub bass is below 100Hz, below 30Hz is very close to human limit (in most cases 20Hz or higher). If 10Hz is well below, then i can agree with you. In reality, most speakers will not do 30Hz or lower (especially those made for home). Those subs that do bass that shake walls are mostly arround 40Hz.

I can't be precise, especially when i speak former language, but, we can talk about power, freq. range etc. That's all numbers, what is not number, is what you actually hear. Large subs, are not capable to produce that rich pleasant vibrations/sound like small ones douse. And idk how to explain that to you if you didn't hear it.

We should open topic for this, i was first one who goes off topic, sorry for that. But anyways, with today music, quality is not as important.

"Simple solution, learn to set it up."

I would like to hear how it sounds when you set it up. It would be first time in my life to hear actual quality from JBL and EV

[sykozis]

Originally Posted by tweakpower

Then you know when u use JBL or EV bass bins (with 15" subs), you get that very same "boom" effect no matter what you do. At the end, it is not bad for concert etc. but when you compare it to say symphony orchestra, you get clear picture . Those are professional speakers made for power, they can't do much quality. Thee are also pro speakers for studios, and they are always in range of 6-8".

My JL Audio 15" sub had no "boom" effect at all when supplied proper power and installed in the proper enclosure. I guess my professional is just damn good =D

[TruMutton_200Hz]

http://barefacedbass.com/technical-i...y-response.htm
Now can we go back on topic please?

[Mufflore]

Originally Posted by tweakpower

Well, you told me, but that's not true, tell me how they have no trouble in higher freq.?

What do you call higher frequency?
Most subs extend well over 100Hz, many higher, is that high enough?

I mean, i can't really explain to you in teh. terms.

Explain it mathematically.

By definition, sub bass is below 100Hz, below 30Hz is very close to human limit (in most cases 20Hz or higher).

I'd like to see this definition that sub bass is below 100Hz.

Human limit?
If you mean hearing, thats not all that subwoofers are capable of.
They produce bass, LFE (Low Frequency Effects) and sub bass that we feel as well.

Whatever you do, dont Google using the terms 'sub bass definition', you might accidentally learn something

If 10Hz is well below, then i can agree with you.

Yes, 10Hz is below 30Hz.

In reality, most speakers will not do 30Hz or lower (especially those made for home). Those subs that do bass that shake walls are mostly arround 40Hz.

Thats why a subwoofer is needed, to go... lower.
They produce other bass tones as well, which is why you can set the crossover higher.

If you mean that some subwoofers have a lower cutoff of 40Hz, get one that has deeper extension.
Subwoofer specs are available to read and reviews are posted online, its your problem if you buy something you dont want.

I can't be precise, especially when i speak former language, but, we can talk about power, freq. range etc. That's all numbers, what is not number, is what you actually hear. Large subs, are not capable to produce that rich pleasant vibrations/sound like small ones douse. And idk how to explain that to you if you didn't hear it.

We are starting to understand that you cannot backup your case.
Can you tell us what equipment you listened to that made you draw this conclusion?
Theres an internet of resources you can draw on if you want to further demonstrate your point.

We should open topic for this, i was first one who goes off topic, sorry for that.

The topic isnt a problem, its your understanding that is.

But anyways, with today music, quality is not as important.

Please provide evidence that todays music cannot benefit from a quality hifi.

[tweakpower]

What do you call higher frequency?
Most subs extend well over 100Hz, many higher, is that high enough?

Yes, that's high enough, say to 1000-2000Hz, numbers are not that relevant, as i said.

Explain it mathematically.

What is a technical term other then math?

I'd like to see this definition that sub bass is below 100Hz.

Human limit?
If you mean hearing, thats not all that subwoofers are capable of.
They produce bass, LFE (Low Frequency Effects) and sub bass that we feel as well.

Whatever you do, dont Google using the terms 'sub bass definition', you might accidentally learn something

Well, i don't use google . Definition is simple as it is, sub woofer, got his name for ability to produce sub freq., at the time when it was invented, classic woofers had ability to do 100Hz and higher freq., so, below 100hz get is name sub freq. For no reason, except limit of the current technology (at that time ofc.). So there is really nothing more to tell about it, it is one imaginary line... nothing more, nothing less...In people that LFE is called simply "vibration", after all, that's what sound really is.

Yes, 10Hz is below 30Hz.

You was confused here, by not reading, or underestimated what i said. You said "far bellow 30Hz", IF 10Hz difference is "far" bellow, I said, i agree with you, reality is that that's not FAR below.

Thats why a subwoofer is needed, to go... lower.
They produce other bass tones as well, which is why you can set the crossover higher.

If you mean that some subwoofers have a lower cutoff of 40Hz, get one that has deeper extension.
Subwoofer specs are available to read and reviews are posted online, its your problem if you buy something you dont want.

Yes, they are posted, and that's mine point you successfully missed. Most subs do not fulfill rated specs, even better ones. That was the point.

We are starting to understand that you cannot backup your case.
Can you tell us what equipment you listened to that made you draw this conclusion?

Theres an internet of resources you can draw on if you want to further demonstrate your point.

Yes, i can't backup this claim, and as i said, it is not mine claim, it happened that i know this for a long time, and when is told to me, i find it quite logic, after that, just observed, in various types of systems, ranged from Hi-Fi to professional, even in clubs etc., and they just confirmed that claim. Because i like bass (seems like you do also) i paid attention to that.

The topic isnt a problem, its your understanding that is.

You are first person who told me that , but i think you should read something more then once.

Please provide evidence that todays music cannot benefit from a quality hifi.

I don't know what you listen really, I'm talking about "popular" music. Synthesized sound, digital sound, i think it says enough. Rarely, you can find songs that are produced with real instruments. Sometimes i think you quoted wrong person, you pull something i didn't said, and make it like i said it... read again what i wrote. "But anyways, with today music, quality is not as important." I didn't said it will not benefit, but benefits will be less obvious - in other words.

For internet sources, i wouldn't relay on them that much anyway, you know, it is internet, anyone can write anything . Anyway, you maybe never heard of it before, but i can only suggest you, now you saw what i said (again, it is not mine claim, i just confirmed that claim), and you can test it, and see if it's true. And if you find it true, that's fine, if not, fine again. But that again can't confirm anything, if you can't hear it, well, i don't know, then maybe it is your problem, or maybe I am the one with the problem and all those people who claim that.

And last thing, you realise that nether I nor you was born 500 000 years ago, so, even if we want, we can't know it all. We can assume, we can introduce knowledge we have, or we can introduce logic. I see you use knowledge, and knowledge is limited, while logic is unlimited. I prefer logic .

[Mufflore]

Originally Posted by tweakpower

Yes, that's high enough, say to 1000-2000Hz, numbers are not that relevant, as i said.

Why do you need a sub woofer to extend into the mid range? That is the job of a woofer and/or mid range speaker.
The numbers are relevant, otherwise we would have the same problems as you.

So you now agree that a larger subwoofer is clearly capable of producing bass frequencies high enough and produces frequencies much lower than a smaller sub.

What is a technical term other then math?

I gave you another way to explain yourself and understand because words fail you.
Perhaps there really isnt a way for you to digest information.

Well, i don't use google . Definition is simple as it is, sub woofer, got his name for ability to produce sub freq., at the time when it was invented, classic woofers had ability to do 100Hz and higher freq., so, below 100hz get is name sub freq. For no reason, except limit of the current technology (at that time ofc.). So there is really nothing more to tell about it, it is one imaginary line... nothing more, nothing less...In people that LFE is called simply "vibration", after all, that's what sound really is.

Its clear you choose to not educate yourself by any means, even when spoon fed information.
You stated that sub bass is defined as below 100Hz.
If this is true, there will be a definition you can show us that states exactly this.
If you cant show us this definition backing up your claim, you are making things up.

You was confused here, by not reading, or underestimated what i said. You said "far bellow 30Hz", IF 10Hz difference is "far" bellow, I said, i agree with you, reality is that that's not FAR below.

I guess this was too subtle for you, a lack of understanding of the basics will do that.
Have you heard of an octave?
Explain why or how this is relevant.

Yes, they are posted, and that's mine point you successfully missed. Most subs do not fulfill rated specs, even better ones. That was the point.

You arent reading too clearly.
In the post you quoted, I mentioned that you should read online reviews.
Seeing as you choose to run completely blind, its probable that you will not only have problems with your rooms frequency response and decay, but you also have a badly designed sub.
The subs rated specs are not what matter, its the actual specs that you need.
If you choose to do no testing or ignore the results of testing, you can only blame yourself.

Yes, i can't backup this claim, and as i said, it is not mine claim, it happened that i know this for a long time, and when is told to me, i find it quite logic, after that, just observed, in various types of systems, ranged from Hi-Fi to professional, even in clubs etc., and they just confirmed that claim. Because i like bass (seems like you do also) i paid attention to that.

When I first joined school, another child told me that hot and cold were separate entities.
Later I learned about heat energy and realised hot and cold are different places on the same scale.

Somebody told you something that you believed as it seemed to fit your own experience.
Later you find out there is more to the topic and the problems you have had or seen previously, have solutions.
But you are actually prepared to spend time arguing rather than educating yourself.

You are being spoonfed information that you can verify but you have chosen to remain uneducated.

You are first person who told me that , but i think you should read something more then once.

Ironic, you refuse to research and then make this claim, lol.
You arent 5 years old (I dont think), you can do more than quote what someone told you.

I don't know what you listen really, I'm talking about "popular" music. Synthesized sound, digital sound, i think it says enough. Rarely, you can find songs that are produced with real instruments. Sometimes i think you quoted wrong person, you pull something i didn't said, and make it like i said it... read again what i wrote. "But anyways, with today music, quality is not as important." I didn't said it will not benefit, but benefits will be less obvious - in other words.

Its your lack of understanding that makes you think I am talking to the wrong person.
If you understand the topic even a little, you will understand why I ask certain questions.

Have you heard of frequency response, phase, decay, harmonics ... ?
Can you tell us why these matter or as you think, have no relevance?

For internet sources, i wouldn't relay on them that much anyway, you know, it is internet, anyone can write anything . Anyway, you maybe never heard of it before, but i can only suggest you, now you saw what i said (again, it is not mine claim, i just confirmed that claim), and you can test it, and see if it's true. And if you find it true, that's fine, if not, fine again. But that again can't confirm anything, if you can't hear it, well, i don't know, then maybe it is your problem, or maybe I am the one with the problem and all those people who claim that.

Its pretty clear that you would rather not learn anything and make up excuses instead.
You rely on second hand information and havent verified any of it is factual, yet you state it as fact.
What do you use for a technical resource?

And last thing, you realise that nether I nor you was born 500 000 years ago, so, even if we want, we can't know it all. We can assume, we can introduce knowledge we have, or we can introduce logic. I see you use knowledge, and knowledge is limited, while logic is unlimited. I prefer logic .

lol.
You dont need to know it all, just things relevant to the topic of discussion.
You seem to be unclear on too many things.
Hifi wasnt around 500,000 years ago fyi.

The information you need has been handed to you but you have chosen to disregard it.
This tells us more about you than anything
You may be logical, but if the information you use isnt correct, logic cannot fix that and ultimately you end up with un-intelligable results.
This is what you have presented us with.

[Mufflore]

Originally Posted by tweakpower

I would like to hear how it sounds when you set it up. It would be first time in my life to hear actual quality from JBL and EV

Missed this.

So you have conceded that what you have heard could be badly designed subs and that its not the size of the cone that is the problem.
Assuming they have been set up correctly as well, of which you remain willfully ignorant so you wouldnt know.

[tweakpower]

Why do you need a sub woofer to extend into the mid range? That is the job of a woofer and/or mid range speaker.
The numbers are relevant, otherwise we would have the same problems as you.

Ok, let's leave it at that. Bass guitar is able to produce well over 3000Hz. I'm based on that, real word instrument, but in other words, you are right.

So you now agree that a larger subwoofer is clearly capable of producing bass frequencies high enough and produces frequencies much lower than a smaller sub.

No, i don't agree. I will explain at the end, just to get rid of those multiquites.

I gave you another way to explain yourself and understand because words fail you.
Perhaps there really isnt a way for you to digest information.

Maybe, for me tech. terms is math, and i can't explain with it, simply because of lack of knowledge.
I

ts clear you choose to not educate yourself by any means, even when spoon fed information.
You stated that sub bass is defined as below 100Hz.
If this is true, there will be a definition you can show us that states exactly this.
If you cant show us this definition backing up your claim, you are making things up.

It's what i learned, you can always prove me otherwise.

I guess this was too subtle for you, a lack of understanding of the basics will do that.
Have you heard of an octave?
Explain why or how this is relevant.

Nothing really to say here, if you still claim that 10Hz difference is a large dif. on very end of hearing scale, then I'm OK with it, your opinion, i respect it.
You arent reading too clearly.

In the post you quoted, I mentioned that you should read online reviews.
Seeing as you choose to run completely blind, its probable that you will not only have problems with your rooms frequency response and decay, but you also have a badly designed sub.
The subs rated specs are not what matter, its the actual specs that you need.
If you choose to do no testing or ignore the results of testing, you can only blame yourself.

I don't know where did you read i have any problem with sound system i use whatsoever? But let it leave there, and talk about what was started (mine fault) this chitchat. That goes to your needs also, if i make sound systems, and i state in their specs they are capable of doing something that they aren't, it is not your fault as consumer, but mine as producer. That was the point.

When I first joined school, another child told me that hot and cold were separate entities.
Later I learned about heat energy and realised hot and cold are different places on the same scale.

If you used logic (all people are capable of using it, don;t make excuses), you would know that way before you started to learn in school .

Somebody told you something that you believed as it seemed to fit your own experience.
Later you find out there is more to the topic and the problems you have had or seen previously, have solutions.
But you are actually prepared to spend time arguing rather than educating yourself.

Again, i don't have any problem (except poor sound in Win 7, I'm using XP, that's dif. topic, i got answer for it, ty). Will explain there, to get rid of mq.

You are being spoonfed information that you can verify but you have chosen to remain uneducated.

Again, below.

Ironic, you refuse to research and then make this claim, lol.
You arent 5 years old (I dont think), you can do more than quote what someone told you.

Sure, but that "someone" is not person who don't know what he (they) talk about. So why would i research it on internet, when those ppl have much more expirience then me or anyone here, and they proved me their claims?

Its your lack of understanding that makes you think I am talking to the wrong person.
If you understand the topic even a little, you will understand why I ask certain questions.

Have you heard of frequency response, phase, decay, harmonics ... ?
Can you tell us why these matter or as you think, have no relevance?

I was just stating that you pull words from me that i didn't said. Again, i didn't said it has no relevance. Read again man

Its pretty clear that you would rather not learn anything and make up excuses instead.
You rely on second hand information and havent verified any of it is factual, yet you state it as fact.
What do you use for a technical resource?

Well, i answered that. For me, fact is, when i sit in club/room/open and listen, and hear/feel. There is really nothing more relevant to me then that. at the end, that's the job speakers do.

lol.
You dont need to know it all, just things relevant to the topic of discussion.
You seem to be unclear on too many things.
Hifi wasnt around 500,000 years ago fyi.

The information you need has been handed to you but you have chosen to disregard it.
This tells us more about you than anything
You may be logical, but if the information you use isnt correct, logic cannot fix that and ultimately you end up with un-intelligable results.
This is what you have presented us with.

I can't state that Hifi wasn't around 500 000 years ago, i don't know that , but I'm glad you know it , still, i will not accept it as a fact, since i can't verify it at this time . Yes, based on need, as you, or any other person, i choose what is relevant, what's not, and then, ignore given information, or accept and verify it.
[QUOTE=Mufflore;4332041]Missed this.

So you have conceded that what you have heard could be badly designed subs and that its not the size of the cone that is the problem.
Assuming they have been set up correctly as well, of which you remain willfully ignorant so you wouldnt know.

Now, for this, let me tell you something you most probably know. Most speakers have they purpose, and, different from professional, Hi-Fi systems are multi purpose. I can assume when you test setup, you don't use just audacity or any other tone generating program, but also music. And even with some simple but yet very useful program as audacity, when you generate tone say 40Hz, you don't look at monitor or something and tell, well this is 40Hz, but you listen also. Based on what you hear, you draw your conclusions. If i generate 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80...110Hz tone, assuming everything was tuned fine, from good speaker, i expect to play all those freq. as it should, if fails, then, you can call it bad speaker. That's all that matters and what is relevant to me, not numbers.

Again, test it, and see if it's true or not. I saw that most capable speakers are in range 6-8" with 0.5 range ofc.

[ROBSCIX]

Topic guys, stay on the proper topic.

[nyrmetros]

If I were in the market for a sub $100 addon sound card for a gaming system, what would be the most recommended card?

[GenClaymore]

If you care about gaming features then Auzentech X-FI Prelude/Forte, a used X-FI Xtreme gamer and Classic titanium under 100 on amazon.

I seen a used X-Fi Titanium HD PCi-E for around $105 which is a great choice. I seen Auzentech Bravura's on ebay for $50 a couple of times. Same with the Forte.

The Recon3D is sub 100 but it uses cheap component's and doesn't have good quality components like the Asus cards.

If you don't care about gaming features then Xonar DG is a good choice and it has a decent hp amp. Of course it can't drive higher ohm headphones so you be fine as long you dont have headphones that req alot of power.

Xonar STX can be gotten for $139 used if you can add more money over your budget. But if you can add extra money then both Xonar STX or a X-Fi Titanium HD PCI-E would be your best choice since the X-Fi HD PCi-E can be gotten on amazon for 130 used.

[ROBSCIX]

I would look to the used market. Used X-Fi's, Xonars...etc. Your budget is good for what you need well it is enough to get a good card anyway.

[jwh7]

Originally Posted by ROBSCIX

I would look to the used market. Used X-Fi's, Xonars...etc. Your budget is good for what you need well it is enough to get a good card anyway.

I agree w/ GenC and Rob...just installed a Prelude last night, that I got on ebay last week for $81 shipped. And there were a couple completed auctions I checked that had ended for around $65, but that's supply & demand for ya.
In regard to the onboard, I had being using the onboard Realtek 889A, and getting surround/EAX working on some of my old games; like using Soft OpenAL for BF2, creative's v1.30 dsound.dll for Thief2, and Realtek's Soundback for BFV (oddly, BF42 surround sound worked without a hitch). But I was getting annoyed with BFV audio/EAX issues in Win7 with the Realtek (persistant echo effect issue easily fixed in XP, but not Win7). So, rather than throw my ol' Live5.1 in and mess w/ the kX or daniel_k drivers, I decided it was finally time to reach beyond EAX2.0. And I wanted to avoid Creative brand cards, on principle.
Speaking of the Live5.1, I remember that I had last used it to replace the onboard on my previous main PC (Epox NF3 Athlon64), and that was a tremendous improvement. Of course, I did do back-to-back music test comparisons for that, but not the Prelude. What can I say...I was anxious. It doesn't seem quite as noticable a difference versus the 889A, but regardless, the gaming audio is definitely better.