Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ths61]

Is it possible to do 2.1 or 2.2 audio with 2 stereo sound cards (e.g. 2 Xonar Essance STXs with no external DACs) with JRMC18 or do you need a multi-channel card like a Lynx AES16e?

If so, how do you assign specific channels to specific cards in JRMC18? 

I am looking to add low and high pass XO's as well as equalization.

TIA

[mwillems]

Is it possible to do 2.1 or 2.2 audio with 2 stereo sound cards (e.g. 2 Xonar Essance STXs with no external DACs) with JRMC18 or do you need a multi-channel card like a Lynx AES16e?

If so, how do you assign specific channels to specific cards in JRMC18?  

I am looking to add low and high pass XO's as well as equalization.

TIA

The short answer is that you need a card with as many channels as you plan to use for output at any one time.  Two STX's probably won't work, but you could get an Asus ST with the H6 daughterboard (which would give you 8 channels for less than the cost of two STXs).  JRiver has the capability to route outputs like you're describing, and it will play to both at once, but there's a large and (as far as I know) unresolvable problem with using two DACs.

The basic problem with simultaneous playback to two DACs is that (unless they're synced to the same word clock, or master/slaved, neither of which the STX supports) they won't be synchronized in their playback.  Some people will tell you that non-asynchronous DACs will sync to the motherboard clock and so should play at the same rate.  But it isn't that simple, as almost all non-asynchronous DACs do some slight time-shifting to account for jitter, and they do it on their own schedule.

I tried an experiment with two identical non-asynchronous DACs (admittedly not STXs) hoping to do exactly what you're describing (I have bi-amped main speakers and use JRiver as my crossover), and they would start out loosely synced, but then would just gradually drift farther and farther apart in time, and there was no way to correct it because each DAC was playing data at it's own rate.

I currently use an Asus ST/H-6 combo and can recommend it highly with JRiver for multichannel audio. If you happen to already have two STXs sitting on your desk and want to try and repeat my experiment with them, let me know and I'll talk you through the configuration steps, but I wouldn't recommend buying two for this purpose as it almost certainly won't work.

[ths61]

...  but you could get an Asus ST with the H6 daughterboard (which would give you 8 channels for less than the cost of two STXs).   ...

I currently use an Asus ST/H-6 combo and can recommend it highly with JRiver for multichannel audio. If you happen to already have two STXs sitting on your desk and want to try and repeat my experiment with them, let me know and I'll talk you through the configuration steps, but I wouldn't recommend buying two for this purpose as it almost certainly won't work.

Thanks for the quick response.  I saw the Asus ST/H6 combo, but my MoBo (Asus Sabertooth Z77) is all PCIe, not PCI.  It doesn't look like the H6 works with the STX, only the ST. 

I haven't seen too many quality multi-channel PCIe cards out there unless you go to something like the aging Lynx AES16e.

[mwillems]

Thanks for the quick response.  I saw the Asus ST/H6 combo, but my MoBo (Asus Sabertooth Z77) is all PCIe, not PCI.  It doesn't look like the H6 works with the STX, only the ST.  

I haven't seen too many quality multi-channel PCIe cards out there unless you go to something like the aging Lynx AES16e.

The H6 does not work with the STX unfortunately.  I can offer one suggestion:  the Asus DX.  It's got 8-channels out and is a PCI-E card.  I used to use one before I got my ST/H6.  While I prefer the ST, the difference in sound between the two was actually pretty subtle.  The DX is a very quiet card, and it's noisefloor is almost as low as the ST/STX.  And it's only around $80.  

The only "hitch" is that it requires a separate molex power connector and my DX was somewhat sensitive to what else was connected to the same molex (i.e. it would pick up noise from harddrives or fans on the same connector), but I hunted around and managed to find a molex connector with which it was dead quiet (the one going to my blu-ray/DVD drives).  That said, the ST had the exact same molex problem, and actually seemed more sensitive to line noise, so that's not a reason to avoid the DX.    

Check out this article for some detailed measurements: http://techreport.com/review/14500/asus-xonar-dx-sound-card

[ths61]

The H6 does not work with the STX unfortunately.  I can offer one suggestion:  the Asus DX.  It's got 8-channels out and is a PCI-E card.  I used to use one before I got my ST/H6.  While I prefer the ST, the difference in sound between the two was actually pretty subtle.  The DX is a very quiet card, and it's noisefloor is almost as low as the ST/STX.  And it's only around $80.  

The only "hitch" is that it requires a separate molex power connector and my DX was somewhat sensitive to what else was connected to the same molex (i.e. it would pick up noise from harddrives or fans on the same connector), but I hunted around and managed to find a molex connector with which it was dead quiet (the one going to my blu-ray/DVD drives).  That said, the ST had the exact same molex problem, and actually seemed more sensitive to line noise, so that's not a reason to avoid the DX.    

Check out this article for some detailed measurements: http://techreport.com/review/14500/asus-xonar-dx-sound-card

I did some reading on the DX card and there are a lot of reports of driver problems with Win7-64.  I did some searching and found some PCIe to PCI adapter cards.  It looks like the H6 does not use the PCI connections, only the ASUS harness to the ST, thus would only need 1 PCIe to PCI connection.

I am leaning towards trying the PCIe to PCI/ST/H6 solution.

[mwillems]

I did some reading on the DX card and there are a lot of reports of driver problems with Win7-64.  I did some searching and found some PCIe to PCI adapter cards.  It looks like the H6 does not use the PCI connections, only the ASUS harness to the ST, thus would only need 1 PCIe to PCI connection.

I am leaning towards trying the PCIe to PCI/ST/H6 solution.

That could work, although I feel compelled to mention that PCIe bridges can be flaky (I tried using one with an M-Audio card a while back with mixed results, but that's an entirely different hardware setup).  

I'll offer one additional note.  The same driver problems you're reading about with the DX will probably apply to the ST as well, because Asus uses the same (or similar) driver package for most of their cards, but there's a workaround.  I ran both the DX and the ST in Windows 7 64-bit with no problems, but I didn't (and don't) use the Asus drivers.  Asus's drivers are terrible (at least with these cards in Win7).  There are 3rd party drivers that work absolutely great in Win7 (called the Unified drivers).  Regardless of which card you wind up buying, I recommend highly that you use the Unified drivers.  

Looking forward to hearing your impressions of whatever solution you land on.

[The Big Labinski]

Hi ths61, I would propose a cheap USB 7.1 soundcard. With such a device you can send from mono to 8 channels to an analoge or digital receiver.
Personally I´m very happy with my LogiLing 7.1 Channel USB Sound Box.

Take care and easy

Stefan

[eddyshere]

Thanks for the quick response.  I saw the Asus ST/H6 combo, but my MoBo (Asus Sabertooth Z77) is all PCIe, not PCI.  It doesn't look like the H6 works with the STX, only the ST.  

One option could be the HDAV 1.3 deluxe as it has the same audio quality than the STX but is PCI-e and you have the H6 which for this prize tag has a lot to offer

[audunth]

The basic problem with simultaneous playback to two DACs is that (unless they're synced to the same word clock, or master/slaved, neither of which the STX supports) they won't be synchronized in their playback.  Some people will tell you that non-asynchronous DACs will sync to the motherboard clock and so should play at the same rate.  But it isn't that simple, as almost all non-asynchronous DACs do some slight time-shifting to account for jitter, and they do it on their own schedule.

I can't really believe that's a big problem. If it was, how could one play video on a computer? Surely the picture and sound couldn't be synced? In MC, you can even choose whether the video should sync to the audio or vice versa (by enabling videoclock). Reclock is another program that will take charge of the audio clock. Also, MC supports linking/syncing zones, playing the same audio in different rooms. What good would that feature be if sound couldn't be synced? Is it only possible using only one sound card for several zones?

I'm absolutely sure that if the developers of MC wanted to, they could implement support for using several sound cards/DACs for different channels in the same zone. How much work it would be and if it's a priority, that's a different thing. I myself would love to see the feature, since it would open up a whole new marked of using several high-end Hifi DACs, which, except for one (the Exasound e18) comes with only 2 channels, and even that one doesn't have enough channels for me. I need 9, because at some point I will be getting another sub for my home theater, and since I need room correction, 2 subs can't be connected to the same output. I also would like to run a 2.1 or setup in the living room using 2 DACs instead of having to get a multichannel one for that zone too.

For the record, I don't believe a multichannel sound card made for musicians can produce the same sound quality as a purpose built high end Hifi DAC. There's a reason the Exasound e18 costs many times more than most 8 channel musician cards, even if it has a lot less features. Probably the same reason a Velodyne DD18 Plus costs many times than most subwoofers, even though they all play bass, and at least 99% will be satisfied with a much cheaper subwoofer.

[mwillems]

I can't really believe that's a big problem. If it was, how could one play video on a computer? Surely the picture and sound couldn't be synced? In MC, you can even choose whether the video should sync to the audio or vice versa (by enabling videoclock). Reclock is another program that will take charge of the audio clock. Also, MC supports linking/syncing zones, playing the same audio in different rooms. What good would that feature be if sound couldn't be synced? Is it only possible using only one sound card for several zones?

I'm absolutely sure that if the developers of MC wanted to, they could implement support for using several sound cards/DACs for different channels in the same zone.

I don't know whether it would be possible to eventually write software to do it (although I have no way of knowing firsthand, it may be possible with some DACs). The DAC, at a hardware level has to handle the data sent to it by the computer without jitter.  Some DACs (asynchronous) use their own internal clock and will ignore external timing information.  Such a DAC will play at its own rate unless it supports an external sync.  Non-asynchronous DACs still do some subtle timeshifting to reduce jitter, and that may not be controllable in software.  But I really don't know if it would be possible in the future or not, and couldn't know without knowing a lot more about DAC designs.  

Here's what I can confirm: the linked zone functionality that currently exists in MC did not sync precisely enough to use two different non-asynchronous DACs in my active setup.  I know this because I tried it with two identical stereo DACs, and, while I could get them linked and playing the same sound, they did not stay synced.  They gradually drifted away from each other at a variable rate, which couldn't be addressed by simply changing the sync settings in JRiver.  

I'm not aware of anyone else who has succeeded in getting two DACs to correctly sync whether in JRiver or using other software (without syncing them to an external clock or master/slaving them, which many DACs do not support).  

If you have succeeded at this, or are aware of someone who has, I'm all ears and would love to try it out.  I agree that the market for quality Stereo DACS is much thicker market than the quality 8-channel DAC market, and if someone came up with a software solution that would link up two stereo DACs and turn them into what is effectively a 4-channel DAC, I'd be first in line to pay for it (right after I bought two ODACs)    

[ths61]

Hi ths61, I would propose a cheap USB 7.1 soundcard. With such a device you can send from mono to 8 channels to an analoge or digital receiver.
Personally I´m very happy with my LogiLing 7.1 Channel USB Sound Box.

Take care and easy

Stefan

Hi Stefan,

I currently have a Xonar Essence STX which is a 7.1 channel digital out card.  I am trying to avoid using a HT decoder for the 2.1 office system since I already have the stereo and sub amps.

Regards,
Tim

[ths61]

One option could be the HDAV 1.3 deluxe as it has the same audio quality than the STX but is PCI-e and you have the H6 which for this prize tag has a lot to offer

Eddy,

The HDAV 1.3 Deluxe looks like it would fit the bill, but it also looks like it is discontinued.  I don't see any ETailers that carry it.

Thanks,
Tim

[audunth]

I don't know whether it would be possible to eventually write software to do it (although I have no way of knowing firsthand, it may be possible with some DACs). The DAC, at a hardware level has to handle the data sent to it by the computer without jitter.  Some DACs (asynchronous) use their own internal clock and will ignore external timing information.  Such a DAC will play at its own rate unless it supports an external sync.  Non-asynchronous DACs still do some subtle timeshifting to reduce jitter, and that may not be controllable in software.  But I really don't know if it would be possible in the future or not, and couldn't know without knowing a lot more about DAC designs.

So what you're saying is that music played from a computer never plays at the correct speed. MC has already written software that changes the speed of the sound, it's called Videoclock and makes sure the audio syncs to the video so that the video can play at exactly the fps it's meant to. Reclock, which has been around for many years, does the same. Why couldn't the same technique be used to keep two sound cards in sync? Is it too degradable for sound quality? Or doesn't Videoclock/Reclock work with external sound cards?

Besides, on my system, the audio stays synced with the video without any signs of stuttering through a whole movie without using Videoclock. On all 3 sound cards I currently have (external USB, internal on motherboard and HDMI out through video card). Of course, it could be so little out of sync that I don't notice it...and it would probably take less to notice it if it was different speakers going out of sync..?

[mwillems]

So what you're saying is that music played from a computer never plays at the correct speed. MC has already written software that changes the speed of the sound, it's called Videoclock and makes sure the audio syncs to the video so that the video can play at exactly the fps it's meant to. Reclock, which has been around for many years, does the same. Why couldn't the same technique be used to keep two sound cards in sync? Is it too degradable for sound quality? Or doesn't Videoclock/Reclock work with external sound cards?

Besides, on my system, the audio stays synced with the video without any signs of stuttering through a whole movie without using Videoclock. On all 3 sound cards I currently have (external USB, internal on motherboard and HDMI out through video card). Of course, it could be so little out of sync that I don't notice it...and it would probably take less to notice it if it was different speakers going out of sync..?

The way videoclock works (as I understand it) is by changing the speed of the video to match the audio, not the other way around.  Video stays in sync without videoclock in part because video software (or the video data itself) imposes a "clock" on the video stream to keep it synced to the audio.  Without videoclock it will stay synced; it will just wind up dropping or repeating video frames once in a while to maintain the sync.  Videoclock resolves that by subtly reclocking the video to match the sound without dropped or repeated frames. [EDIT: This portion of the post is incorrect, see below]

I can confirm that audio being even a little out of sync is very noticeable, so that may be part of the problem.  For example, in my active setup I need 1.2 milliseconds of delay on the mid-bass channels to get my crossover to work correctly.  If I set my delay to .9 milliseconds (a difference of 1/3 of a millisecond) I get complete cancellation in the crossover region: a 30 dB null with a half-octave Q!  It gets better again at .6 milliseconds, but at .3 we're back to the null.  So even fairly small timing variations can have a very large effect in active systems, and any software that attempted to sync two DACs would need to be very precise.  

Like I said above: what you're describing may be possible to do in software, or it may not be possible. Or it may be possible with some DACs and not with others.  I'm not really in a position to judge whether it *could* be done, I just know I couldn't get it to work with the software tools available to me, and I'm not aware of a working solution.  

[audunth]

The way videoclock works (as I understand it) is by changing the speed of the video to match the audio, not the other way around.  Video stays in sync without videoclock in part because video software (or the video data itself) imposes a "clock" on the video stream to keep it synced to the audio.  Without videoclock it will stay synced; it will just wind up dropping or repeating video frames once in a while to maintain the sync.  Videoclock resolves that by subtly reclocking the video to match the sound without dropped or repeated frames.

I don't think that's how Videoclock works. The whole point is to adjust the audio so the video doesn't need to be adjusted, because to adjust the video, you HAVE TO repeat frames or remove frames, and that's what is done to maintain sync WITHOUT Videoclock. By adjusting the audio instead, the video can play at exactly the framerate it's supposed to, or the exact framerate of your display, thus avoiding any stuttering.

In options it even says "VideoClock (smooths video by adjusting audio)".

Maybe Matt can help us out here...

By the way, this is from the ReClock page:

What is it ?
The purpose of ReClock is to definitely get rid of jerky playback of AVI and MPEG material on a PC (or a HTPC driving a TV, a flat panel, or a video-projector). It's a DirectShow filter which is loaded in place of the default directsound audio renderer.
It provides a new reference clock that is locked to the video card hardware clock, in order to ensure that frames are played at the exact speed of what is expected by the video card vertical sync.
It also provides a frame rate adaptator for media files that do not match a multiple of the video card refresh rate (ex: playback of 23,976fps IVTC NTSC on a PAL TV).
The combination of the two will give you the true experience of smooth playback with your PC.
Finally it is an audio renderer with hardware or software rate adaptation in real-time, multi-channel audio, audio timestretching (pal speedup compensation) and dynamic range compression capabilities.

I can confirm that audio being even a little out of sync is very noticeable, so that may be part of the problem.  For example, in my active setup I need 1.2 milliseconds of delay on the mid-bass channels to get my crossover to work correctly.  If I set my delay to .9 milliseconds (a difference of 1/3 of a millisecond) I get complete cancellation in the crossover region: a 30 dB null with a half-octave Q!  It gets better again at .6 milliseconds, but at .3 we're back to the null.  So even fairly small timing variations can have a very large effect in active systems, and any software that attempted to sync two DACs would need to be very precise.

Okay, that little out of sync wouldn't be noticable in lipsync. It takes more like 50-100 milliseconds to really notice that the picture is out of sync, unless you're specifically looking for it.

[JimH]

I don't think that's how Videoclock works. The whole point is to adjust the audio so the video doesn't need to be adjusted ...

That's correct.

[mwillems]

I don't think that's how Videoclock works. The whole point is to adjust the audio so the video doesn't need to be adjusted, because to adjust the video, you HAVE TO repeat frames or remove frames, and that's what is done to maintain sync WITHOUT Videoclock. By adjusting the audio instead, the video can play at exactly the framerate it's supposed to, or the exact framerate of your display, thus avoiding any stuttering.

That's correct.

I stand corrected    So it sounds like JRiver (or some enterprising software designer) could potentially sync two DACs at some point in the future. 

[audunth]

Well, I think EVERYTHING is possible, as long as you don't ask them to make your computer pour coffee or anything like that

[eddyshere]

The HDAV 1.3 Deluxe looks like it would fit the bill, but it also looks like it is discontinued.  I don't see any ETailers that carry it.

and ebay ??...if you can't get hold of one you can pm me .... I shall still have some lying around as I fitted all my htpc's with these in the ol'days of "selective" PAP....... 

[audunth]

A question somewhat related to this: If I get a 12 channel USB DAC/soundcard, assign 9 channels to the 7.2 home theater setup and 3 to the 2.1 setup in the living room through ASIO and 2 different zones in MC, will I be able to link the zones and play music simultaneously in both rooms (for example at a party)? Or can only one zone use the soundcard at one time?

Does assigning separate channels for different zones using ASIO work trouble free? (If the answer to the first question is no it's not the end of the world, but if assigning the channels properly for the different zones is troublesome, it's a bigger problem.)

[mwillems]

A question somewhat related to this: If I get a 12 channel USB DAC/soundcard, assign 9 channels to the 7.2 home theater setup and 3 to the 2.1 setup in the living room through ASIO and 2 different zones in MC, will I be able to link the zones and play music simultaneously in both rooms (for example at a party)? Or can only one zone use the soundcard at one time?

Does assigning separate channels for different zones using ASIO work trouble free? (If the answer to the first question is no it's not the end of the world, but if assigning the channels properly for the different zones is troublesome, it's a bigger problem.)

You could do what you're describing with a single zone by mixing and copying channels in PEQ.  PEQ will let you do very flexible channel routing.  You'd be playing all twelve channels in a single zone, but you could get the 2.1 system playing the same music as the 7.2 setup. 

As to whether you can use two different zones for this, I know that last time I tried I couldn't get multiple zones to play to the same device using native ASIO drivers or WASAPI event style, but it makes sense that exclusive modes might not tolerate multiple attempts to play to the same device. 

I'll test with non-exclusive WASAPI when I get home, and report back.

[audunth]

Well, that's all right, I can just set up 3 zones then, one for HT only, one for living room only and one for both. The ASIO channel routing works as it should, right? No problems assigning the right channels into the right speakers?

[mwillems]

Well, that's all right, I can just set up 3 zones then, one for HT only, one for living room only and one for both. The ASIO channel routing works as it should, right? No problems assigning the right channels into the right speakers?

You just have to identify which channels are attached to which outputs.  For example, I have an 8 channel output soundcard.  When I'm outputting in 5.1 mode channels 0 and 1 are left and right, 2 and 3 are sub and center, and 4 and 5 are SL and SR.  When I output to 7.1 the channel names are the same up to 3, but channels 4 and 5 are addressed by the software as RR and RL (this is because the 7.1 channel ordering convention is different).  Above channel 7, I think it just starts numbering them.

The punchline being you'll need to figure out what JRiver is calling the specific channels that you have hooked up, and the naming convention might be different for different channel output settings (I've never tried to use a 12 channel output, so I don't know, for example, if it follows the 5.1 or the 7.1 naming convention). 

But once you've figured out the naming convention, channel routing should work as expected.  PEQ lets you copy, move, add, subtract different channels, so you can move them around however you please. 

[ths61]

and ebay ??...if you can't get hold of one you can pm me .... I shall still have some lying around as I fitted all my htpc's with these in the ol'days of "selective" PAP....... 

PM sent.  Nothing on eBay.