Audigy4 or Extreme Fidility? 28 replies

Please wait...

Dr Zoidberg

Suck,Suck,Suck!!

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

1,340 Posts

0 Threads

#21 13 years ago

C38368EAX adds reverb. Ooooh, I so need that to play games. Sensaura was a superior technology; pity Creative got their mitts on it.

Bs~ In theory, an analogue waveform has an infinite sample rate, which is to say that you can trace the wave as a single, continuous signal (in reality, with respect to sound reproduction, a vinyl record stylus can't reach this perfect form, but comes close enough that we can't legitimately tell a difference). Digitally-stored waveforms however, cannot have this continuous signal. Instead, when the analogue waveform is digitised, the encoder samples it at a certain rate. The result is an approximation of the continuous wave made up of discrete data points. In the case of Redbook CDs, that sampling is done at 44,100 per second. Somewhere along the line 48,000 samples per second happened. 96,000 and 192,000 are both multiples of that 48,000 figure. In theory, the more samples per second in a digitised waveform, the more closely it approximates the original analogue signal, and the more "real" it sounds.

Unfortunately, as the good doctor fails to understand, upsampling (or down) can and will ruin a digital waveform if done improperly, and Creative hardware does it just so. Everything is resampled (up or down) to 48kHz (poorly) and the resampled again to whatever the output rate is using the same subpar algorithm.

And no, I cannot call the 7900GTX a waste of money on account of it having 512MB of RAM, as (unlike it's predecessors) it doesn't cost twice the "normal" model. It's no more a waste of money than the 256MB 7800GTX was, and you can argue that every which way; it isn't salient to sound cards.

Lastly, for high quality audio: $130 gets you an M-Audio Audiophile 192, which supports 24-bit/192kHz, true PCM passthrough and balanced I/O. All without the amateurish conversion algorithms. It can even sample at 44.1kHz.

What the anti-big-business hippie does not realize is that EAX is not just reverb, play halo with EAX and talk to me.

I can set my audigy card to sample at 44.1khz, and is the defualt sample rate.

Downsampling does not hurt recorded wavs, just like with a photoshop image you make the image at 2048^2 and then down size it to 1024^2 so you still retain a little bit of quality from the higher resolution version. I always record my wavs at 96khz, then downsample to 44.1, trust me it sounds better than if I recorded at 44.1.

And I do not want a $120 sound card that does not support EAX, I only paid 50 USD for my audigy 2 and I got all the features I need.




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#22 13 years ago
Dr ZoidbergDownsampling does not hurt recorded wavs, just like with a photoshop image you make the image at 2048^2 and then down size it to 1024^2 so you still retain a little bit of quality from the higher resolution version.

Following that analogy if you downsize a bitmap, you actually lose some quality...




Dr Zoidberg

Suck,Suck,Suck!!

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

1,340 Posts

0 Threads

#23 13 years ago

Guess I should have reworded that. What I ment is, Down sampling does not result in lower quality vs recording at the rate to twich it was downsampled. For example if I record at 96khz and downsample to 44.1 it will be higher quality than if I originaly recorded at 44.1

The photoshop analogy was ment to say that a downsampled 2048^2 (to 1024^2) image will be higher quality vs a 1024^2.




deathwarder

Part of the EPA's swat team

50 XP

2nd January 2006

0 Uploads

2,088 Posts

0 Threads

#24 13 years ago

this must sound like a noob question but what is a sampling rate?




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#25 13 years ago
Dr ZoidbergThe photoshop analogy was ment to say that a downsampled 2048^2 (to 1024^2) image will be higher quality vs a 1024^2.

Nothing to do with the audio debate, but you'll usually lose quality as it has to squash the image and that won't provide quality quite on a par with an image produced in that resolution to begin with. Unless it's vector based, of course.




Dr Zoidberg

Suck,Suck,Suck!!

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

1,340 Posts

0 Threads

#26 13 years ago

Do you skin?

I do, when ever I make a skin, I make it at double the resolution, it always produces a better skin vs skinning at the base resolution.

You loose quality yes, but you still retain a little detail from the high res skin.

And it is my analogy to the audio debate, so yes it has to do with it.




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#27 13 years ago
Dr ZoidbergWhat the anti-big-business hippie does not realize is that EAX is not just reverb, play halo with EAX and talk to me.

Actually, EAX is nothing more than reverb. And everything up to EAX2.0 is licensed anyway. And I love big business. I object to big business with piss-poor products.

I can set my audigy card to sample at 44.1khz, and is the defualt sample rate.

Let me put this nicely: I know more about audio than you do. Included in that knowledge is this: the ALU used on every Creative branded card since at least the original Audigy samples everything at a native 48kHz, regardless of the original waveform. The onboard algorithms that handle this do a very poor job of it. See below.

Downsampling does not hurt recorded wavs, just like with a photoshop image you make the image at 2048^2 and then down size it to 1024^2 so you still retain a little bit of quality from the higher resolution version. I always record my wavs at 96khz, then downsample to 44.1, trust me it sounds better than if I recorded at 44.1.

Math isn't your strong suit, is it? 2048 / 1024 = 2 96 / 44.1 = 2.176870748299319727891156462585 Now then, when you record via the A2, it resamples everything to 48kHz before outputting the result at whatever rate you specify. Not really a problem, going from 48 to 96kHz, except that the card will botch the original 44.1->48kHz conversion, as it isn't just a simple task of interpolating and sticking an extra sample point between each in the original data (which would give an 88.2kHz sample rate). Trust me, you have tin ears.

And I do not want a $120 sound card that does not support EAX, I only paid 50 USD for my audigy 2 and I got all the features I need.

Funny, my M-Audio supports EAX. So do the Auzentech cards (and anyway, whoever said that was for you?).

I find it rather amusing that you've spent three posts stuffing your foot into your mouth trying to defend your purchase of the card I originally identified as the only Creative card worth buying.




Dr Zoidberg

Suck,Suck,Suck!!

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

1,340 Posts

0 Threads

#28 13 years ago

C38368Actually, EAX is nothing more than reverb. And everything up to EAX2.0 is licensed anyway. And I love big business. I object to big business with piss-poor products.

Let me put this nicely: I know more about audio than you do. Included in that knowledge is this: the ALU used on every Creative branded card since at least the original Audigy samples everything at a native 48kHz, regardless of the original waveform. The onboard algorithms that handle this do a very poor job of it. See below.

Math isn't your strong suit, is it? 2048 / 1024 = 2 96 / 44.1 = 2.176870748299319727891156462585 Now then, when you record via the A2, it resamples everything to 48kHz before outputting the result at whatever rate you specify. Not really a problem, going from 48 to 96kHz, except that the card will botch the original 44.1->48kHz conversion, as it isn't just a simple task of interpolating and sticking an extra sample point between each in the original data (which would give an 88.2kHz sample rate). Trust me, you have tin ears.

Funny, my M-Audio supports EAX. So do the Auzentech cards (and anyway, whoever said that was for you?).

I find it rather amusing that you've spent three posts stuffing your foot into your mouth trying to defend your purchase of the card I originally identified as the only Creative card worth buying.

"...equally [in]competent A2..." Did you say that? I think that was your original identification of said card.

I guess skinning is not your strong suit. 2048^2= a 2048 by 2048 resolution image, or atleast that is how I express it.

And yes your card does support EAX, but only up to 2.0, which is not very good compared to the later versions. Eax is not just reverb as you say, it also does environment settings such as water, I assure you it does not reverb under water. A example in halo 2 of EAX3 is the use of environment differentiation: I stand inside of a building and hear a explosion outside of the building, the explosion is muffled and distorted because I am inside.

Knowing more about a Creative sound card does not prove you know more than I about audio, which is a very broad term in it self.

I do however acknowledge that you do know more about how the A2 posses sound data and concede to the sample rate argument, I however do not concede to your description of me as having 'tin ears'. If I may quote a forum: "The Audigy 2 converts 44.1 streams to 48kHz as well, but I haven't anywhere seen claims yet of someone actually being annoyed by the sound of it. It seems then, Creative have improved their up sampling process" (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=12257). Evidently they have, because I notice no loss of quality vs my on board AC97 audio or my very expensive CD deck.




Dr.SharK

LoL wtf, a medical shark?

50 XP

25th June 2005

0 Uploads

502 Posts

0 Threads

#29 13 years ago
C38368A2. For all its flaws (and they are substantial) it's cheap, widely-supported and for the most part one doesn't notice the butchering of sound in games. I'd recommend one of the Auzentech cards, but they're in the $80-$150 range.

Auzentech eh? I might check that out. I'm buying next week, so i'll stick around for a little longer.

I can easily spend 80 bucks on a card if it's worth it.