or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Xonar U3 USB DAC
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Xonar U3 USB DAC - Page 3

post #31 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylit View Post



 

I've already tested that card and noticed quite a bit of latency. Just sayin.
 

 

what you expect from small cards

 

post #32 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom2011 View Post



what you expect from small cards

 


A working product. Especially if it has gaming plastered all over the freaking box. 
 

 

post #33 of 82

price?

 

post #34 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylit View Post



 

I've already tested that card and noticed quite a bit of latency. Infact, I couldn't use it because it was so "laggy". While the Higher EAX level is good for the small handfull of older games that support it, I honestly don't see the point of output beyond 16/48khz. Especially for gaming. Just sayin.
 

Edit: Okay, there's 2 versions of the card, but the xfi Go! Pro is also limited to 16 bit/4xkhz.

 



Which version did you test, the regular Go! or the "Pro" Go!? And what exactly are you basing yourself on to make that claim?

 

So am I to lol hard for you to associate EAX with output formats? tongue.gif

post #35 of 82

I tested the Go Pro. Maybe I received a defective unit, but the delay was quite noticeable compared to my dedicated cards including the onboard realtek.

 

I wasn't associating EAX for Output. I was clearly stating that there's only a small library of EAX enabled games still played today.  I was also stating that I don't see the point of output beyond 16/48khz when my games, music and even movies won't support anything higher.

 

Hardly anyone has music recorded 96khz or 192khz so that's kind of a moot point for you to make for a device that's targeted towards portability.

 

 

My apologies for wording that wrong.

 

 

post #36 of 82

There was a reason why I put quotes on Pro. The regular Go! has better specs and has proven to be a more reliable unit.

 

Next time state clearly that you don't require output formats higher than base USB Class, as there are many users with higher resolution content that do benefit from it. And it should be noted it's not just about sample rate.

 

It's good to know that you think portability is inherently associated with low quality. I think not. But do get that Xonar U3 if lower specs is what you prefer.

 

EDIT: Overall, I think it's great that there are more mainstream products for this segment, as it forces manufacturers to be competitive, and the end user is who wins from this. So I'm all for Xonar U3 going around :)


Edited by Roller - 7/12/11 at 1:52pm
post #37 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roller View Post

There was a reason why I put quotes on Pro. The regular Go! has better specs and has proven to be a more reliable unit.

 

Next time state clearly that you don't require output formats higher than base USB Class, as there are many users with higher resolution content that do benefit from it. And it should be noted it's not just about sample rate.

 

It's good to know that you think portability is inherently associated with low quality. I think not. But do get that Xonar U3 if lower specs is what you prefer.

 

Better specs as in capable of a higher bit rate and output resolution? That doesn't prove anything as far as SQ goes and I think you're silly if you think it does.

 

Now sir. Did I say portability is inherently associated with low quality? I think not, but please share how many 24bit  96khz or 192khz files are in your library. I'm interested.

 

post #38 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylit View Post



 

Better specs as in capable of a higher bit rate and output resolution? That doesn't prove anything as far as SQ goes and I think you're silly if you think it does.

 

Now sir. Did I say portability is inherently associated with low quality? I think not, but please share how many 24bit  96khz or 192khz files are in your library. I'm interested.

 



I'm sorry, did you already mention any way in how lower specs are better? Right, I didn't think so either.

 

If you don't realize the importance of higher dynamic range for audio processing, that's your issue, not mine.

 

Seriously, stick with onboard.

post #39 of 82

Stick with onboard?

 

You're practically trying to say that a basic DSP with a higher sample and or bit rate is better than any quality DAC setup with "only" 16bit/44.1/48khz output. You're lucky that there aren't any audio purist in this thread because they would literally eat you alive.

 

Don't get me wrong, I do understand that a DSP capable of higher sample rate is indeed theoretically better than the standard formats for files recorded in that bit or sample rate, but please don't act like you have a library full of those HQ files.

 

 

This is a portable device not intended to fully replace a sound card. I bought mine for gaming. My purchase is justified. DONE.


Edited by Skylit - 7/12/11 at 3:02pm
post #40 of 82

"quality DAC"? That deserves another lol if you're talking about the U3. And did you talked about theoretical improvements? Right. Taking you more and more seriously.

 

Like I said, enjoy your U3.

 

Have a nice day.

post #41 of 82

Oh man, you've actually heard the U3 or are you just assuming it sucks? And no, I wasn't talking about the U3 because I clearly haven't received it yet to make that fine judgement sir.

 

lol here lol there, I'm still loling if you think the original XFI go is good because it's capable of higher sample and bit rates. Please do yourself a favor and brush up on the subject at hand before you make yourself look silly again.

 

Theoretical? Yes. I didn't know two pairs of ears were the same if you're assuming it automatically sounds better, but generally it should and you are correct for the limited HI Res content we have as consumers. Man.. I was confident my Musiland Monitor @ 16/44.1k was perfectly fine for audio enjoyment, but I better buy a 24 bit audigy SE cus my $125 DAC isn't capable of a higher bit rate :( /sarcasm

 

 


Edited by Skylit - 7/12/11 at 4:15pm
post #42 of 82
I'm going to start off saying that I know that a person should not hear any difference in audio when the source is only 16@44, and I know people have said this before and gotten flamed for it, but I'm going to anyways since I would be willing to do a blind test. I'm almost 100% certain I would be able to indicate to the tester which are the different kHz and which are 16 or 24bit (or in the case of the WinAmp MAD plugin, 32bit). With kHz the biggest change is the audio has far more bass with the codec (VIA VT2020 in this case) set to 44.1k. When testing out 192k the bass isn't as prominent, but in turn the mids and highs pick up a bit more. One could say that the lower lows are a result of the other frequencies picking up since my Shures only have balanced armature drivers, but the lows aren't thumpy enough to cause that in the first place. Not saying the changes are huge, but they are also not slight enough to be placebo either. 96k is a rather happy-medium between the two, but I still prefer 192k, at least for Trance. For Industrial music, then I find 44.1/48k to be a little better with offering up more low end punch.

The bitrate change is a little harder for me to explain though. Native support for 16 & 24bit doesn't result in a huge change to the audio, and my testing did not really concentrate on 16bit. Still, it's interesting that despite any music I have all being 16bit, that the change between 32bit software via pluginand 24bit (still technically software since it's an onboard codec) is again quite noticeable. How I describe it is like listening to music through a pipe, where the bitrate is like the pipe's diameter. The difference between 16 and 24 is slight at best, but 24 to 32 is quite interesting, sounding as though the sound stage (I believe is the correct term) is far wider. Almost as if the audio is bottle necked by the lower bitrate, again despite only being encoded at 16bit.

Either way, I don't really expect anyone to believe me and that is fine, but I just felt it an interesting observation worth noting. Which BTW, the audible difference in bitrate isn't just me either, as a friend on a totally difference system noticed it as well (using Paradigm speakers through a Technics receiver, fed by a modded Audigy 2 ZS).
post #43 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylit View Post

As long as there's no major latency involved, I may start recommending this little thing to competitive gamers that want to use analog headphones like the AD700s instead of USB headsets @ lans.

 

That's exactly what I had in mind. But what I don't know is, how badly does USB2 affect performance?? USB has overheads and takes CPU time. I once tried to play counterstrike while copying files from one USB HDD to another. To my surprise, it was completely unplayable!
 

 

 

Creative is junk. A no go. Lacks dolby headphone anyway. Creative is moot.

post #44 of 82

well you have my total attention now but i am not quite sure if i got yours thou hello

 

 

 

 

what you mean by latency

post #45 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.Duck View Post



That's exactly what I had in mind. But what I don't know is, how badly does USB2 affect performance?? USB has overheads and takes CPU time. I once tried to play counterstrike while copying files from one USB HDD to another. To my surprise, it was completely unplayable!
 

 

 

Creative is junk. A no go. Lacks dolby headphone anyway. Creative is moot.



If you're gaming, you don't copy files through USB, it's that simple. It's not rocket science for one to realize such basic things.

 

Dolby headphone? Lol, it's a matter of preference, and honestly I think both CMSS and DH are junk as software surround emulation.

 

I find it so funny how people are discussing latency about a small form factor USB gaming card, when that's the least important factor, given that there is no realtime recordings going on.

 

Asus lacks EAX (yes, I went there)(oh right, it has the same EAX support as onboard audio chips) and full OpenAL support, therefore Asus is moot. Is this the point where the thread went? Lame.

 

EDIT: Given that gaming or competitive gaming isn't made on netbooks, the CPU load subject is near irrelevant.


Edited by Roller - 7/13/11 at 8:40am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Xonar U3 USB DAC