Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Video Games Discussion › Mad Lust Envy's Headphone Gaming Guide: (Update: 7/9/2014: Ultrasone HFI-15G Added)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mad Lust Envy's Headphone Gaming Guide: (Update: 7/9/2014: Ultrasone HFI-15G Added) - Page 1149

post #17221 of 24887
Thread Starter 
Are you certain? So if you change your Xonar settings, it will also change the sound device settings? I ask because settings like that aren't always tied together.

So, say changing your Xonar settings to 2 channels, will the playback devices change to 2 channel as well?

I can't test it myself right now, since my U3 is at home...
post #17222 of 24887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

Are you certain? So if you change your Xonar settings, it will also change the sound device settings? I ask because settings like that aren't always tied together.

So, say changing your Xonar settings to 2 channels, will the playback devices change to 2 channel as well?

I can't test it myself right now, since my U3 is at home...


yes, see it for yourself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2qT_baLFNQ

post #17223 of 24887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

This would've been nice to know when I first got the E17 ages ago, and left it at 16/48, when it was capable of 24/96...



Although that's only a benefit if you have actual 24/96 files.  The vast majority of music is 16/44.1 (meaning it came from a CD). 

 

It's a good idea to set the bit depth to 24, since it won't negatively affect anything.  I believe in general it's recommend to the sample rate to whatever the majority of your audio is going to be though.  If you set it to a higher value you will needlessly incur sample rate conversion on everything, which means you will lose "bit-perfect" playback. 

 

An easier option is to use WASAPI exclusive mode where you get automatic sample rate switching so that the source file is sent to the DAC with no conversion (meaning you get bit-perfect playback for every file - even if they are of different sample rates).  I use MusicBee and it does this.  I tested it using my HRT streamer and I could see the sample rate lights on the DAC switching as a sent it different sample rate audio files via music bee in WASAPI mode.

 

 

...Nice wallpaper btw ;)

post #17224 of 24887
Thread Starter 
The benefit with 24bit is the oversampling, so if you for example lower the PC volume (and not the amp volume), you're not losing bit information until you pass a certain volume point. Some people like to control their volume with the PC control (sometimes it's just easier), so having some headroom without losing sound quality is a good thing indeed. Doing the same with 16bit audio, you're losing fidelity...


This is a definite plus of Schiit Magni owners with sensitive headphones, as the Magni has a bit too much gain, and leaving Pc volume at 100% (like typically wanted) gives almost no headroom to adjust volume with the Magni before it gets too loud. Lowering PC volume to say something like 75% gives the magni volume control some play, and you won't lose fidelity, due to the oversampling.

Of course, some dacs due oversampling better than others. I believe both Audio Gd and Fiio both state to leave it at the highest possible rate the dacs support, because that's how they designed them to work at their best.

Ironically, my Compass 2 had problems running in 32bit/192 9some skipping and glitching when audio files started), and I had to lower it to 24/96 before the problems went away.

I have to try that Wasapi auto switching sometime.
Edited by Mad Lust Envy - 10/13/13 at 12:34am
post #17225 of 24887

Oversampling technically deals with the sample rate, not the bit depth. 

 

Setting the bit depth to 24 is good because the padded zeros in between 16 and 24 bit give you headroom to lower the volume digitally without losing resolution. 

post #17226 of 24887
Thread Starter 
That's what I was referring to. Wrong terms. Lol.
post #17227 of 24887
Thread Starter 
Just realized, thd thread has passed 1 million views!

I'm sure I'm 900,000 of them, lol.
post #17228 of 24887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antero View Post


Ok i already did that through there but but all that does is just change the settings to what i already change in the xonar drivers. http://puu.sh/4OPQM.png
Thanks for mentioning this. I will never notice this setting if you dont put it out.
I think your thread is one of the most interesting cans comparison in headfi, so you deserve the million views...
post #17229 of 24887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evshrug View Post

You'd probably be more than fine with either one. If I was you, I would just pick whichever one had the signature that sounded most appealing to me based on Mad's review, with the amping from your soundcard, either one would be a great value for your price budget.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

Agreed. I prefer the X1's sound over basically everything I've owned with the exception of the Annies, D7000, and LCD2. It has a broader appeal in sound signature. The Q701 is more polarizing, lacks severely in comfort next to the X1 (due to the Q's horrible bumps), and needs a very good amp to make them as good as they are. The X1 sounds great off practically anything.

The good thing about the Q701 is that you can buy some memory foam pads later on, and make them basically Annies... but then you still have to contend with the bumps of doom. Unless you feel comfortable in swapping the headband out with one off the K601/612/Annie/K712 (as well as paying for it), this isn't exactly easy.

 

 

I think I'll go for the X1. Your review matches my imaginings nearly perfect. Maybe I want to have a little more detailed sound like the Q 701. But new pads and a better head-band will cost me a lot of money in Germany and I have to mod the headphone. In such a price class I don't want to mod anything. I want a headphone that is as good as it gets in his price class, and the X1 will have this comfort out of the box.

 

The only point I'm lacking is the positioning of the X1 in gaming and the overall detail in the sound. Is the X1 as good as the Q 701 in the positioning? Remember I don't want to use it only for gaming, my pro gaming time is over ;) But a good positioning should be nice....

And overall, the Q 701 is definitely the winner when it comes to details right? Or will a cable swap on the X1 change this judging dramatically?

 

Oh boy, I can't decide.... :D


Edited by funkdoc - 10/13/13 at 5:22am
post #17230 of 24887
I wouldn't count on cable swaps to do anything dramatic unless your old cable was broken.

You don't HAVE to buy new pads, I like both kinds fine, and I just wrapped my headband. Cheap. Your STX has a decent amp (with like a 23 Ohm output impedance or something). Either one would be fine in your setup, if you want stronger mid bass get the X1.

The hardest thing to do, when reviewing or contrasting headphones, is to avoid hyperbole. You can rest assured, you'll enjoy either one, small differences between them that we tend to blow out of proportion simply because most hi-fi headphones are within a narrow range of performance. So long as you're not listening to a Bose...

Anyways, enjoy.
post #17231 of 24887
Thread Starter 
The X1 and Q701 sound nothing alike... just saying. The X1 is quits a bit more fun oriented, with mid bass coloration and bloom. The Q is considerably more balanced, and polite.

The STX has a 10 ohm output impedance. The Xonar DG and U3 are the ones with 23.
Edited by Mad Lust Envy - 10/13/13 at 12:40pm
post #17232 of 24887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

The X1 and Q701 sound nothing alike... just saying. The X1 is a lot more fun, the Q701 is a lot more serious.

Amd the STX has a 10 ohm output impedance. The Xonar DG and U3 are the ones with 23.

 

If he can just save $100 more bucks (give or take) I'd advise him to just get the K712. Like the Annie, it is a great all rounder and actually does have a little more bass impact...

post #17233 of 24887
Thread Starter 
Yeah, that'd be my choice if I want an all rounder, and didn't mind less comfort, and a sonic improvement compared to the MA900.

If the X1 had considerably less mid bass... I'd consider it quite neutral sounding. Its that bass tilt that keeps it from being that.
Edited by Mad Lust Envy - 10/13/13 at 12:41pm
post #17234 of 24887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Lust Envy View Post

Yeah, that'd be my choice if I want an all rounder, and didn't mind less comfort, and a sonic improvement compared to the MA900.

 

There it is! How could we forget and why aren't we suggesting it??? :blink:

 

He doesn't need to save any more money... just get the MA900 and pocket what's left over.

post #17235 of 24887
Thread Starter 
Well, the MA900 won't stack up to the Q701 and X1 overall (though those two have their colorations that can be polarizing, while the MA900 is just well balanced overall with no real humps other than a slight mid bass hump). It's just an alternative for those with less funds, and/or want the most comfort/least weight possible.

You all already know how much I love the MA900, but if sound quality is top priority, both the Q and X are better. The X1 in particular is quite comfortable even compared to the MA900, though a little more stuffy and quite a bit heavier. The Q has dem bumpz.
Edited by Mad Lust Envy - 10/13/13 at 12:46pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Games Discussion
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Video Games Discussion › Mad Lust Envy's Headphone Gaming Guide: (Update: 7/9/2014: Ultrasone HFI-15G Added)