[SDA]

Quote:

I'm not refuting your statement, but I don't see how it's possible. With a 7.1 surround setup, you have 7 different locations from where the sound of an enemy can originate. With headphones, you only have 2 (left and right). I understand how headphones can do *some* positioning (esp. the ones with a nice soundstage) but I don't understand how headphones can be completely accurate when trying to convey to the user that a sound is in front of, behind, above, or below them. I just don't see how they would be able to do 3D sound as well as a surround speaker setup (where the entire purpose of multiple speakers is better positioning and sound location accuracy).

To be honest, I don't see why headphones are better for this either, and I'm not even entirely sure that they are. I was just saying that the general agreement among the pro gamers is that they are, not necessarily that they really are if all else is equal. (Maybe the pro gamers are just used to having cruddy surround sound setups?)


Quote:

If ATI or NVIDIA had managed to sue the other one out existence, then we would see the same "Creative" innovation rate for video cards.

To be fair, nVidia still innovated even when they didn't have much competition (GF3/GF4 era). True, ATi was around even then, but they weren't considered a good alternative to nVidia cards by most due to bad drivers. Still, I agree, and I don't think that would have gone on for much longer if ATi hadn't come around with R300.

 

[AnimeEd]

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19592

 

[1UP]

O/T: on this speakers/headphones for gaming, it's all about speed. Headphones give you the basic proximity faster than speakers. Simple left-right separation is all you need to turn, react, frag. Or else you be dead.

 

[Daroid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaboo Unless they came with a new DSP

That's the reason i'm not sure, i can't see it clearly on the pictures and it isn't mentioned (couldn't find it anyway)

Quote:

There is minor evidence that they did touch the DSP: claimed PCI 2.3 compliance. The old cards were not.

Yes they were, since the Audigy 1 they were a universal card meaning that they had two notches in the PCI interface. Uncompliant cards such as any SBLive has a notch in pin 50-51 only, while universal boards have 50+51 and 12+13 as keyways/notches. 3.3V boards only has a keyway in 12+13.
3.3V PCI as in the 2.3 spec is STILL supplied with 5V at pin 5+6 and 61+62, 3.3V has no use on a soundcard and is rarely connected. The Pinout has nothing to do with the choice of DSP, all the same connectors are available just at different positions compared to 5V boards only.

The Audigy 4 is a universal board: They say "Available PCI 2.1 or higher compliant slot for the audio card" under "Requirements" ... Releasing a 5V board would be cruel, even though it still would apply to 2.1 specs

 

[stiben]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1UP O/T: on this speakers/headphones for gaming, it's all about speed. Headphones give you the basic proximity faster than speakers. Simple left-right separation is all you need to turn, react, frag. Or else you be dead.

Also, for the 'pro gamers' mentioned, if they regularly go to LAN's or participate in competitions, they are required to use headphones at the venue because a group of people are together in the same room.

No point getting used to 5.1 at home, if they have to use headphones for competition.

 

[GokieKS]

Looks like Audigy 4 was more or less to be an interim product, updating the Audigy2 line while Creative (E-Mu?) works on the next major revision, supposedly called "Sound Blaster Zenith".

http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=1430&s=1

~KS

 

[sygyzy]

Can someone explain to me why 16/48Khz is worse than 16/44.1Khz? Is it because it's upsampling? What's the con with that? In the Chaintech setup guide, Mr. Radar instructs us to use 192Khz in Foobar ASIO.

 

[Jasper994]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Imyourzero I'm not refuting your statement, but I don't see how it's possible. With a 7.1 surround setup, you have 7 different locations from where the sound of an enemy can originate. With headphones, you only have 2 (left and right). I understand how headphones can do *some* positioning (esp. the ones with a nice soundstage) but I don't understand how headphones can be completely accurate when trying to convey to the user that a sound is in front of, behind, above, or below them. I just don't see how they would be able to do 3D sound as well as a surround speaker setup (where the entire purpose of multiple speakers is better positioning and sound location accuracy).

I'd have to agree with headphones being better for positioning in games.

 

[dthiep]

when you wear headphone your more focus.
It is better at home cuz other noises wont bother you (mom, siblings, ...ect)
It is better on turnaments since other ppl wont be able to hear you.
And as someone mentioned in some games like CS, voice chat is essential and heaphones are better for that.

 

[astro]

I don't understand all this bickering about others thinking audigy2 is the best or not.

Most people use the audigy2 with their logitech speakers. Do they really care or notice that their sound is being *slightly* degraded from the upsampling the audigy2 does?
No.

That said, I love my AV-710 and Swan M200 speakers

 

[Mr.Radar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sygyzy Can someone explain to me why 16/48Khz is worse than 16/44.1Khz? Is it because it's upsampling? What's the con with that? In the Chaintech setup guide, Mr. Radar instructs us to use 192Khz in Foobar ASIO.

16/44.1 and 16/48 are so close that unless you do things right you get horrible sound. The Audigy doesn't do it right, and so it sounds horrible. The AV-710 uses 24/96 and a much better upsampling algorithm so the impact on the sound isn't very big.

 

[Alu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by astro Most people use the audigy2 with their logitech speakers. Do they really care or notice that their sound is being *slightly* degraded from the upsampling the audigy2 does? No.

That's because they don't know better and have to be enlightened!

I'm still using the audigy 1 myself, while "using" might be an overstatement. I still have it in my pc, and I use my cd player as main source right now. Later on I'll get a decent soundcard with the bel canto dac 2 in order to making my computer the main source somewhat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Radar 16/44.1 and 16/48 are so close that unless you do things right you get horrible sound.

Agreed.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr.Radar 16/44.1 and 16/48 are so close that unless you do things right you get horrible sound. The Audigy doesn't do it right, and so it sounds horrible. The AV-710 uses 24/96 and a much better upsampling algorithm so the impact on the sound isn't very big.

This assumes that you're using a 16/44.1 audio file and having the Audigy resample that to 16/48. And sure, it doesn't do that resampling right. And even 16/48 files that aren't resampled will sound rather mediocre on the Audigys due to the fact that they roll off the highs quite noticeably. The result? The Audigy2's only sound good with native 24/96 audio files (or lesser files resampled in software to 24/96) - and only if all DSP effects (EQ, EAX, speaker positioning) are disabled.

The AV-710 may use 24/96 - but only when used in stereo-only mode. If you have a 4.1, 5.1 or 7.1 setup, then you'll be limited to 16/48 maximum with that card. If anything, the DAC used for multichannel mode is even worse than the one on the Audigys. Thus, if you want full 24/96 support in multichannel mode, then you'll have to spend more money.

Oh, by the way, it's very disappointing that the new Audigy4 Pro still lacks native hardware support for 16/44.1. 16/44.1 files still get resampled to 16/48 in hardware. And you'll still have to spring for the most expensive version of that card just to get full ASIO 2.0 support at 24/96; otherwise, cheaper versions of that card lack full ASIO 2.0 compliance by supporting ASIO output only at 16/48.

 

[shard]

If I recall correctly, I read somewhere that the Audigy 3 name was originally reserved for a PCI-Express product that has yet to be released and may never be released as Audigy 3.

The only reason why the PC sound industry is so different from the PC graphics industry is lack of competition. It is as simple as that.

 

[laughingman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shard If I recall correctly, I read somewhere that the Audigy 3 name was originally reserved for a PCI-Express product that has yet to be released and may never be released as Audigy 3. The only reason why the PC sound industry is so different from the PC graphics industry is lack of competition. It is as simple as that.

well graphic industry is driving by the gaming industry, there's still much to be improved upon in the field. But audio wise the technology break through is much more rare and sparse, it not like we are having audio technology revolutionized every year or something. Personally I think it's a good thing, less money to spend on hardware upgrade.

btw, anyone know what kind of advantage using pci-express would bring to audigy card? I can understand why we need it for graphic, but for sound card it sounds more like just another marketing strategy trying to squeeze money out of us.