Shahrose
Headphoneus Supremus
i'm going to keep this comparison as compact as i can...
all the headphones and amps used are listed in my sig and i did not use any crystallizer, dolby, eq's or any other dsp effects. the treble and bass settings were set to default values of 50% for both cards. the music i used was all encoded in 320kbps mp3 or FLAC format, genres ranging from electronic music, to rock, to classical.
for the last few months i've been using the x-fi prelude as my source fed into the headfive, and before that i'd been using the sondigo inferno for a few months. i remember when i got the x-fi i was quite disappointed by the sound quality. over the months i grew into it and started liking the sound...fast forward to yesterday, i installed the sondigo for kicks to do a side by side comparison (with the prelude installed at the same time). i was shocked to find that i had totally forgotten what the sondigo sounded like.....it was much better than i thought.
i made sure i wasn't experiencing a placebo effect and held off on posting until i tested a few more hours and took breaks in between. surprisingly, the sondigo kept sounding better and better (perhaps after getting warmed from the first few hours of use, i'm not sure).
the inferno had tighter, much more defined/textured bass, as well as more punch. the treble/bass extension was the same on both cards as far as i could distinguish. dynamics were almost the same with the slight edge going to the prelude. the stereo soundstage of the prelude was noticeably larger than the inferno but the inferno produced sharper imaging. the inferno was more detailed than the x-fi, i wasn't able to hear some things on the prelude that i could on the inferno. there was a slight difference in tonality as well; the prelude sounded softer and smoother and this is one of the few things i enjoyed out of the prelude. lastly, the volume on the inferno was able to go maybe 3 times higher than the x-fi which gave a it a lot of leeway before its amps/output got stressed. the x-fi would sound congested and boomy once the volume was increased past the 60-70 % mark. this volume was equivalent to the inferno's 20% and the inferno stayed tight, clean and open. moreover, the entire prelude production line (including my card) is plagued with a mic issue which reduces the volume so much that it basically makes them useless for voice chat/recording. this is apparently a software issue and auzentech claims that it will eventually be fixed (but it hasn't as of yet). this problem does not exist on the inferno of course. i don't use any dsp's or equalizers on the sound cards but i have used them extensively in the past and FWIW, i vastly preferred the inferno's dolby headphone to the x-fi's cmss-3d.
there you have it folks...both of these cards have their strong suits, but in the end i believe the inferno beats the x-fi prelude in overall sound quality and at a lower price point. i'd also like to add that the HT omega claro plus+ sounded even better than the inferno when i heard it, and it costs the same as the prelude.
EDIT: i forgot to mention that the sondigo's drivers are more stable, and have a much smaller footprint on system resources (no junk applications or slow flashy interface).
in conclusion...if you're not a gamer, avoid the prelude. it does have some redeeming qualities such as it's great dynamic range, silky smooth top end (without being veiled) and a relatively large soundstage. despite all this, the ht omega claro plus is a much better alternative (it uses the same oxygen HD processor as the inferno but uses better circuitry and stereo opamps..ie AD8620BR) and costs the same as the prelude. if you can still find it, i would highly recommend the sondigo inferno as well as it's a gem of a soundcard and a great value at around $120USD. unfortunately, it was discontinued a few months after the x-meridian was. although the x-meridian was replaced by an arguably better soundcard in the claro plus, i feel there has been no equivalent replacement of the sondigo inferno.
all the headphones and amps used are listed in my sig and i did not use any crystallizer, dolby, eq's or any other dsp effects. the treble and bass settings were set to default values of 50% for both cards. the music i used was all encoded in 320kbps mp3 or FLAC format, genres ranging from electronic music, to rock, to classical.
for the last few months i've been using the x-fi prelude as my source fed into the headfive, and before that i'd been using the sondigo inferno for a few months. i remember when i got the x-fi i was quite disappointed by the sound quality. over the months i grew into it and started liking the sound...fast forward to yesterday, i installed the sondigo for kicks to do a side by side comparison (with the prelude installed at the same time). i was shocked to find that i had totally forgotten what the sondigo sounded like.....it was much better than i thought.
i made sure i wasn't experiencing a placebo effect and held off on posting until i tested a few more hours and took breaks in between. surprisingly, the sondigo kept sounding better and better (perhaps after getting warmed from the first few hours of use, i'm not sure).
the inferno had tighter, much more defined/textured bass, as well as more punch. the treble/bass extension was the same on both cards as far as i could distinguish. dynamics were almost the same with the slight edge going to the prelude. the stereo soundstage of the prelude was noticeably larger than the inferno but the inferno produced sharper imaging. the inferno was more detailed than the x-fi, i wasn't able to hear some things on the prelude that i could on the inferno. there was a slight difference in tonality as well; the prelude sounded softer and smoother and this is one of the few things i enjoyed out of the prelude. lastly, the volume on the inferno was able to go maybe 3 times higher than the x-fi which gave a it a lot of leeway before its amps/output got stressed. the x-fi would sound congested and boomy once the volume was increased past the 60-70 % mark. this volume was equivalent to the inferno's 20% and the inferno stayed tight, clean and open. moreover, the entire prelude production line (including my card) is plagued with a mic issue which reduces the volume so much that it basically makes them useless for voice chat/recording. this is apparently a software issue and auzentech claims that it will eventually be fixed (but it hasn't as of yet). this problem does not exist on the inferno of course. i don't use any dsp's or equalizers on the sound cards but i have used them extensively in the past and FWIW, i vastly preferred the inferno's dolby headphone to the x-fi's cmss-3d.
there you have it folks...both of these cards have their strong suits, but in the end i believe the inferno beats the x-fi prelude in overall sound quality and at a lower price point. i'd also like to add that the HT omega claro plus+ sounded even better than the inferno when i heard it, and it costs the same as the prelude.
EDIT: i forgot to mention that the sondigo's drivers are more stable, and have a much smaller footprint on system resources (no junk applications or slow flashy interface).
in conclusion...if you're not a gamer, avoid the prelude. it does have some redeeming qualities such as it's great dynamic range, silky smooth top end (without being veiled) and a relatively large soundstage. despite all this, the ht omega claro plus is a much better alternative (it uses the same oxygen HD processor as the inferno but uses better circuitry and stereo opamps..ie AD8620BR) and costs the same as the prelude. if you can still find it, i would highly recommend the sondigo inferno as well as it's a gem of a soundcard and a great value at around $120USD. unfortunately, it was discontinued a few months after the x-meridian was. although the x-meridian was replaced by an arguably better soundcard in the claro plus, i feel there has been no equivalent replacement of the sondigo inferno.
