[Nocturnal310]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GordonFreeman /img/forum/go_quote.gif Couple of questions you failed to answer. Your car analogy does make my point though, you simply have no idea if your statements are correct because everything your saying is based on hearsay or total fiction. You going to continue to dodge the same questions to further your debate? Also, show me someone here or anywhere else using a modded X-Fi with an expensive rig. If it really did sound better than people would dick around with it right? Or is only people who cant afford a Dac 1 who dick around talking about the superiority of the X-Fi? You have to realize there are people on this wesite claiming to get amazing sound quality driving a set of 701s with an Ipod. Like I said before, you cant beleive everything you read. Put more trust in the majority and common sense and consider who is saying these things, a new member? Or someone who has been around?

Wow ...u almost make X-Fi sound like crappy ignorable technology.

I have been doing lot of research lately of X-Fi technology and experts claim its just an Automatic EQ which in realtime emphasis on certain frequencies.

 

[chris_ah1]

lol, 'experts'. *sniggers*

sometimes we want to listen to what IS there in perfect clarity, detail and timbre, not what someone thinks OUGHT to be there.

 

[nick_charles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by b0dhi /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^ you wouldn't happen to have a link to the full paper would you? I'd like to know the details of their methodology.

It is only available (legally) to AES members for $5 or non members for $20. I joined the AES to be able to buy it and other interesting papers cheap.

I have read the full paper and followed some of the heated debate it has stirred up on divers audio/technology forums. There are some minor criticisms that are valid but whether they really would change the overall conclusion is a matter of opinion.

The method looks pretty solid, I review academic papers as part of my duties. Subjects could listen to A/B as often as they liked for as long as they liked before doing the ABX and likewise during the tests done with a wide variety of source materials. The basic setup was a pair of speakers and amp and switchbox plus source and A/D/A chain. The High res players were a Yamaha a Philips and a Sony. At least one was highly rated by Stereophile, but more to the point had excellent measurements, the other two merely had very good measurements.

The only really valid (minor) criticism I can see is that none of the players get close to the theoretical limits of the high res systems (for example 144db for 24 bit audio) so degrading to 16/44.1 has less of a theoretical effect. But since no High-Res player currently available gets close to these theoretical limits this argument has limited currency.

If I were M&M I would be borrowing other more boutique high res players and planning a replication study.

 

[Ryu1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nocturnal310 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have been doing lot of research lately of X-Fi technology and experts claim its just an Automatic EQ which in realtime emphasis on certain frequencies.

Just so no one is misinformed, what you're describing is the x-fi's crystalizer technology. Something that is designed to enhance the SQ of lossy audio files.
If the SQ of the reproduction of lossy files was being considered, which it isn't, then the x-fi would no doubt outperform the dac1 considering the dac1 has no comparable feature.

 

[GordonFreeman]

All of this puzzles me, dont you guys see the results or the poll? Does that mean the majority of the people who voted are wrong?

 

[JamesL]

This comparison is pointless. $1000 dac vs a $80 dac/adc/amp/software, all-in-one.
No matter how much you mod the x-fi.. no matter how much boutique components you stick into it, its still going to fall short of any good dedicated dac. Even if you changed the design completely, its still going to be powered by an extremely noisy 5v or 3.3v shared PCI bus power.

imo though, the lack of x-fi drivers in the benchmark1 is worth the $900 extra

 

[CSMR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryu1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...x-fi's crystalizer technology. Something that is designed to enhance the SQ of lossy audio files. If the SQ of the reproduction of lossy files was being considered, which it isn't, then the x-fi would no doubt outperform the dac1 considering the dac1 has no comparable feature.

This is nonsense. Just to let you know.

 

[Ryu1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSMR /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is nonsense. Just to let you know.

Really? Well it would be nice to hear why mate.

 

[infinitesymphony]

Because the DAC1 would still play back the MP3s with more clarity than an inferior solution with a subjectively-designed artificial dynamic EQ (i.e. X-Fi Crystallizer). It's not like the Crystallizer is something proprietary. A quick search will reveal plenty of free harmonic exciter VSTs that you can use in your favorite software playback program. So, theoretically, you could process the music in the same way for any sound card.

 

[CSMR]

OK here goes. It is nonsense for so many reasons.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryu1 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just so no one is misinformed, what you're describing is the x-fi's crystalizer technology. Something that is designed to enhance the SQ of lossy audio files. If the SQ of the reproduction of lossy files was being considered, which it isn't, then the x-fi would no doubt outperform the dac1 considering the dac1 has no comparable feature.

-If this were true then uncompressed file->lossy encoding->decoding->crystallizing->output is better than uncompressed file->lossy encoding->decoding->output and so what you are saying is that you have a way of taking a lossy decoder and making a better decoder by appending a crystaliser, i.e. that all lossy formats have got it wrong, their decoders are wrong in exactly the same way.
-If playback of uncompressed audio is set up optimally prior to crystallizing, crystallizing affects it and therefore deteriorates the sound. This applies to high bitrate compressed audio too, which is indistinguishable from uncompressed.
-One DSP effect is not a "technology". There are hundreds, probably thousands of packaged dsp effects and you can use them with any sound card (if software has the capability which it should have).

 

[Nocturnal310]

U gotta listen to X-Fi to be sure.

I bought the XMOD finally yesterday to replace my laptops crappy soundcard.

Okay ..the Mp3 files at 160 Kbps or below Sound much much better

& the CMDSS-3D also improves the Sound field.


BUT the 320 kbps mp3 files & CD's sound nearly the same with mild improvement in Soundstage...very mild if u got Open headphones.


And i tried it on Desktop speakers also 2.1 channel.....what i noticed with CMSS-3D is that the Vocals appeared on the center & instruments were aligned at sides of the speaker.

Sound quality of 64 Kbps mp3 songs was improved significantly, Beats were Tighter, Drums & percussions were more emphasized...

but all this only if u have consumer level sound equipment....

For high quality sound files it will only spoil your Sound Experience.


So X-Fi is for poorly encoded Sound Files & Laptop users can benefit if they are only budget.

But i ll still wanna try EMU 0202 soon.

Cheers! ..hope someone shares their experience with X-Fi products.

So for a cheaper solution & Lossy Music files... X-Fi is a great cheap alternative.

But dont even expect anything from it if u got Lossless files & a good DAC.

 

[n3rdling]

You do know cmss3d is only non-terrible for games/movies right?

 

[uraflit]

this thread has turned into a misdirected and futile argument over budget vs. expensive gear...

ppl are asking for data/facts, while others are also refuting opinions b/c they "can" be flawed... data can be flawed and skewed too. the only way to find out is to test it yourself... and even then, in the end, our (human) ears are the bottom in the discussion.

so seeing opinions from ppl that have heard both pieces of equipment should be held with the highest regard... of course, this poll is very much biased to ppl owning the gear, you can't take it too seriously.

 

[royalcrown]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSMR /img/forum/go_quote.gif The DAC1 is very good, it is effectively perfect. As are much less expensive products: that is what I was saying about it. The other thing I was saying is that if you want to get an expensive product because it has certain colouration, you should instead get a cheaper accurate sound card, and use DSP, where you can tailor the colouration exactly as you want. Some inexpensive (compared to good dedicated dacs) soundcards measure _well_ beyond what is possible with 16/44 audio, and that puts their difference from perfection beyond what is audible: Taken from: Double-blind test of SACD and DVD-A vs. Redbook 16/44 in JAES Septembe - Hydrogenaudio Forums (And obviously a digital loop without a/d/a conversions would have been even harder to detect, and so distinguishing a dac with well above 16/44 fidelity from perfect conversion would be harder still, QED .)

Though I'm not saying that you're wrong when you say that cheaper soundcards can sound as good as the DAC1, that paper simply delineates the difference between 16/44 and higher formats (and the inaudibility/insignificance of said difference). However, this doesn't address the performance of the DAC1 vs any other DAC (or even a general higher-end DAC vs a lower-end one), specifically the DAC1 vs another one with redbook media.

The paper is an intriguing read, but doesn't distinguish performance at actual CD res. I think some data concerning performance there might be more insightful for the purposes at hand (thd charts, frequency response, slew rate, etc).

Sorry for the late response (I wish head-fi had RSS feeds for threads posted in instead of opt-in thread subscriptions).

 

[tarobyte]

I can't speak about the modded X-Fi but I do own the DAC-1 USB as well as an X-Meridian modded with OPA627 and have to say on most of my AIFFs I have trouble picking a consistent winner. There are people with better hearing than me I am sure but I think with DACs playing CD-quality most people will find serious diminishing returns past a few hundred dollars spent carefully.