paulguru
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Posts
- 611
- Likes
- 16
ZXR in many reviews and from personal experience tends to be more revealer and with better instruments separation compared to Asus STX II and other models.
Creative G5 discussion and reviews
- Thread starter Evshrug
- Start date
ZXR in many reviews and from personal experience tends to be more revealer and with better instruments separation compared to Asus STX II and other models.
captaintaco
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2016
- Posts
- 5
- Likes
- 13
So here is a question. I have the X7 and just grabbed the G5 (was thinking about returning the X7 do to the cost and the fact I barely use any of the features in it...) I am using it just for PC and just for headphones, so the X7 is a little overkill feature wise. I expected these to be of similar quality sound based on the headphone amp being the same and the DAC being of similar quality. I also expected the G5 to have SBX virtual surround sound pretty much exactly the same, if not better due to the addition of 2 channels (7.1 instead of 5.1)... Before Acquiring these units I was using the SBX suite built into the X-Fi MB3 software, and running that through my onboard when I had that enabled (Supreme FX Black).
What I found to be the case, however, was far different from what I expected. The sound being produced by the G5 compared to the X7 was much harsher and a bit weaker sounding. I also noticed it didn't have the clarity of sonic space the X7 had. I could potentially tally that up to differences in the DAC or maybe op-amps, not sure... All I know is this was already a bit of a disappointment.
Then I enabled the SBX Surround, and was immediately shocked and disappointed... I love the virtual surround SBX produces, both when I used the software (X-Fi MB3) and when I was using the X7. Enabling the virtual surround on the G5, however, produced very different results. For one, the width and depth of space seemed to be for more condensed... When a shell landed to my right and behind using either the software X-Fi or the X7 it sounded like it was off to the right a few feet and a little behind... When using the G5 I could tell it was off to the right, but it was much closer (inside head rather than outside like it is supposed to be) and it's placement was hard to define (couldn't tell if it was a little behind, a little in front, etc.) Something I would call the clarity of spacial positioning was lacking.
Just so we are clear, I completely remove any other audio drivers and devices when testing the units, installing only one at a time. I also remove the leftover device drivers in windows, and leftover device hardware in device manager (unhide, delete) as well as leftover registry items left by the installations. In other words, there are no incompatibilities between devices setup.
I then decided to do a comparison and tested with windows playback devices window, opened the speaker config, and test each channel in the 7.1 (and also in 5.1 config for a direct comparison) with both the X7 and the G5. There was a very real difference in the spacing of the speakers in virtual surround (with both devices at the same SBX settings, one test at 30% and one test at 100% virtual surround). On the x7 they were placed nicely around the listening space, about the same distance from center for each channel (front center - perceptually a few feet in front, side channel a few feet perceptually to the right, etc, etc.) On the G5 they were... not... the front center was a few feet in front, the side was just about a foot to the right perceptually, the rear channel sounded like it was right in my head... etc.) It was not a smooth circle around my head like it should be...
Even stranger, I decided to install the X-Fi software while the G5 was installed. I set the G5 to direct mode, and used the X-Fi as the SBX processor. Doing this, it sounded like it should, speakers were placed properly according to the test in windows playback devices speaker config.
So... The bottom-line question... anybody have the G5 that is coming from either the Z series, has the X7, or used to use the X-Fi software? If I am not mistaken, the G5 uses the same Axx1 processor that the X7 uses, no? Even if it didn't, the SBX virtual Surround should be the same algorithm, no? Should it not sound the same as far as effect and speaker placement goes? Does anybody that has both devices notice a similar experience, or do we think perhaps my G5 is malfunctioning? I would really prefer it if the G5 sounded similar, as the X7 is very expensive considering I would be paying mostly for features I do not use... Moreover, I always liked the 7.1 positioning that was available with the X-Fi software, just hated the 48khz max sample rate limitation...
Also, for those that say "you don't need virtual surround, it is dumb," sorry I disagree... If games all had a headphone option and processed stereo audio for headphones (not speakers) like they should, it would be fine and you wouldn't need it (see Battlefield 4 headphone mode) but most games do not... And as you will find if you work in an audio studio, have a pair of stereo monitors in front of you, and wearing headphones are VERY DIFFERENT... because in real life distance from the listener is defined by the crossover between ears, a sound that happens three feet in front of you off to the right hits your right ear, then very shortly afterwards hits your left ear. Your brain calculates this difference and defines the spacial location of the audio source (3 feet from you, slightly off to the right). You can see this when you have a pair of studio monitors set up properly and are listening to a track. The vocalist sounds like he is coming out of your computer screen (assuming the screen is the same distance from you that your left and right audio monitors are). When wearing headphones the singer sounds like he made camp inside your head... Why? No crossover between speakers, the vocals on the left ear match perfectly with the vocals on the right ear, with no delay between ears, so there is no distance calculation, only volume changes which equate to 1 dimensional spacial calculations (it is to the right, it is to the left... but still in my head). Virtual surround isn't perfect... perfect would be an audio engine that calculates the distance of the object from the player and provides the proper delay between left and right ears, then adds calculations for bounces off walls and the like (a complicated on-demand modular convolution reverb mixed with a cross-fade calculation). Of course even that is only part of the problem... then you add in differences in the shapes of ears, affecting sound that is above, below, and behind the listener... BUT, virtual surround is at least a step in the right direction in that it attempts to at least move the audio sources outside of your head... simulating a set of speakers that are around the listener (like the studio monitor example, but more speakers) which at least provide a bit more immersion into the scene... The distances aren't perfect (a gunshot 2 feet from you and 4 feet from you will sound the same... about 3 feet from you, or whatever distance the virtual surround is emulating... only the volume changes will affect your perception of distance)... and I will take that any day over audio that sounds like I have 20 guns going off inside my skull... darn Dr. Seuss Whos... But I do wish they would put more effort into proper audio calculations... and no, open AL was not the answer.. it was better than virtual surround, yes, but it was a very lazy calculation (and rightful so considering the computing power didn't exist for the proper calculations back then) to provide a similar function of what was described... however, the computing power does exist now, and there are even some companies out there making some strides in the field, but nobody wants to implement them, or put more effort/money into creating a better version... or standard for that matter... Creative, you tried with OpenAl, but just got greedy... and then gave up entirely... Hopefully Virtual Reality will push this technology forward and into the mainstream...
Anyways, enough ranting, anyone have any input on my G5? Or the G5 in general related to the virtual surround and the harshness of the sound? Much appreciated.
What I found to be the case, however, was far different from what I expected. The sound being produced by the G5 compared to the X7 was much harsher and a bit weaker sounding. I also noticed it didn't have the clarity of sonic space the X7 had. I could potentially tally that up to differences in the DAC or maybe op-amps, not sure... All I know is this was already a bit of a disappointment.
Then I enabled the SBX Surround, and was immediately shocked and disappointed... I love the virtual surround SBX produces, both when I used the software (X-Fi MB3) and when I was using the X7. Enabling the virtual surround on the G5, however, produced very different results. For one, the width and depth of space seemed to be for more condensed... When a shell landed to my right and behind using either the software X-Fi or the X7 it sounded like it was off to the right a few feet and a little behind... When using the G5 I could tell it was off to the right, but it was much closer (inside head rather than outside like it is supposed to be) and it's placement was hard to define (couldn't tell if it was a little behind, a little in front, etc.) Something I would call the clarity of spacial positioning was lacking.
Just so we are clear, I completely remove any other audio drivers and devices when testing the units, installing only one at a time. I also remove the leftover device drivers in windows, and leftover device hardware in device manager (unhide, delete) as well as leftover registry items left by the installations. In other words, there are no incompatibilities between devices setup.
I then decided to do a comparison and tested with windows playback devices window, opened the speaker config, and test each channel in the 7.1 (and also in 5.1 config for a direct comparison) with both the X7 and the G5. There was a very real difference in the spacing of the speakers in virtual surround (with both devices at the same SBX settings, one test at 30% and one test at 100% virtual surround). On the x7 they were placed nicely around the listening space, about the same distance from center for each channel (front center - perceptually a few feet in front, side channel a few feet perceptually to the right, etc, etc.) On the G5 they were... not... the front center was a few feet in front, the side was just about a foot to the right perceptually, the rear channel sounded like it was right in my head... etc.) It was not a smooth circle around my head like it should be...
Even stranger, I decided to install the X-Fi software while the G5 was installed. I set the G5 to direct mode, and used the X-Fi as the SBX processor. Doing this, it sounded like it should, speakers were placed properly according to the test in windows playback devices speaker config.
So... The bottom-line question... anybody have the G5 that is coming from either the Z series, has the X7, or used to use the X-Fi software? If I am not mistaken, the G5 uses the same Axx1 processor that the X7 uses, no? Even if it didn't, the SBX virtual Surround should be the same algorithm, no? Should it not sound the same as far as effect and speaker placement goes? Does anybody that has both devices notice a similar experience, or do we think perhaps my G5 is malfunctioning? I would really prefer it if the G5 sounded similar, as the X7 is very expensive considering I would be paying mostly for features I do not use... Moreover, I always liked the 7.1 positioning that was available with the X-Fi software, just hated the 48khz max sample rate limitation...
Also, for those that say "you don't need virtual surround, it is dumb," sorry I disagree... If games all had a headphone option and processed stereo audio for headphones (not speakers) like they should, it would be fine and you wouldn't need it (see Battlefield 4 headphone mode) but most games do not... And as you will find if you work in an audio studio, have a pair of stereo monitors in front of you, and wearing headphones are VERY DIFFERENT... because in real life distance from the listener is defined by the crossover between ears, a sound that happens three feet in front of you off to the right hits your right ear, then very shortly afterwards hits your left ear. Your brain calculates this difference and defines the spacial location of the audio source (3 feet from you, slightly off to the right). You can see this when you have a pair of studio monitors set up properly and are listening to a track. The vocalist sounds like he is coming out of your computer screen (assuming the screen is the same distance from you that your left and right audio monitors are). When wearing headphones the singer sounds like he made camp inside your head... Why? No crossover between speakers, the vocals on the left ear match perfectly with the vocals on the right ear, with no delay between ears, so there is no distance calculation, only volume changes which equate to 1 dimensional spacial calculations (it is to the right, it is to the left... but still in my head). Virtual surround isn't perfect... perfect would be an audio engine that calculates the distance of the object from the player and provides the proper delay between left and right ears, then adds calculations for bounces off walls and the like (a complicated on-demand modular convolution reverb mixed with a cross-fade calculation). Of course even that is only part of the problem... then you add in differences in the shapes of ears, affecting sound that is above, below, and behind the listener... BUT, virtual surround is at least a step in the right direction in that it attempts to at least move the audio sources outside of your head... simulating a set of speakers that are around the listener (like the studio monitor example, but more speakers) which at least provide a bit more immersion into the scene... The distances aren't perfect (a gunshot 2 feet from you and 4 feet from you will sound the same... about 3 feet from you, or whatever distance the virtual surround is emulating... only the volume changes will affect your perception of distance)... and I will take that any day over audio that sounds like I have 20 guns going off inside my skull... darn Dr. Seuss Whos... But I do wish they would put more effort into proper audio calculations... and no, open AL was not the answer.. it was better than virtual surround, yes, but it was a very lazy calculation (and rightful so considering the computing power didn't exist for the proper calculations back then) to provide a similar function of what was described... however, the computing power does exist now, and there are even some companies out there making some strides in the field, but nobody wants to implement them, or put more effort/money into creating a better version... or standard for that matter... Creative, you tried with OpenAl, but just got greedy... and then gave up entirely... Hopefully Virtual Reality will push this technology forward and into the mainstream...
Anyways, enough ranting, anyone have any input on my G5? Or the G5 in general related to the virtual surround and the harshness of the sound? Much appreciated.
Fegefeuer
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Posts
- 3,523
- Likes
- 2,685
Sometimes there is a bug where the speakers in the control panel of Windows not positioned properly.
What you need to do is set the G5 to stereo headphones in the Creative panel then close it and go to speaker settings under the control panel of Windows and manually set it to 7.1. It will synchronize with the Creative panel but do it right.
1) the X7 is the superior SQ device compared to the G5 as in driving headphones like the HD 650 noticably better, however that is NOT the reason for the weird SBX. The SBX problem is an inherent problem.
2) the SBX 7.1 of the G5 is indeed different.than the one from the X7 and SBZ and it's a damn shame. Maybe Creative thought that inferior DAC and "amping" (just from the USB) is not enough and gimped SBX on purpose with making the 7.1 noticably reverby and implosive.
3) However I haven't played a lot with the settings yet as I'm using a Titanium HD on the PC. Since 45 is the default with the G5's 7.1 (haven't even listened to that) we should do a few recordings to clarify the SBX problem:
How about we record:
G5 SBX 7.1 45% 67% and 100%
G5 SBX 5.1 45% 67% and 100%
X7 5.1 45%, 67% (default) and 100%
I could do G5 and CMSS-3D since I don't have the X7 anymore. I know I'm not really helping here since I don't have the "proper" SBX. Could you do the above stuff?
(I installed the G5 without EXTRAS - even deleting the extras folder - so it doesn't mess up my OpenAL/alchemy stuff)
I know it's a bit of work but it would help us all.
What you need to do is set the G5 to stereo headphones in the Creative panel then close it and go to speaker settings under the control panel of Windows and manually set it to 7.1. It will synchronize with the Creative panel but do it right.
1) the X7 is the superior SQ device compared to the G5 as in driving headphones like the HD 650 noticably better, however that is NOT the reason for the weird SBX. The SBX problem is an inherent problem.
2) the SBX 7.1 of the G5 is indeed different.than the one from the X7 and SBZ and it's a damn shame. Maybe Creative thought that inferior DAC and "amping" (just from the USB) is not enough and gimped SBX on purpose with making the 7.1 noticably reverby and implosive.
3) However I haven't played a lot with the settings yet as I'm using a Titanium HD on the PC. Since 45 is the default with the G5's 7.1 (haven't even listened to that) we should do a few recordings to clarify the SBX problem:
How about we record:
G5 SBX 7.1 45% 67% and 100%
G5 SBX 5.1 45% 67% and 100%
X7 5.1 45%, 67% (default) and 100%
I could do G5 and CMSS-3D since I don't have the X7 anymore. I know I'm not really helping here since I don't have the "proper" SBX. Could you do the above stuff?
(I installed the G5 without EXTRAS - even deleting the extras folder - so it doesn't mess up my OpenAL/alchemy stuff)
I know it's a bit of work but it would help us all.
captaintaco
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2016
- Posts
- 5
- Likes
- 13
Hi there Fegefeuer,
I believe I already attempted the fix provided (unknowingly, but done none-the-less), however, I will attempt again to be sure.
I could provide samples, but I am quite busy and am unsure if I will have them over the next couple days or not. If I do, is there a particular demo or game you would like to see used. I will also include the windows speaker test sounds at the start of each sample. I probably won't include video accompaniment unless I have time. If I do them I will use a separate computer with a LiquidSaphire56 interface to ensure each sample receives the same treatment (I don't trust using a digital wire, too many variables in windows for something to alter the sound).
Cheers,
CaptainTaco
Fegefeuer
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Posts
- 3,523
- Likes
- 2,685
I might have time next week. I could provide the G5 5.1/7.1 recordings. I have quite a few titles though no battlefield.
Could provide Rise of the TR, Battlefront, R6 Siege etc
Or am I understanding this wrong and you have both the g5 and x7?
I have the x7 only. However I still have PT demo on my hdd and it has an exceptional audio engine. I could also include mixamp samples for comparison.
Anyone using one of these on Windows 10 with the latest drivers? If so, is surround headphone still working as there seems to be some reports that they've broken it.
Fegefeuer
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Posts
- 3,523
- Likes
- 2,685
Can you link to the reports?
Do you have a PC as well?
I'll do some recordings this week.
Do you have a PC as well?
I'll do some recordings this week.
Fegefeuer
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Posts
- 3,523
- Likes
- 2,685
Just something that isn't Far Cry or anything.
The SBX differences are easy to hear, even from memory. That's all we need to settle and then pass it further to Creative Labs.
Really mindboggling why they'd do this.
The SBX differences are easy to hear, even from memory. That's all we need to settle and then pass it further to Creative Labs.
Really mindboggling why they'd do this.
toxicthm
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2015
- Posts
- 3
- Likes
- 10
I saw the smyth realiser mentioned earlier. I spoke to mike at smyth in January and he said they should know when the new realiser will go into production around May and that it might have optical input. He didn't mention it being any cheaper tho.
Has anyone tried the X7 with beyerdynamic T1's as i'm more than ready to move on from mixamps.
Has anyone tried the X7 with beyerdynamic T1's as i'm more than ready to move on from mixamps.
Mirror's Edge?
What tool are you guys using to record video+audio demos?
Video using built-in ps4 recorder and fraps. Audio using what u hear virtual device and audacity.
So, you just use Audacity to line up the sound and the action?
Users who are viewing this thread
