[NamelessPFG]

Out of pure curiosity. Is there such a thing as videophile video dacs?

 
Not really, since most displays and their interfaces (DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort) have gone digital for over a decade. Analog video only really pertains to CRTs, since instead of a digital fixed grid, they scan electron beams over a phosphor surface according to the video signal they're fed, as long as it's within the yoke's sync limits.
 
Because of that, the other direction - videophile ADCs - are more of a thing - mostly upscalers like the Micomsoft XRGB-Mini Framemeister that take analog RGB video and cleanly convert and upscale it to something considerably friendlier to modern HDMI displays and capture cards. More on that here if you're interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtTM7nU9SMA&list=PLTNBVisVMbSR1ZDDQRgjg6S9D2YQ4rwnZ
 
That said, analog video quality for PC use was a selling point back in the '90s, when people who wanted clean 2D quality with 10-bit color resolution in the LUT instead of just 8-bit needed to pay up for a Matrox card as opposed to the cheaper S3, ATI, NVIDIA, etc. offerings.
 
This actually worked out well when 3dfx burst onto the scene and had pure 3D accelerators that worked in tandem with an existing 2D graphics card, so it wasn't really a tradeoff between 2D graphics fidelity and blistering-fast 3D performance at first.
 
But of course, clean VGA output, 10-bit LUTs, and even dual VGA-outs became a standard thing as the market quickly consolidated into NVIDIA vs. ATI, and then LCDs took over.
 

Sure, but don't think they call them DACs. All I know is the Sony PS3 was considered a superior Blu-Ray player than most competition for video quality, until Oppo took the throne. And there's always exotic super $$$ items that jockey for "the best" quality position.

The signal decoder built into a TV is also quite important... Maybe that's the RAMDAC that Nameless is referring to? And 400hz is kind of like audio's 24-bit/196kHz sampling rate?

 
Signal decoders wouldn't really make sense from an analog video standpoint; the closest you'd have there would be the old comb filters used for deinterlacing and trying to make composite video not look like crap. There's nothing to decode when sending analog video to a CRT if it's already in its component RGBHV form, as it typically is with a VGA interface.
 
Basically, you need a faster RAMDAC to drive higher resolutions and refresh rates. For instance, 1600x1200 at 95Hz requires a 256.5 MHz pixel clock, and 1920x1200 at the same 95 Hz (which the FW900 can reach) requires roughly a 319.8 MHz pixel clock. That's well beyond what any garden variety DisplayPort to VGA adapter can handle.
 
A better comparison would be how newer HDMI and DisplayPort revisions are needed to increase the available video bandwidth and thus the available resolutions and refresh rates.
 

Personally I'm in no hurry to abandon 1080p. I'd rather be able to run high settings, a good framerate and lower resolution (native) than lower settings, a good framerate and a high resolution (native). Plus, half the time I sit/lay on my bed to play games, so that's half the time when the difference between a native 720p and 1080p screen would probably be negligible, never mind higher resolutions. Mind you, the biggest monitor I have room for is 24" (unless I were to downgrade my speakers), so I might feel differently if I had a bigger screen.

 
I'd actually gladly embrace 4K and resolutions even beyond that, but that would be murder on my poor GTX 980. Even the new Pascal-based Titan X (dammit, NVIDIA, Apple branding does NOT work with graphics cards!) would be stressed at 4K, I'm sure.
 
2560x1440 at 144 Hz seems like the best balance for now until GPUs catch up - and, yes, that higher refresh rate matters from a PC gaming perspective.

 

[Napalmhardcore]

Originally Posted by NamelessPFG /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
I'd actually gladly embrace 4K and resolutions even beyond that, but that would be murder on my poor GTX 980. Even the new Pascal-based Titan X (dammit, NVIDIA, Apple branding does NOT work with graphics cards!) would be stressed at 4K, I'm sure.
 
2560x1440 at 144 Hz seems like the best balance for now until GPUs catch up - and, yes, that higher refresh rate matters from a PC gaming perspective.

There lies the reason I'm not in a big rush. Cards are struggling with modern games at high resolutions like 4K. With a graphically demanding game, even with the best (single) cards you normally either have to drop some of the settings or live with lower framerates. I'd personally rather have a lower native resolution screen that will enable me to bump up the graphics settings and maintain good frames per second.
 
When it comes to PC gaming, some people don't like to go below 60fps. For me personally, it is more context sensitive. For example, I'd prefer to stay above 60fps for a fast paced first person shooter. Something where you are planning your approach a little bit more like the Far Cry games, I don't mind if it dips down into the 30s. Third person action games like Assassin's Creed, I'm more likely to play with a controller, so I actually prefer to enable v-sync and if unable to maintain above 60fps, I'd lock it at 30fps. Racing games are a mixed bag dependent on the particular game or even car. When higher framerates cannot be maintained in a racing game, I prefer again to lock the framerate because a lot of framerate variation below 60fps affects your sense of speed, so it's preferable that it be stable.
 
However, those are what I see as minimum requirements. The recommended refresh rate for my monitor (that it displays in the menu as recommended) is 120 Hz, though it will do 144 Hz. I played a couple of older games where I can run at 120+ frames per second and it feels amazing. Everything is so responsive and fluid. I'd personally prefer to stay at 1080p if it means I can get that experience with more games without having to drop the graphics settings as time goes on and graphics cards improve as opposed to having high resolution with 30-60 frames per second.

 

[rudyae86]

Im not upgrading to 4K until I can run a game at 100fps on a single card. For now, 1080p with 144hz refresh rate and a card that can do that without much difficutly is all I need.
 
That new Titan X though....I wonder if some people will get confused and get the wrong "X" lol

 

[Yethal]

Im not upgrading to 4K until I can run a game at 100fps on a single card. For now, 1080p with 144hz refresh rate and a card that can do that without much difficutly is all I need.

 
That new Titan X though....I wonder if some people will get confused and get the wrong "X" lol

Nvidia should name it Titan XX. Repetition is key to success.
Abd then they could release the third version called Titan XXX.

 

[Yethal]

GUYZ. This:

 

[Napalmhardcore]

Nvidia should name it Titan XX. Repetition is key to success.
Abd then they could release the third version called Titan XXX.

Titan XXX, the card designed exclusively for VR po... I mean, um, science.

 

[Napalmhardcore]

On a slightly more serious and thread related topic, is it possible to clip a digital input?
 
I ask because I've had it in some games where it is like the sound has kind of hit a ceiling and lost its dynamics when played through the Mixamp with virtual surround enabled. Also, sometimes I think I can hear distortion here and there, but it is hard to identify it in games with various ambient sounds (like pieces of rubble falling etc).
 
Certain cars in Project CARS did it (and from what I've read on the Project CARS forums, it doesn't have proper directional audio anyway) so I ended up switching to linear PCM stereo and it sounded a lot nicer. I've also had it in some games when there are loud explosions (not that I have my volume particularly high, but relative to the rest of the audio). Is it even possible to send a digital signal that is "too hot"?
 
Project CARS is the game that put this idea into my head because it's much louder than other games (with the volume on my Mixamp/AV receiver set the same) and seems to be the game that exhibits this the most.

 

[Change is Good]

Project Cars just has poor sound design all together. It's one of the worst I've heard in a racing game.

 

[Napalmhardcore]

Project Cars just has poor sound design all together. It's one of the worst I've heard in a racing game.

Yeah, I saw quite a few complaints during my time on the forums and have experienced some weird bugs like having no sound for acceleration but having sound when the car is decelerating.. One of many problems with that game.

 

[lltfdaniel]

Hi,
 
Can anyone test these 2 headphones because they are the two best gaming headphones of http://www.pcgamer.com/we-tested-23-mainstream-gaming-headsets-to-find-the-best/7/ .
 

Mionix Nash 20 Headset

HyperX Cloud Revolver Pro Gaming Stereo Headset

 

[Yethal]

  Hi,
 
Can anyone test these 2 headphones because they are the two best gaming headphones of http://www.pcgamer.com/we-tested-23-mainstream-gaming-headsets-to-find-the-best/7/ .
 

Mionix Nash 20 Headset

HyperX Cloud Revolver Pro Gaming Stereo Headset

Buy me them and I'll test them for You.

 

[rudyae86]

  Hi,
 
Can anyone test these 2 headphones because they are the two best gaming headphones of http://www.pcgamer.com/we-tested-23-mainstream-gaming-headsets-to-find-the-best/7/ .
 

Mionix Nash 20 Headset

HyperX Cloud Revolver Pro Gaming Stereo Headset

We like to stick to headphones thanks lol
 
or
 
 

 
Buy me them and I'll test them for You.

This here.

Project Cars just has poor sound design all together. It's one of the worst I've heard in a racing game.

Yeah their sound is alright, RaceRoom has way better sound compared to PCARS in my opinion. Thing I hate about PCARS is that I have to lower the volume within the games menu since even having the master volume at 15 is quite loud. I don't know but they never got around to fixing some of this stuff other than focusing much on FFB.

PCARS has gotten better through the months but still not getting it right. That's why I play Assetto Corsa most of the time......man that new Ferrari F138....V8s high revving sound.

 

[Napalmhardcore]

  We like to stick to headphones thanks lol
.
Yeah their sound is alright, RaceRoom has way better sound compared to PCARS in my opinion. Thing I hate about PCARS is that I have to lower the volume within the games menu since even having the master volume at 15 is quite loud. I don't know but they never got around to fixing some of this stuff other than focusing much on FFB.

PCARS has gotten better through the months but still not getting it right. That's why I play Assetto Corsa most of the time......man that new Ferrari F138....V8s high revving sound.

Headsets have been improving steadily over the last few years and it is likely that one day the blanket statement of "gaming headsets suck" will no longer be true. I personally like to keep my knowlege up to date in this regard and am less dismissive of headsets. Basically, I'm not going to condemn a product with no knowlege of it.
 
Raceroom does have very good sound, however I will not support F2P projects so I'll never get to play it.
 
I've not played PCARS for a few months but that game never really left beta. I doubt they'll iron out all the problems before abandoning it for PCARS 2, so PCARS 2 is certainly not going to be a day one purchase for me. I have a number of complaints about PCARS that if repeated in the sequel might make me skip it altogether.

 

[Yethal]

  Headsets have been improving steadily over the last few years and it is likely that one day the blanket statement of "gaming headsets suck" will no longer be true. I personally like to keep my knowlege up to date in this regard and am less dismissive of headsets. Basically, I'm not going to condemn a product with no knowlege of it.

It's no longer a blanket statement in an era where:

1. Audio companies make gaming headsets (such as Sennheiser, Audio-Technica or Beyerdynamic)
2. Gaming headsets made by gaming companies keep getting better (HyperX Cloud series)

 
However, the statement "gaming headsets suck" covers more issues than only sound quality. Mainly:

1. Adding unnecessary stuff that only increases the cost and weight such as LED in the earcups (hello SteelSeries)
2. Using several discrete drivers for "real" surround instead of virtual surround (hello Razer)
3. Using USB as the only available connection instead of analog with an additional dongle (hello Logitech)
4. Using proprietary or obsolete connectors in order to gouge up the price of accessories and limit competition(hello 5-pin TRRRS connector from Astro, hello mini-Firewire on Mixamp TR)
5. Making the microphone and the cable hard-wired thus, increasing failure rate (hello Turtle Beach)
6. Using atrocious designs such as the one below (hello darkness my old friend)

 

Spoiler: Warning: Cringe!

 

 

[Napalmhardcore]

  It's no longer a blanket statement in an era where:

1. Audio companies make gaming headsets (such as Sennheiser, Audio-Technica or Beyerdynamic)
2. Gaming headsets made by gaming companies keep getting better (HyperX Cloud series)

 
However, the statement "gaming headsets suck" covers more issues than only sound quality. Mainly:

1. Adding unnecessary stuff that only increases the cost and weight such as LED in the earcups (hello SteelSeries)
2. Using several discrete drivers for "real" surround instead of virtual surround (hello Razer)
3. Using USB as the only available connection instead of analog with an additional dongle (hello Logitech)
4. Using proprietary or obsolete connectors in order to gouge up the price of accessories and limit competition(hello 5-pin TRRRS connector from Astro, hello mini-Firewire on Mixamp TR)
5. Making the microphone and the cable hard-wired thus, increasing failure rate (hello Turtle Beach)
6. Using atrocious designs such as the one below (hello darkness my old friend)

 

Spoiler: Warning: Cringe!

 

Totally agree.