Sound Blaster X-fi: just hype or what?
Feb 22, 2006 at 1:01 AM Post #61 of 91
I've simply gotta add this to this thread: The heaphone out on the X-Fi Platinum simply *kills* the headphone out on the Audigy.

I'm not really sure whether this is because of the actual headphone amplification, or because of the soundcard + DAC etc, but the difference is really remarkable.

Audigy: Lots of hiss, usual mediocre computer sound (I'm playing MP3s at 128-192 kbps for this 'comparison'.)
X-FI: NO HISS, much greater clarity and definition in the sound (and this is without the Crystallizer which I have not really used).

Headphones are the Sony V6.

I'm waiting for my much better setup to arrive (Headroom micro DAC and CIAUdio amp, plus Beyer DT770) but, again, the improvement is really enjoyable without any of this stuff.
 
Feb 22, 2006 at 1:04 AM Post #62 of 91
Quote:

Originally Posted by Calanctus
I've simply gotta add this to this thread: The heaphone out on the X-Fi Platinum simply *kills* the headphone out on the Audigy.


But it doesn't kill the Audigy2 series as they share the same DACs and opamps. Only the X-Fi Elite Pro has superior components. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but with headphones isn't it better to get the M-Audio Revolution 5.1 for it's better opamps if games and surround sound isn't a concern?
 
Feb 22, 2006 at 7:08 AM Post #63 of 91
Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth
I couldn't find an SM58 for less than $100. That fits into the category I was thinking of when I referred to expensive mics. Well, to be honest, I wasn't even thinking $100 when I made that statement. More like $60 would qualify as an 'expensive' gaming mic
wink.gif



I didn't mean you needed to buy that particular mic, that's probably the best dynamic, cardioid, vocal mic on the market. It is buit to be thrown against concrete and keep working. I used it as an example since it is a well known (and easy to find info on) example of a cardiod mic. A much cheaper audio technica cardoid or hypercardoid ($20-50 probably) would work fine. It's simply a matter of getting a mic with a pickup that hears mostly in front, little in back, and that can be placed close to the mouth with gain set low.

Many computer mics would probalby work too, if properly configured. The key is close to your mouth. Sound pressure decreases by the square of the distance so proximity counts for a lot. Get that mic right next to your lips, and the SPL on it is very high. That lets you turn your gain way down. That means that it won't pick stuff up from your speakers.

The problem is people get computer mics and drop them on the top of their monitor or something like 3-4 feet form their face, and then put the speakers next to the monitor like 6" from the mic. Of COURSE it picks up the speakers then.
 
Feb 22, 2006 at 6:53 PM Post #64 of 91
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sycraft
Many computer mics would probalby work too, if properly configured. The key is close to your mouth. Sound pressure decreases by the square of the distance so proximity counts for a lot. Get that mic right next to your lips, and the SPL on it is very high. That lets you turn your gain way down. That means that it won't pick stuff up from your speakers.

The problem is people get computer mics and drop them on the top of their monitor or something like 3-4 feet form their face, and then put the speakers next to the monitor like 6" from the mic. Of COURSE it picks up the speakers then.



If you want to do it right, why not just get an audio conferencing system?
smily_headphones1.gif


I guess that would only work if you're not using digital out.

I'd get into specifics on why I think it would work, but I certainly don't want to bore anyone with details relating to my job.

Talk about overkill.... and low cost/value ratio..
biggrin.gif
 
Feb 22, 2006 at 9:20 PM Post #65 of 91
Quote:

Originally Posted by androgeny
If you want to do it right, why not just get an audio conferencing system?
smily_headphones1.gif


I guess that would only work if you're not using digital out.

I'd get into specifics on why I think it would work, but I certainly don't want to bore anyone with details relating to my job.

Talk about overkill.... and low cost/value ratio..
biggrin.gif



Because that's not compatible with other gamers. The people you want to talk to will be using Ventrilo, Teamspeak, or something like it. Hence you need a computer interface.

Like I said, if you wanted to do it real nice you can get a head mounted mic. Audio Technica makes great ones that are often used in broadcast and performance. Thing is they are $150-400.

Either way, my main point is you can do speakers and mic and not get feedback. I do it all the time.
 
Feb 23, 2006 at 1:38 AM Post #66 of 91
Quote:

Originally Posted by Razoramus
But it doesn't kill the Audigy2 series as they share the same DACs and opamps. Only the X-Fi Elite Pro has superior components. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but with headphones isn't it better to get the M-Audio Revolution 5.1 for it's better opamps if games and surround sound isn't a concern?


Have you heard both of the cards in question?
 
Feb 23, 2006 at 2:34 AM Post #67 of 91
Quote:

Originally Posted by Calanctus
Have you heard both of the cards in question?


Have you?
 
Feb 23, 2006 at 3:11 AM Post #68 of 91
Razoramus, thanks for your reply. I realize I misposted in my original post...I actually have the Audigy 2 ZS (not Audigy), as well as the X-fi. Both are the 'Platinum' and I'm using the front panel headphone jack. Same mp3s on both.

I can only reiterate what I heard: The X-fi DOES kill the Audigy 2...no hiss, far greater clarity, etc. Given what you say about the op amps and DAC, I can't explain it...but I'm very impressed by the difference.

FYI I've heard inexpensive headphone amps that simply don't match up to the X-Fi front panel headphone jack.
 
Feb 23, 2006 at 6:18 PM Post #69 of 91
From Digi-Life.com:

"The processor has 4 input/output I2S buses to connect to digital and analog interfaces, which provide 8 input and 8 output channels. Besides, it has a proprietary protocol for transferring 8 channels along a single wire, so that we get 32 Ñ… 48 kHz, 16 Ñ… 96 kHz, 8 Ñ… 192 kHz channels."


Is this feature utilized?


jiitee
 
Feb 26, 2006 at 11:16 AM Post #73 of 91
Quote:

Originally Posted by MasZakrY
A MUST read for people considering the X-fi

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...ive_xfi/6.html



Don't take those measures too serious (you just can't hear the difference, caused by the differences seen on measurements bit-tech made, while listening). Also, I have seen many different looking results from RMAA measurements for X-Fi's and A2Zs's --> who could say which ones are the right ones.

@24-bit/96 kHz I get ~almost equal results with Audigy 2 (not Zs) vs. X-Fi Fatal1ty FPS.

RMAA 5.5:
Frequency response (from 40 Hz to 15 kHz), dB: +0.01, -0.09 Excellent
Noise level, dB (A): -99.8 Excellent (diff. <3 dB) ! can this diff be heard?
Dynamic range, dB (A): 99.6 Excellent (diff. <3dB) ! can this diff be heard?
THD, %: 0.0030 Excellent (diff. ~250%) ! can this diff be heard?
IMD + Noise, %: 0.0049 Excellent (diff. ~180%) ! can this diff be heard?
Stereo crosstalk, dB: -87.3 Excellent (diff. ~12dB) ! this diff can be heard
IMD at 10 kHz, %: 0.0067 Excellent (diff. ?)

I agree with the low result for Audigy 2 Zs (THD). It's too low.

There are many other more important factors that makes X-Fi much much better card when compared to any previous Creative Audigy models.


jiitee
 
Feb 26, 2006 at 2:54 PM Post #74 of 91
Quote:

Originally Posted by MikoLayer
Now that you brought up the topic of "competitive gaming", do most competitive gamers use EAX and swear by it? just curious
smily_headphones1.gif



Yep, since it's pretty much the only useful system available. OpenAL has been making some progress, but not enough to make me miss EAX whenever I have to play without it.

-----

As a semi-competitive gamer (i.e. I play on ladders and have been around the scene for several years but don't LAN for a variety of reasons), my personal experience has consistently shown it easier to pinpoint sounds using headphones. While a proper speaker setup would provide better positioning, I think gamers don't tend to use them due to space, cost, and quality considerations.

First, space: Think about the positioning of most people's speakers relative to their computers. Most non-multimedia/non-studio monitor speakers image very poorly at the distances most players sit from them (generally 2-3 feet in front of center channel, 60 degree angle to their fronts which are 5 or so feet away, etc.). Having actually played like this for a while on a friend's rig, I found it much more difficult to get an accurate feel for where things were coming from. In order to put yourself the proper distance away from the speakers you'd have to set it up with distances in the home theater range (except with the computer monitor right in front of your face). This is not at all practical for most gamers, myself included.

Second, cost: Duh. Getting a speaker system of equivalent quality to a nice headphone system is much, much more expensive.

Finally, quality: Fact of the matter is most surround speaker systems marketed for computer use have wretched sound quality and imaging. They're honestly just not worth using. The soundstage is smeared all over the place, whereas a set of headphones for the same price will have very good positioning. Yes, even the "high-end" systems like the Klipsch Ultras.

Also, to those who say that having speakers at a LAN would give away your position to your opponent, stop being silly. Not only is your opponent going to be wearing headphones (
tongue.gif
), but the distance from your seating position to theirs is going to dominate the individual distances/orientations from their speakers to their position, which is where much of their positional information comes from.

That, and it would be very difficult to ascertain someone else's position in the level relative to yours given only their ambient sound effects and the noises you hear the characters making through their speakers. Specifically, I'm thinking of games such as Unreal Tournament 2004 where entering certain parts of the level makes distinguishable noises (i.e. planks on the map DM-Rankin make a creaking sound when stepped upon). When you make this sound, both you and your opponent hear it. It would be much easier for your opponent to find your position based on the sound heard through his headphones rather than the sound heard from your speakers.

I've never had a problem distinguishing between 1 o' clock- and 5 o' clock-centered sounds using headphones. I think it's mostly due to the fact that if you don't see someone in front of you but you hear the sound, you can safely assume that it's behind you.
icon10.gif
 
Feb 26, 2006 at 11:45 PM Post #75 of 91
Quote:

Originally Posted by Calanctus

FYI I've heard inexpensive headphone amps that simply don't match up to the X-Fi front panel headphone jack.




I fell for the x-fi front panel headphone output also, I find it impressive/powerful clean and very detailed.

So much more I know gotta send back my Nad c352 stereo amp ! the headjack on that doesnt come close to X-fis output.... and the other day I was playing with it more and actually enabeled the treble/bass to more then half way and even more blown away
smily_headphones1.gif


Its still subjective though and im sure some headamps will perform better.... but for the main part u cant go wrong with the X-fi headphone output and id recommend people try it !
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top