[Dead Ghost]

Does anyone knows if the the audio on the newer video cards support DDL/DTS Connect through HDMI? For PC games and movies, i want to use the GPU audio through HDMI, to my LCD TV, and then use the optical output of the TV to send the signal to a Mixamp like device, for Dolby Headphone effects. Would this work?

 

[genclaymore]

Do you mean being able to Encode the signal into DTS or DD live, if so then no. Video card Audio chip do not have the feature for that.  The only sound card off the top of my head that does let you encode DDL and DTS Connect thru HDMI is HDAV 1.3 Slim/HDAV1.3 classic, and Auzentech X-FI HDMI.Did you meant something else incase I read your question wrong.

 

[Dead Ghost]

Hmmm...Maybe it's not needed? The encoding, i mean. I've read somewhere that the reason DDL and DTS encoding is done is because S/PDIF doesn't have the required bandwidth. But HDMI has...
 
GPU's audio -> (HDMI) -> TV -> (TOSlink output) -> MixAmp -> headphones (Dolby Headphone) ?

 

[NamelessPFG]

Pretty much. They think that if you're using the HDMI audio path, you're sending the signal to a DAC with HDMI input. They don't expect S/PDIF downconversions and the bandwidth limitations that brings.
 
Unfortunately, the only headphone surround DSP I know of that has an HDMI input is the Smyth Realiser A8, and that's around $3,000. Sorry about your wallet.

 

[PurpleAngel]

Quote:

Does anyone knows if the the audio on the newer video cards support DDL/DTS Connect through HDMI? For PC games and movies, i want to use the GPU audio through HDMI, to my LCD TV, and then use the optical output of the TV to send the signal to a Mixamp like device, for Dolby Headphone effects. Would this work?

As HDMI can pass 8-channels (7.1) of PCM (uncompressed) audio, there is no real reason for using audio compression (DDL) with HDMI.
Not even sure if your TVs can output 5.1 compressed audio, the TV might only output 2-channel PCM thru the optical output.
Just get an Asus Xonar DG or DGX sound card for your computer, the DG(X) will output Dolby Headphone surround sound, to headphones, just like the Mix-amp.
So no need to output audio from the TV or have to use the Mix-amp.
Just switch the audio output (Windows control panel>Sound>Playback) from the Xonar DG(X) to the HMDI out when you want to send audio to the TV, from the computer.

 

[NamelessPFG]

Quote:

While in theory there shouldn't be differences between Recon3D USB and X-Fi Go! cards, I do find the latter a bit more distinct. Obviously that neither holds a candle to the X-Fi Titanium HD, regardless of revision.
 
Now, the X-Fi Go! does have software OpenAL just like other USB cards and any internal soundcard other than non-Value Audigy and X-Fi cards that do have EMU20K1/EMU20K2, but it's mainly about the implementation that seems more solid on the X-Fi Go!. Also, do note that I'm running a newer wrapper than the latest available for the card, so that might also play a part in that.
The thing is, software OpenAL as well as X-Fi cards that lack mode switching simply can't access certain advanced audio features on some games, such as X-Fi mode on Battlefield games, hardware audio on Race Driver Grid, etc.
 
Quite a good idea. I've been tempted to assemble again a legacy PC with an AWE32, this being aside A3D and the first HW HRTF solutions that the card also supported.

 
What I want to know is if it's possible to have Thief 1/2 or System Shock 2 NOT screw up audio-wise when using ALchemy with any sort of software OpenAL renderer. The Realtek X-Fi MB driver packages floating around fail that test. So does the Recon3D USB. Can the X-Fi Go! fare any better? Only time will tell.
 
Unfortunately, I just got outbid on my Win9x build parts. This sets my Win9x gaming computer project back a bit (I want a Pentium III-S Tualatin-compatible board with ISA slots for old sound cards like my AWE64 Gold while having enough CPU muscle to manhandle later '90s releases like Unreal Tournament), and for some reason, my old BP6 board's not starting up like it should, so I can't use that for the build. (And even if I could, Win9x can't use more than one CPU, and a Celeron 533 at stock speeds is pretty damned slow for later 1990s releases.)

 

[Roller]

Quote:

 
What I want to know is if it's possible to have Thief 1/2 or System Shock 2 NOT screw up audio-wise when using ALchemy with any sort of software OpenAL renderer. The Realtek X-Fi MB driver packages floating around fail that test. So does the Recon3D USB. Can the X-Fi Go! fare any better? Only time will tell.
 
Unfortunately, I just got outbid on my Win9x build parts. This sets my Win9x gaming computer project back a bit (I want a Pentium III-S Tualatin-compatible board with ISA slots for old sound cards like my AWE64 Gold while having enough CPU muscle to manhandle later '90s releases like Unreal Tournament), and for some reason, my old BP6 board's not starting up like it should, so I can't use that for the build. (And even if I could, Win9x can't use more than one CPU, and a Celeron 533 at stock speeds is pretty damned slow for later 1990s releases.)

 
 
Well, what GPU are you planning on using for that setup? If you use at least a midrange GPU from that hardware generation along with at least a Pentium III running at 650MHz and more than 256MB of RAM, you will have high enough specs to play games at reasonable fps.
 
When you get your X-Fi Go! let me know and I'll send you a few updated components that might improve your experience. Also, tweaking buffers might be needed as some titles are stingy about that.

 

[NamelessPFG]

Quote:

Well, what GPU are you planning on using for that setup? If you use at least a midrange GPU from that hardware generation along with at least a Pentium III running at 650MHz and more than 256MB of RAM, you will have high enough specs to play games at reasonable fps.
 
When you get your X-Fi Go! let me know and I'll send you a few updated components that might improve your experience. Also, tweaking buffers might be needed as some titles are stingy about that.

 
For graphics cards? One of the following, depending on compatibility and features, since they're what I have on hand:
 
-3dfx Voodoo5 5500 AGP (T-Buffer effects, Glide support)
-ATI All-in-Wonder Radeon 8500 128 MB (hardware TRUFORM tessellation, HT&L, Shader Model 1.4, SD video capture)
-STB Voodoo2 12 MB (in case I need Glide 1.x support for early games like MechWarrior 2: 31st Century Combat's Glide OEM version which don't run on the Voodoo5 natively)
 
As for sound cards, I'll definitely be using a Turtle Beach Montego II with the Aureal Vortex2 chipset. I may decide to add my Creative SB AWE64 Gold to that if DOS games have stuff missing on the Montego II's SB emulation.
 
Also note that "reasonable FPS" means "steady 60 FPS" to me, which the BP6 + Radeon 8500 sure couldn't pull off with Unreal Tournament even at 640x480. Quake III Arena fared a bit better due to support for multiple CPUs/cores and HT&L, but I don't like that game as much.
 
Those are about as demanding as they get for what I'd run on such a computer, though...most of the other games that tend to act up on newer computers would likely run fine. I'd just have to do some more testing.

 

[Roller]

Quote:

 
For graphics cards? One of the following, depending on compatibility and features, since they're what I have on hand:
 
-3dfx Voodoo5 5500 AGP (T-Buffer effects, Glide support)
-ATI All-in-Wonder Radeon 8500 128 MB (hardware TRUFORM tessellation, HT&L, Shader Model 1.4, SD video capture)
-STB Voodoo2 12 MB (in case I need Glide 1.x support for early games like MechWarrior 2: 31st Century Combat's Glide OEM version which don't run on the Voodoo5 natively)
 
As for sound cards, I'll definitely be using a Turtle Beach Montego II with the Aureal Vortex2 chipset. I may decide to add my Creative SB AWE64 Gold to that if DOS games have stuff missing on the Montego II's SB emulation.
 
Also note that "reasonable FPS" means "steady 60 FPS" to me, which the BP6 + Radeon 8500 sure couldn't pull off with Unreal Tournament even at 640x480. Quake III Arena fared a bit better due to support for multiple CPUs/cores and HT&L, but I don't like that game as much.
 
Those are about as demanding as they get for what I'd run on such a computer, though...most of the other games that tend to act up on newer computers would likely run fine. I'd just have to do some more testing.

 
 
I wholeheartedly agree on 60 FPS. Looking purely at specs, that Radeon 8500 is the better option. Regarding Glide, it's actually something that has been emulated VERY well, so you might want to look into that as there are multiple ways of running it on both DOS and Windows alike.
 
Unreal Tournament 99 shouldn't be that complicated to run at steady 60 FPS with at least medium settings and resolutions higher than 800x600 on that hardware. But in the event you want to be perfectly sure about frame rates, you might want to get something like a used Geforce 4 Ti 4200/4600 or even a Geforce FX 5700/5900.
 
An alternative to building a legacy PC is to use a Pentium 4 platform that predates PCIe, as that's the highest performing system with a modicum of compatibility with legacy OSes and respective hardware, including ISA support. Aiming a bit higher than Pentium III systems (including Tualatin) and going for shorter pipeline Pentium 4 versions will enable you very good results.
 
One thing you haven't mentioned is the monitor being used. I sure hope you're not planning on running anything non-CRT.

 

[NamelessPFG]

If I was going that far with the graphics card, I'd use my ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128 MB instead. Besides, I'm a bit more concerned about compatibility with pre-UT stuff, to be frank. My more modern systems will manhandle anything UnrealEngine1-based, especially my main machine with DX10 support.
 
There's plenty of Glide wrappers available, and dgVoodoo works surprisingly well with MW2:31stCC's Glide OEM edition. However, I don't know if any of them emulate the V5's T-Buffer effects, generally used for motion blur and things like that. I recall Serious Sam TFE/TSE and Grand Theft Auto III supporting them, along with one particular version of Quake III Arena.
 
Pentium 4/NetBurst...the thought of that just makes me cringe. Besides, I have a setup with an Athlon XP 3200+, a GeForce 6800 Ultra, and an X-Fi Prelude that I use for XP-era stuff, and I have a feeling that one's too modern for Windows 98 SE.
 
Don't worry about the monitor; it's a Sun GDM-5410, a 21" FD Trinitron G1 that can do 1600x1200 at 95 Hz and lower resolutions up to 160 Hz. Admitted, I need to sort out the green bias problem it had since before I got it, but it works alright. (I'm half-tempted to use my Sony GDM-FW900 instead, but I'll keep that one to my main desktop since that's the one running games that actually make good use of widescreen resolutions.)

 

[Roller]

You're perfectly fine with playing older games with a Radeon 9800 Pro, the issues arise with the following generation (such as X800 cards) as well as Geforce 6 series onwards due to several factors, including lack of palletized texture support.
 
AMD's equivalent to Pentium 4 platforms works just as well, and just like the GPU situation I mentioned above, the same happens with CPUs newer than these generations.
 
With the specs you mentioned of all that hardware, I feel you would get a close to ideal machine with that Athlon XP 3200+, the Radeon 9800 Pro, then installing the AWE64 Gold, the Turtle Beach Montego II and the X-Fi Prelude. Dual boot that machine with Windows 98SE and Windows XP, but don't install the Prelude drivers on Windows 98SE due to a forced incompatibility with WDM driver architecture, install it only on Windows XP.
 
Ah, so you're well equipped in terms of monitors, so along with the above specs recommended, you should be perfectly capable of playing all Windows 98SE games as well as Windows XP games. You won't need a DOS emulator since dual booting Win98SE and WinXP will provide you with a real command prompt rather than a terminal (on Win98SE side, of course).

 

[NamelessPFG]

The XP 3200+ machine is running on an Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe. No ISA slots on that board, so the AWE64 Gold won't fit in the first place.
 
I put the Montego II in there...and then found out how dreadful the Aureal Vortex driver situation was under XP. A3D seemed to work, but EAX was out of the question entirely. I also have an SB Live! Value, but the stock Creative drivers didn't have much to offer, and the kX Project drivers didn't have working EAX. (It's actually why I bought an X-Fi Forte that I eventually traded for the Titanium HD; I wanted to move the X-Fi Prelude to that system.)
 
I also didn't mention that I have 2 GB of DDR-400 running in that system. Win98SE tends to act up if you have more than 512 MB installed. Needless to say, I keep it around as an XP gaming system for titles dating around 1999 to 2005, because I really don't want to cripple its XP capability by using less RAM and also downgrading to the Radeon 9800 Pro. (I'd also lose the ability to use these X3D/eDimensional/ELSA Revelator shutterglasses I have if I did away with the NVIDIA card.)
 
Ultimately, it just seems like it's better to keep my Win9x and my XP systems distinct.

 

[Roller]

It does seem like you have some hardware limitations that prevent you from assembling the system. I find it odd that the board doesn't support ISA, it's a shame.
 
I still think that it would be a better option to go with Netburst rather than Tualatin, as 2.0GHz models outperform previous models as well as previous generations for quite a bit.
 
In any case, you could always artificially cap system memory available for each OS, but in the end it just might be better to go with separate systems indeed.

 

[NamelessPFG]

Boards of that era NOT having ISA slots honestly doesn't surprise me. Intel started phasing them out with their i8**-series Pentium III chipsets that succeeded their 440BX chipset from the Pentium II days, and the only Pentium III-compatible boards with ISA slots are all based on VIA chipsets.
 
Chances are NVIDIA never supported ISA with their nForce2 chipset, which is what the A7N8X-E and most other top-of-the-line Socket A boards use.
 
My impression of Pentium 4/NetBurst is that it performs WORSE clock-for-clock than a typical Pentium III, but that could have just been the earliest Willamette CPUs. Maybe Northwood started to improve things, while Prescott just heated up the place. Only thing is, if it's hard enough to find Pentium III boards with ISA slots, where am I going to find a P4 board with them, especially given that the P4 line had a lot of socket changes? And on top of that, would these P4 chipsets with ISA slots play nicely with Windows 98 SE in the first place?

 

[Roller]

Well, I never mentioned Intel chipsets alone. And there were plenty of hybrid boards that supported a mix of SDR and DDR RAM, a mix of AGP and PCIe buses, etc.
 
The per clock performance you mention only applies to Willamette CPUs, Northwood changed that, with Prescott being good intentioned but falling flat due to bad design changes.
 
Basically you should look for boards that are compatible with the lowest Northwood CPUs. What can give you headaches is the PCI compatibility, ISA curiously tends to be more compatible, despite the rather small hardware time frame, namely between Willamette and Prescott.
 
Could you get a different board for your Athlon XP?