New Creative SoundBlaster cards on their way

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by GraB, Aug 31, 2005.

  1. GraB

    GraB Guest

    http://www.soundblaster.com/products/x-fi/technology/

    5. SuperRip Your CDs Into 24-bit Xtreme Fidelity Music
    With the X-Fi 24-bit Crystalizer and the X-Fi CMSS-3D features, you
    can now "SuperRip" your CDs into Xtreme Fidelity quality so that you
    can permanently enhance your music to sound better than the original
    CD.

    I wonder if it works? But . . . it looks like an XP-only card.

    Basic Requirements

    * Genuine Intel® Pentium® III 1 GHz, AMD® 1 GHz processor or
    faster
    * Intel, AMD or 100% compatible motherboard chipset
    * Microsoft® Windows® XP Service Pack 2 (SP2)
    * 256MB RAM
    * 600MB of free hard disk space
    * Available PCI 2.1 slot for the audio card
    * CD-ROM/CD-RW or CD/DVD-ROM required for software installation
    * Graphics card with DirectX® 9 and OpenGL® compliant 3D graphics
    accelerator
    GraB, Aug 31, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:28:17 +1200, GraB <> wrote:

    >http://www.soundblaster.com/products/x-fi/technology/
    >
    >5. SuperRip Your CDs Into 24-bit Xtreme Fidelity Music
    >With the X-Fi 24-bit Crystalizer and the X-Fi CMSS-3D features, you
    >can now "SuperRip" your CDs into Xtreme Fidelity quality so that you
    >can permanently enhance your music to sound better than the original
    >CD.
    >
    >I wonder if it works? But . . . it looks like an XP-only card.
    >
    >Basic Requirements
    >
    > * Genuine Intel® Pentium® III 1 GHz, AMD® 1 GHz processor or
    >faster
    > * Intel, AMD or 100% compatible motherboard chipset
    > * Microsoft® Windows® XP Service Pack 2 (SP2)
    > * 256MB RAM
    > * 600MB of free hard disk space
    > * Available PCI 2.1 slot for the audio card
    > * CD-ROM/CD-RW or CD/DVD-ROM required for software installation
    > * Graphics card with DirectX® 9 and OpenGL® compliant 3D graphics
    >accelerator


    Basic physics or information theory: You can not create information
    that is not already there. If the CD is recorded as 16-bit words at
    44100 Hz, you can not suddenly get any more information out of the CD
    than that. In other words, any "enhancement" that is done to the data
    can not create any more real information than was already there. It
    can transform it, and rearrange it (and, of course, degrade it).
    Sometimes transformations may mean they you consider the new version
    "better" when you listen to it (eg removing scratchy noise from a CD
    made from an old 78 record). But there will be *less* information
    (fewer bits of actual data) in the new version than in the old one.

    So just reading a 16-bit 44100 Hz CD in and transforming it into a
    24-bit format will do nothing at all except possibly degrade the data
    just a tiny bit in the process of recalculating it all to do the
    transformation. What may "enhance" the sound is a transformation
    process that they do on the data (CMSS-3D?). Personally, I have never
    found such transformations to do anything good to quality music. If
    you want surround sound, for example, you really need to record it
    with three or four channels, rather than reprocess it from a stereo
    signal.

    Where they may be getting the 24-bit idea from is that there are now
    new CD formats (SACD?) that record data in a 24-bit format. This does
    give extra quality, as long as the entire recording process is done in
    at least a 24-bit format. You probably need a 24-bit capable sound
    card for these new formats.
    Stephen Worthington, Aug 31, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. GraB

    H.O.G Guest

    On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:42:47 GMT, Stephen Worthington
    <34.nz56.remove_numbers> spoke these fine words:

    >On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:28:17 +1200, GraB <> wrote:
    >
    >>http://www.soundblaster.com/products/x-fi/technology/
    >>
    >>5. SuperRip Your CDs Into 24-bit Xtreme Fidelity Music
    >>With the X-Fi 24-bit Crystalizer and the X-Fi CMSS-3D features, you
    >>can now "SuperRip" your CDs into Xtreme Fidelity quality so that you
    >>can permanently enhance your music to sound better than the original
    >>CD.
    >>
    >>I wonder if it works? But . . . it looks like an XP-only card.
    >>
    >>Basic Requirements
    >>
    >> * Genuine Intel® Pentium® III 1 GHz, AMD® 1 GHz processor or
    >>faster
    >> * Intel, AMD or 100% compatible motherboard chipset
    >> * Microsoft® Windows® XP Service Pack 2 (SP2)
    >> * 256MB RAM
    >> * 600MB of free hard disk space
    >> * Available PCI 2.1 slot for the audio card
    >> * CD-ROM/CD-RW or CD/DVD-ROM required for software installation
    >> * Graphics card with DirectX® 9 and OpenGL® compliant 3D graphics
    >>accelerator

    >
    >Basic physics or information theory: You can not create information
    >that is not already there. If the CD is recorded as 16-bit words at
    >44100 Hz, you can not suddenly get any more information out of the CD
    >than that. In other words, any "enhancement" that is done to the data
    >can not create any more real information than was already there. It
    >can transform it, and rearrange it (and, of course, degrade it).
    >Sometimes transformations may mean they you consider the new version
    >"better" when you listen to it (eg removing scratchy noise from a CD
    >made from an old 78 record). But there will be *less* information
    >(fewer bits of actual data) in the new version than in the old one.
    >
    >So just reading a 16-bit 44100 Hz CD in and transforming it into a
    >24-bit format will do nothing at all except possibly degrade the data
    >just a tiny bit in the process of recalculating it all to do the
    >transformation.


    This is correct according to traditional thinking, but there has been
    pretty major efforts made these days in terms of extrapolation
    algorithms.

    For instance, if we look at a simplified example, and think of pitch
    as a measurement of 1 to 20, and a recording of 10Hz, or 10 "changes
    of pitch" a second. Now if the first second (or 10 changes of pitch)
    was:

    1, 6, 12, 9, 6, 1, 1, 10, 10, 1

    we could use a really basic extrapolation (average of 2 vals) to
    transform this to 20Hz:

    1, 3, 6, 9,12,10, 9, 7, 6, 3, 1, 1, 1, 5,10,10,10, 5, 1

    This would then most likely sound better than the first one, as it
    contains twice as many pitch changes, predicted from the original
    data.

    Obviously this is using a very simple predictive extrapolation
    algorithm, and in reality, the algorithms used are a heck of a lot
    more complex than that, but you get the idea.
    H.O.G, Aug 31, 2005
    #3
  4. GraB

    GraB Guest

    On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 13:42:47 GMT, Stephen Worthington
    <34.nz56.remove_numbers> wrote:

    >On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:28:17 +1200, GraB <> wrote:
    >
    >>http://www.soundblaster.com/products/x-fi/technology/
    >>
    >>5. SuperRip Your CDs Into 24-bit Xtreme Fidelity Music
    >>With the X-Fi 24-bit Crystalizer and the X-Fi CMSS-3D features, you
    >>can now "SuperRip" your CDs into Xtreme Fidelity quality so that you
    >>can permanently enhance your music to sound better than the original
    >>CD.
    >>
    >>I wonder if it works?
    >>

    >Basic physics or information theory: You can not create information
    >that is not already there. If the CD is recorded as 16-bit words at
    >44100 Hz, you can not suddenly get any more information out of the CD
    >than that. In other words, any "enhancement" that is done to the data
    >can not create any more real information than was already there. It
    >can transform it, and rearrange it (and, of course, degrade it).
    >Sometimes transformations may mean they you consider the new version
    >"better" when you listen to it (eg removing scratchy noise from a CD
    >made from an old 78 record). But there will be *less* information
    >(fewer bits of actual data) in the new version than in the old one.
    >
    >So just reading a 16-bit 44100 Hz CD in and transforming it into a
    >24-bit format will do nothing at all except possibly degrade the data
    >just a tiny bit in the process of recalculating it all to do the
    >transformation. What may "enhance" the sound is a transformation
    >process that they do on the data (CMSS-3D?). Personally, I have never
    >found such transformations to do anything good to quality music. If
    >you want surround sound, for example, you really need to record it
    >with three or four channels, rather than reprocess it from a stereo
    >signal.
    >
    >Where they may be getting the 24-bit idea from is that there are now
    >new CD formats (SACD?) that record data in a 24-bit format. This does
    >give extra quality, as long as the entire recording process is done in
    >at least a 24-bit format. You probably need a 24-bit capable sound
    >card for these new formats.


    I would agree with the above. This is how they think it is enhanced:

    # X-Fi 24-bit Crystalizer enhances MP3s and movies to sound better
    than they do on their original CD or DVD.

    Utilizing the Creative X-Fi Xtreme Fidelity audio processor your music
    and movie audio is sent through a two-step quality enhancement
    process. First the processor converts the audio into 24-bit/96kHz
    quality using its virtually transparent SRC (Sample Rate Converter)
    engine. Then it remasters and selectively enhances the audio by
    analyzing and identifying which parts of the audio stream have been
    restricted/damaged during the compression stages to 16-bit and then to
    MP3.

    CrystalizerMusic Benefits: Low and high frequencies are enhanced while
    the dynamics are improved. Overall your music will sound cleaner,
    smoother and will sparkle!

    Movie Benefits: Explosions, gun-shots and high-impact audio sequences
    sound more realistic than ever before!

    I think I will stear clear of this card. Apart from the fact that it
    is for XP and I have 98SE, I wouldn't want my sounds to be any more
    dynamic. Good grief! When I watch a war movie now I have to turn it
    down for the battle scenes, and also sometimes the music is loud above
    speech levels so have to hit the volume. Any more dynamic will knock
    me out of the window. And I am using my NAD / Visonik David
    amp/speaker combination, just a stereo pair.
    GraB, Aug 31, 2005
    #4
  5. > For instance, if we look at a simplified example, and think of pitch
    > as a measurement of 1 to 20, and a recording of 10Hz, or 10 "changes
    > of pitch" a second. Now if the first second (or 10 changes of pitch)
    > was:
    >
    > 1, 6, 12, 9, 6, 1, 1, 10, 10, 1
    >
    > we could use a really basic extrapolation (average of 2 vals) to
    > transform this to 20Hz:
    >
    > 1, 3, 6, 9,12,10, 9, 7, 6, 3, 1, 1, 1, 5,10,10,10, 5, 1
    >
    > This would then most likely sound better than the first one, as it
    > contains twice as many pitch changes, predicted from the original
    > data.
    >
    > Obviously this is using a very simple predictive extrapolation
    > algorithm, and in reality, the algorithms used are a heck of a lot
    > more complex than that, but you get the idea.



    If the predicted sequence does not accurately predict the original values,
    then you would have been better off with the original.

    And, I always wondered about these guys on CSI , when they get a blurry
    photo of a person and enhance it so you can count the zits.
    news.xtra.co.nz, Aug 31, 2005
    #5
  6. GraB

    GraB Guest

    On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:28:32 +1200, "news.xtra.co.nz"
    <> wrote:

    >> For instance, if we look at a simplified example, and think of pitch
    >> as a measurement of 1 to 20, and a recording of 10Hz, or 10 "changes
    >> of pitch" a second. Now if the first second (or 10 changes of pitch)
    >> was:
    >>
    >> 1, 6, 12, 9, 6, 1, 1, 10, 10, 1
    >>
    >> we could use a really basic extrapolation (average of 2 vals) to
    >> transform this to 20Hz:
    >>
    >> 1, 3, 6, 9,12,10, 9, 7, 6, 3, 1, 1, 1, 5,10,10,10, 5, 1
    >>
    >> This would then most likely sound better than the first one, as it
    >> contains twice as many pitch changes, predicted from the original
    >> data.
    >>
    >> Obviously this is using a very simple predictive extrapolation
    >> algorithm, and in reality, the algorithms used are a heck of a lot
    >> more complex than that, but you get the idea.

    >
    >
    >If the predicted sequence does not accurately predict the original values,
    >then you would have been better off with the original.
    >
    >And, I always wondered about these guys on CSI , when they get a blurry
    >photo of a person and enhance it so you can count the zits.


    Highly doubtful. I lost interest in CSI when in one episode they had
    a piece of paper in which a bloodstained knife had been wrapped. The
    blood had soaked into the paper but they processed the image and came
    up with a sharp outline of the knife including the writing etched into
    it. I don't believe that could be possible.
    GraB, Aug 31, 2005
    #6
  7. GraB

    H.O.G Guest

    On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:28:32 +1200, "news.xtra.co.nz"
    <> spoke these fine words:

    >> For instance, if we look at a simplified example, and think of pitch
    >> as a measurement of 1 to 20, and a recording of 10Hz, or 10 "changes
    >> of pitch" a second. Now if the first second (or 10 changes of pitch)
    >> was:
    >>
    >> 1, 6, 12, 9, 6, 1, 1, 10, 10, 1
    >>
    >> we could use a really basic extrapolation (average of 2 vals) to
    >> transform this to 20Hz:
    >>
    >> 1, 3, 6, 9,12,10, 9, 7, 6, 3, 1, 1, 1, 5,10,10,10, 5, 1
    >>
    >> This would then most likely sound better than the first one, as it
    >> contains twice as many pitch changes, predicted from the original
    >> data.
    >>
    >> Obviously this is using a very simple predictive extrapolation
    >> algorithm, and in reality, the algorithms used are a heck of a lot
    >> more complex than that, but you get the idea.

    >
    >
    >If the predicted sequence does not accurately predict the original values,
    >then you would have been better off with the original.


    The prediction is only used for extrapolation - ie the values
    "between" the known values. You are quite right, though, and that is
    why the algorithms are so complicated, to ensure they extrapolate as
    accurately as possible.

    >And, I always wondered about these guys on CSI , when they get a blurry
    >photo of a person and enhance it so you can count the zits.
    >

    Total garbage, basically. The idea is right to a lesser extent, but
    they take it way beyond the capabilities of technology.
    H.O.G, Sep 1, 2005
    #7
  8. GraB

    AD. Guest

    On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:28:17 +1200, GraB wrote:

    > I wonder if it works? But . . . it looks like an XP-only card.


    ewww... Creative stuff - yucky

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Sep 1, 2005
    #8
  9. On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 08:28:32 +1200, "news.xtra.co.nz"
    <> wrote:

    >> For instance, if we look at a simplified example, and think of pitch
    >> as a measurement of 1 to 20, and a recording of 10Hz, or 10 "changes
    >> of pitch" a second. Now if the first second (or 10 changes of pitch)
    >> was:
    >>
    >> 1, 6, 12, 9, 6, 1, 1, 10, 10, 1
    >>
    >> we could use a really basic extrapolation (average of 2 vals) to
    >> transform this to 20Hz:
    >>
    >> 1, 3, 6, 9,12,10, 9, 7, 6, 3, 1, 1, 1, 5,10,10,10, 5, 1
    >>
    >> This would then most likely sound better than the first one, as it
    >> contains twice as many pitch changes, predicted from the original
    >> data.
    >>
    >> Obviously this is using a very simple predictive extrapolation
    >> algorithm, and in reality, the algorithms used are a heck of a lot
    >> more complex than that, but you get the idea.

    >
    >
    >If the predicted sequence does not accurately predict the original values,
    >then you would have been better off with the original.
    >
    >And, I always wondered about these guys on CSI , when they get a blurry
    >photo of a person and enhance it so you can count the zits.


    With one photo, if it is blurry there may still be more information
    there that can be extracted by deblurring it. Blurring is a strange
    phenomenon that does not necessarily reduce the information content,
    but just makes the information unreadable to the human eye.
    Deblurring, as with all postprocessing, works best if you have a real
    negative, as there is still more data stored on real film than in most
    digital camera frames.

    In the more general case, when you see them take a security camera
    photo (low resolution to start with), then find a reflection in it and
    then manage to blow that up to something usable, that is quite
    rediculous.

    What does work though with security camera data is to take multiple
    frames and combine the data for an object that can be seen in all
    those frames. You can get significantly more out of multiple frames
    than a single frame, as you have more information to begin with. IIRC,
    it works even better on something that moves a little or where you get
    a slightly different angle due to the camera moving.

    And another really rediculous thing - DNA results within an hour or
    two! Ask ESR how long it really takes! Last I heard, if you have a
    very big sample and do not need to use the polymerase chain reaction
    to produce enough of a sample to work on, it takes over a day to just
    get the DNA fingerprint out of it (by electrophoresis?). If you need
    to use PCR, that takes at least another day or two. And then there is
    the time taken to properly examine the objects you are getting the DNA
    off in the first place, and finding the DNA sample on it.

    And the time they take on site examining the site is crazy as well. If
    you look at what happens in real life in NZ, ESR takes *days* on
    murder sites! And any ESR person who was as careless with a site as
    the CSIs are would be fired on the spot - full coverage (throwaway?)
    overalls is the minimum standard these days. Let alone the
    contamination done by the cops on CSI!
    Stephen Worthington, Sep 1, 2005
    #9
  10. GraB

    H.O.G Guest

    On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:34:43 +1200, "AD." <> spoke these
    fine words:

    >On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:28:17 +1200, GraB wrote:
    >
    >> I wonder if it works? But . . . it looks like an XP-only card.

    >
    >ewww... Creative stuff - yucky


    Yeah, only the best in market...
    H.O.G, Sep 1, 2005
    #10
  11. GraB

    AD. Guest

    On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:53:06 +1200, H.O.G wrote:

    > On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:34:43 +1200, "AD." <> spoke these
    > fine words:
    >
    >>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:28:17 +1200, GraB wrote:
    >>
    >>> I wonder if it works? But . . . it looks like an XP-only card.

    >>
    >>ewww... Creative stuff - yucky

    >
    > Yeah, only the best in market...


    Seriously? Maybe only because they've practically bought out everyone
    else that made better stuff and binned it.

    What with their buggy bloated drivers, overrated sound quality, inability
    to comply with PCI bus specs, obvious lack of testing and platform
    verification (eg IRQ sharing problems, noisy bus traffic, crackling sound,
    SMP compatible drivers, multiple disk drives, only testing on Intel
    chipsets), dodgy business dealings, class action lawsuits for their over
    inflated product specs etc.

    http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/332005084731/p/1

    Sure they made ok stuff back in their heyday (AWE-32s were pretty cool),
    but since then have just been surviving through massive name recognition
    and the amazing ability of their one eyed fanboys to blame every other
    component in their machines for their problems except for the sound card.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Sep 1, 2005
    #11
  12. GraB

    Richard Guest

    AD. wrote:

    > Seriously? Maybe only because they've practically bought out everyone
    > else that made better stuff and binned it.


    I had a SB live - gave it away and replaced it with a cmedia cheapie - much much
    much better sound quality on the spdif out without creatives shitty dsp involved.
    Richard, Sep 1, 2005
    #12
  13. GraB

    XP Guest

    On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:45:48 +1200, "AD." <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:53:06 +1200, H.O.G wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:34:43 +1200, "AD." <> spoke these
    >> fine words:
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:28:17 +1200, GraB wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I wonder if it works? But . . . it looks like an XP-only card.
    >>>
    >>>ewww... Creative stuff - yucky

    >>
    >> Yeah, only the best in market...

    >
    >Seriously? Maybe only because they've practically bought out everyone
    >else that made better stuff and binned it.
    >
    >What with their buggy bloated drivers, overrated sound quality, inability
    >to comply with PCI bus specs, obvious lack of testing and platform
    >verification (eg IRQ sharing problems, noisy bus traffic, crackling sound,
    >SMP compatible drivers, multiple disk drives, only testing on Intel
    >chipsets), dodgy business dealings, class action lawsuits for their over
    >inflated product specs etc.
    >
    >http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/332005084731/p/1
    >
    >Sure they made ok stuff back in their heyday (AWE-32s were pretty cool),
    >but since then have just been surviving through massive name recognition
    >and the amazing ability of their one eyed fanboys to blame every other
    >component in their machines for their problems except for the sound card.




    There is nothing at all wrong with Creative Cards its that CRAP VIA Mobos
    that is the problem

    Me thinks you have never used one of there cards and post Internet Drivel..

    I have use 4 of there cards and do not suffer from any problems at all.

    So Please post the links to all of these Facts that you have raved about..
    XP, Sep 1, 2005
    #13
  14. GraB

    AD. Guest

    On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 17:20:52 +1200, XP wrote:

    >>and the amazing ability of their one eyed fanboys to blame every other
    >>component in their machines for their problems except for the sound card.

    >
    > There is nothing at all wrong with Creative Cards its that CRAP VIA Mobos
    > that is the problem


    Yep, right on cue.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Sep 1, 2005
    #14
  15. T'was the Thu, 01 Sep 2005 13:15:20 +1200 when I remembered H.O.G
    <> saying something like this:

    >>And, I always wondered about these guys on CSI , when they get a blurry
    >>photo of a person and enhance it so you can count the zits.
    >>

    >Total garbage, basically. The idea is right to a lesser extent, but
    >they take it way beyond the capabilities of technology.


    You should see Shortland Street! There's more human drama on that show
    than medical adventures;)

    Then again, I wouldn't want to watch a TV show based around the real
    life situations at say, Taumarunui Hospital.
    --
    Cheers,

    Waylon Kenning.
    Waylon Kenning, Sep 1, 2005
    #15
  16. GraB

    GraB Guest

    On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:45:48 +1200, "AD." <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:53:06 +1200, H.O.G wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:34:43 +1200, "AD." <> spoke these
    >> fine words:
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:28:17 +1200, GraB wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I wonder if it works? But . . . it looks like an XP-only card.
    >>>
    >>>ewww... Creative stuff - yucky

    >>
    >> Yeah, only the best in market...

    >
    >Seriously? Maybe only because they've practically bought out everyone
    >else that made better stuff and binned it.
    >
    >What with their buggy bloated drivers, overrated sound quality, inability
    >to comply with PCI bus specs, obvious lack of testing and platform
    >verification (eg IRQ sharing problems, noisy bus traffic, crackling sound,
    >SMP compatible drivers, multiple disk drives, only testing on Intel
    >chipsets), dodgy business dealings, class action lawsuits for their over
    >inflated product specs etc.
    >
    >http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/332005084731/p/1
    >
    >Sure they made ok stuff back in their heyday (AWE-32s were pretty cool),
    >but since then have just been surviving through massive name recognition
    >and the amazing ability of their one eyed fanboys to blame every other
    >component in their machines for their problems except for the sound card.


    According to this review their hype is a bit optimistic:
    http://www.anandtech.com/multimedia/showdoc.aspx?i=2518&p=1
    GraB, Sep 1, 2005
    #16
  17. GraB

    XP Guest

    On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 19:40:04 +1200, GraB <> wrote:

    >On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:45:48 +1200, "AD." <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:53:06 +1200, H.O.G wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 14:34:43 +1200, "AD." <> spoke these
    >>> fine words:
    >>>
    >>>>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 23:28:17 +1200, GraB wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> I wonder if it works? But . . . it looks like an XP-only card.
    >>>>
    >>>>ewww... Creative stuff - yucky
    >>>
    >>> Yeah, only the best in market...

    >>
    >>Seriously? Maybe only because they've practically bought out everyone
    >>else that made better stuff and binned it.
    >>
    >>What with their buggy bloated drivers, overrated sound quality, inability
    >>to comply with PCI bus specs, obvious lack of testing and platform
    >>verification (eg IRQ sharing problems, noisy bus traffic, crackling sound,
    >>SMP compatible drivers, multiple disk drives, only testing on Intel
    >>chipsets), dodgy business dealings, class action lawsuits for their over
    >>inflated product specs etc.
    >>
    >>http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/174096756/m/332005084731/p/1
    >>
    >>Sure they made ok stuff back in their heyday (AWE-32s were pretty cool),
    >>but since then have just been surviving through massive name recognition
    >>and the amazing ability of their one eyed fanboys to blame every other
    >>component in their machines for their problems except for the sound card.

    >
    >According to this review their hype is a bit optimistic:
    >http://www.anandtech.com/multimedia/showdoc.aspx?i=2518&p=1



    A far far better article..

    http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/multimedia/creative-x-fi.html
    XP, Sep 1, 2005
    #17
  18. GraB

    Richard Guest

    GraB wrote:

    >>Sure they made ok stuff back in their heyday (AWE-32s were pretty cool),
    >>but since then have just been surviving through massive name recognition
    >>and the amazing ability of their one eyed fanboys to blame every other
    >>component in their machines for their problems except for the sound card.

    >
    >
    > According to this review their hype is a bit optimistic:
    > http://www.anandtech.com/multimedia/showdoc.aspx?i=2518&p=1


    Best bit -

    Sample rate conversion is one of the causes of poor audio reproduction in
    current sound cards. So, why make such a big deal out of sample rate conversion
    on the X-Fi? This time, Creative has implemented an SRC that generates very low
    noise and distortion, and the Audio Ring allows data that doesn't require sample
    rate conversion to bypass the step altogether. For the conversion of a 997Hz
    signal from 44.1kHz to 48kHz, the SRC demonstrated -136dB THD+N and +/-
    0.00025dB pass-band ripple. Creative says that this is 300 times the quality of
    the SRC step in previous generation SoundBlaster products. These excellent
    results allow data to be passed multiple times through the SRC without any
    significant distortion of the data, making the SRC a key part in effects
    processing.


    So its 300 times better then a total shit SRC that the live and audigy featured
    in hardware... great :)
    Richard, Sep 1, 2005
    #18
  19. GraB

    GraB Guest

    GraB, Sep 1, 2005
    #19
  20. GraB

    GraB Guest

    GraB, Sep 1, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Aardvark
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    802
    Aardvark
    Feb 22, 2007
  2. dadiOH
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    549
    dadiOH
    Feb 22, 2007
  3. dadiOH
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    399
    dadiOH
    Feb 22, 2007
  4. soundblasted
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    408
    soundblasted
    Feb 23, 2007
  5. Radium
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,067
Loading...

Share This Page