teh X-FI review

I hope this review bears out to be true. That said, I'll be waiting for the product to have been kicked around on the market for several months first. I'd rather not be a paying bug tester, or worse, end up having bought into pure hype.
 
Looks cool, but for $250 it should get a date for me. I am interested in the "cheaper" base model thats only 129. I will probably get one but wait for some reviews first. Until then Ill keep using the old Audigy 1. I could give a shit about that front mount thing, and with 2 GB RAM I dont think 64MB on the soundcard will make that much difference, but who knows???? I wonder what cut that Fatal1ty guy gets of each sale???? BTW I read in another preview to expect the boards to go on sale 22 AUG. I emailed Creative but they a very tight lipped and wouldnt even acknowlege their own press releases.
 
That is a very poorly written review. No to say the review is wrong, but just that I would wait for more reviews.
 
Slider19 said:
That is a very poorly written review. No to say the review is wrong, but just that I would wait for more reviews.
Click to expand...
Yea, the review said the X-Fi used more CPU usage....... but the graph shows less CPU usage then the Audigy 2 ZS...............................

Oh well, im not too sure I like this idea of changing the sound of MP3's... does'nt seem very "true".
 
I think the guy mixed up his graphs or he doesnt know how to intrepret them???? Creative claims to be able to correct the compression of MP3 to be able to make the music sound more true to the original if i understand what ive read. We'll need to wait and see. Audio seems very subjective anyway.Its really what you like to hear and I think very difficult to get across on paper.
 
I find it very odd that the inquirer got a review card before every other major hardware review site.
 
towert7 said:
Yea, the review said the X-Fi used more CPU usage....... but the graph shows less CPU usage then the Audigy 2 ZS...............................
Click to expand...

Yeah WTF is up with that?
 
towert7 said:
Yea, the review said the X-Fi used more CPU usage....... but the graph shows less CPU usage then the Audigy 2 ZS...............................
Click to expand...

No, it said :
In conclusion, in one benchmark it uses a little more CPU horse power but frankly I don’t care because my gaming hasn’t been affected in a positive or negative way when it comes to frames per second
Click to expand...
.

There is a website somewhere, dedicated to computer audio and I can't remember what it is. I guess in a couple weeks when I google "X-fi" review I'll find it again.

I agree though, one Inquirer review doesn't do muc, except maybe provide us with some pics of the apps.
 
They need to give these cards to hardcore audiophilies. They will tell the truth about the quality :D
 
I dont think the inquirer guy got one to review per se. I think he scammed one or was given one at QuakeCon last weekend. at least that what he said.
 
DaRkF0g said:
They need to give these cards to hardcore audiophilies. They will tell the truth about the quality :D
Click to expand...

Probably the exact reason why they wouldn't want to give one to a hardcore audiophile too:p
 
Personally, I’m just hoping the drivers are stable. I will do anything to get away from the screetch of death Audigy 1 drivers.
 
towert7 said:
Yea, the review said the X-Fi used more CPU usage....... but the graph shows less CPU usage then the Audigy 2 ZS...............................
.
Click to expand...

If you look at the numbers (not the graphs) for the benchmarks, the "mean of distribution" is actually higher on the x-fi for the Directsound+EAX test. I've never use that benchmark, so I can't really say why the graphs don't seem to match the number below, but that's where he's probably drawing his comment from.
 
I think the mean is higher on the X-FI because of a single spike that throws off the numbers.
 
I might just make the leap to one since I'm still using an Audigy 1. I'll justl have to see how the reviews pan out after they release them later this month.
 
eh, the crystalizer is guessing at what was removed by compression, there is no way for it to really know.

It doesn't make the music sound better, it makes the music sound different, and that particular reviewer liked the difference. I'm sort of a purist when it comes to this stuff. I want the music to sound the way the composer/performer thinks it should sound, not how creative thinks it should sound. Give me accuracy over arbitrary enhancement any day.

Audio snake oil from creative? That shouldn't be shocking to anybody.

I think when the real reviews come out, we're not going to see significantly better audio reproduction.
 
kelbear said:
Probably the exact reason why they wouldn't want to give one to a hardcore audiophile too:p
Click to expand...
Heh good point! They wouldnt sell any if it was critiqued that intensively :p
 
DaRkF0g said:
Heh good point! They wouldnt sell any if it was critiqued that intensively :p
Click to expand...
If people still buy sony speakers, there will always be people who buy things even if they don't "sound good".

As we all know, creative is smart to give it to gaming sites that focus more on "CPU" performance and in game testing. Rarely have I seen reviews on sound cards that go into the true specifics of how they sound...... its just two diffrent audiences I guess.

Most just have subjective tests that say "it sounds good enough".
 
Well said towert :)

That is it, there are just the 2 groups of people. IMO You have to refer to a good magazine article to find out how well a sound card actually sounds :)
 
DaRkF0g said:
IMO You have to refer to a good magazine article to find out how well a sound card actually sounds :)
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
I guess personal experience means nothing to you then?
 
eastvillager said:
eh, the crystalizer is guessing at what was removed by compression, there is no way for it to really know.

It doesn't make the music sound better, it makes the music sound different, and that particular reviewer liked the difference. I'm sort of a purist when it comes to this stuff. I want the music to sound the way the composer/performer thinks it should sound, not how creative thinks it should sound. Give me accuracy over arbitrary enhancement any day.

Audio snake oil from creative? That shouldn't be shocking to anybody.

I think when the real reviews come out, we're not going to see significantly better audio reproduction.
Click to expand...

To encode mp3's a compression formula or "mathematical equation" is used.

The same equation can theoreticaly be applied in reverse to obtain the original sound.

8 / 2 = 4

4 x 2 = 8
 
Mister X said:
:rolleyes:
I guess personal experience means nothing to you then?
Click to expand...
Sorry Mr. X I forgot about that.

My thought is there are alot of little kiddies writing these reviews that know nothing about sound and EQ's. What makes something sound good to them is so much bass you cant hear anything else :p. Sound quality usually has very little to none, to do with the review.

Someone like yourself knows more than that, and therefore can write a good review on how well/poor a soundcard preforms. Experience with sound also allows for a well written review :)

(Tried to explain that as well as I could, I am barely awake ATM. ;) )
 
MaxHardcore said:
To encode mp3's a compression formula or "mathematical equation" is used.

The same equation can theoreticaly be applied in reverse to obtain the original sound.

8 / 2 = 4

4 x 2 = 8
Click to expand...

That's not true, as lossy compression permanently discards information selectively.

Think about it, if you can compress something to a smaller size but still recover all data, then why not compress it again? And again? And why not keep compressing until it is just 1 bit in size? This is a fundamental theory of modern compression: you can't compress random data, even by a a single bit. This holds true for mp3/ogg/aac as well, as they would violate said theorem if you could produce an identical copy from the smaller data set.
 
MaxHardcore said:
To encode mp3's a compression formula or "mathematical equation" is used.

The same equation can theoreticaly be applied in reverse to obtain the original sound.

8 / 2 = 4

4 x 2 = 8
Click to expand...

uh, no, it can't... once the information is gone, it's gone for good...
 
towert7 said:
:rolleyes:
Wouldn't a magazine article be considered personal experience by the writer?
Click to expand...

So what's the difference between a review from a magazine article and the review by the Inquirer?

I think you are missing the point here. You have to listen to it for yourself, not leave it up to a bunch of audiophiles or a bunch of Sony-street style lovers. Why trust someone else's ears when you can trust your own?
 
eastvillager said:
eastvillager said:
I'm sort of a purist when it comes to this stuff. I want the music to sound the way the composer/performer thinks it should sound, not how creative thinks it should sound. Give me accuracy over arbitrary enhancement any day.

Audio snake oil from creative? That shouldn't be shocking to anybody.

I think when the real reviews come out, we're not going to see significantly better audio reproduction.
Click to expand...

MP3's aren't how the composer wanted things to sound. The crystalizer is just reversing the algorithms that have *already* been applied. NEITHER the MP3 nor the Crystalized version is what the author intended. So your argument is moot and your hasty criticism unwarranted until you've heard it.

It's well known that MP3 removes certain portions of the audible spectrum and crappy ones introduce compressoin artifacts and other bad sounds. Crystalizer might improve this.

Besides, let's face it, most MP3 collections out there aren't based on a CD that the person actually owns, therefore, they don't have the "TRUE MASTER" to go back to. Crystalizer might help those people.
 
strid3r said:
I think you are missing the point here.
Click to expand...
You'll notice that I often miss "the point", because I'm making another point that sometimes certain people don't pick up on. ^_^ Heck, sometimes no one picks up on it.

You are right though, relativity plays a role in audio too. Only we can say what is good/bad.
 
strid3r said:
So what's the difference between a review from a magazine article and the review by the Inquirer?

I think you are missing the point here. You have to listen to it for yourself, not leave it up to a bunch of audiophiles or a bunch of Sony-street style lovers. Why trust someone else's ears when you can trust your own?
Click to expand...

well, to be fair, i'd probably give let's say, kal rubinson's opinion a teensy bit more weight than say, the inquirer, if they were talking about sq of something...

imo, anyway...
 
towert7 said:
:rolleyes:
Wouldn't a magazine article be considered personal experience by the writer?
Click to expand...

Not if you need one to tell you how good something you have sounds.
Do you see where the rolleyes part came from now or did you miss that point as well?
 
UGh, ahhhh! I caved...took back my Audigy 2 value to BB for store credit. Anybody got a retail "on the fing shelf" date yet? I suppose I'll have to suffer with my revo for the time being. I'm gonna miss my rear speakers spewing out BF2 sounds with aplomb :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top