The Crystallizer explained

[unhappy_mage]

As long as we're on the subject, could someone post a sample with and without Crystallizer? I don't have the card, and I'd like to hear it. If you don't have hosting, email it to me at hardfolding@users.sf.net and I'll host.

So, thats what it comes down to...the svpster personally attacking BBA.
Thats a typically used political tactic when there is no refuting fact.

You are now permanently irrelevent

I wish I could say that speaks for itself, but indubitably I'll catch crap for it. Oh well.

BBA, maybe we can agree to disagree - I think you're arguing that Crystallizer sounds better, and I'm arguing that it sounds less accurate. I like accurate, it helps me hear what's wrong instead of what's right. You like good, it sounds better.

And keep it a clean argument, please - no need to flame.

 

[Chastity]

Hi guys! Been rumaging through your forum today, and I'd like to address some issues raised in this thread:

1) Dolby Digital Live and compression: The total bitrate for a DD Live stream is 640bits, so that would be total for all 6 channels. Note the LFE channel uses less than the other 5, since the LFE requires less resolution. This was done for 2 reasons: to maximize quality, and it just so happens that the highest bitrate makes for lowest load on the processor. A very practical trait for a realtime process. If you do the math, this gives you about 110-120bits per channel. This can cause some artifacting, but nowhere near the point that recompressing your MP3 will bring about the coming of the AntiChrist as was suggested before.

2) The Crystalizer (or KrystaLiar, depending on who you ask) surely has been hit with the Creative Marketing Uglystick. In practice, this DSP effect is just that, an effect. It's trying to simulate what 24bit audiotracks sound like via psychoacoustics. Does it succeed? Does it even try to enhance dynamics? No, as tests on Digit-Life show that no dynamic range enhancement is done. (In fact, it shows some compression) However, it trys other techniques by trying to increasing seperation by making some parts louder. This would make it more than just a simple EQ application. Personally, I'd like to see some additional tweaking options for what it does. Oh, and applying a blanket +3dB to make it perceivably better is cheating.

In the end, however, whether it's worth it is up to the listener. A person can always adjust the level of the effect to taste, or even shut it off.

The X-Fi has plenty of other improvements to justify an upgrade. I'd wish the marketers would focus on them some more.

 

[anotherguy159]

BTW: Svpserstar, I was making front page news of this very website back before you even joined, and for what might you want to ask? For modifying a motherboard to create the first dual coppermine CPU motherboard just to prove it could be done. No, I don't know anything about electronics I guess.

JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE AN EXPERT IN ONE FIELD DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE EXPERT IN ANOTHER

[no need to yell ---- magnetik]

 

[anotherguy159]

So much for the arrogant conclusion of X-Fi = loudness button.

FOR THE RECORD, I SAID THAT.

Creative's 24-Bit Crystalizer is best understood as a signal-dependent, dynamic EQ.The source of its intelligence is an analysis front end that continuously calculates dynamically-normalized, separate low-frequency and high-frequency energy flux signals, based on nonlinear processing of the input audio streams.These two flux signals are used to apply proportionally-weighted, transient, low-frequency and high-frequency boosts to the input audio.

Marketing babble for EQ/Dynamic loudness button.

You are trying to draw empirical conclusions from anecdotal evidence.

This is exactly what happened in the last thread.
You, my friend, are a rock star. I applaud you!

 

[Deadsexy]

cant you guys keep your ramblings contained to one post at a time? I notice people on here with like 5 posts in a row, use the edit button pls...

 

[Mister X]

cant you guys keep your ramblings contained to one post at a time? I notice people on here with like 5 posts in a row, use the edit button pls...

Hmmm.... maybe the admins should make a rule about that.

Oh wait, my bad.
They did:

(8) No BOMBING forums or threads with pointless posts.

Funny how that rule seems to get about as much attention as the first rule does:

(1) Absolutely NO FLAMING, NAME CALLING OR PERSONAL ATTACKS. Mutual respect and civilized conversation is the required norm.

Since we are here and you brought this up....
Lets not forget this one either:

(20) Do not abuse VB CODE. It is provided as a benefit to you and its usage can be revoked.

Hmmm, it looks like I have some warnings to pass along to a few of the forum members that have posted replies in this thread.

 

[GotNoRice]

I was considering getting an X-Fi to replace the Audigy2zs I use in my Audigy2zs+EMU0404 combo. My friend already had one, so I tested using his when he came over. I thought that overall it was a pretty good sounding card. I thought that the Crystallizer sounded good at low volumes, but at loud volumes I didn’t like it at all. It is supposed to make up for compression in some way or another? I played a 128kbps mp3 and all it did was take the already distorted highs and make them even harsher creating a kind of nails on the chalkboard effect at louder volumes…

I didn’t get a chance to dig too deep into the drivers beyond what my friend showed me. I wonder if it is possible to not resample at all (to 48 or 96w/ crystallizer or anything). I know it only has a 48K crystal but that is also the case with the EMU 0404 and it manages to achieve 44.1K using PLL clock generation. Couldn’t the X-Fi do the same?

I’m not one of those who strives for complete accuracy when listening to music. I play around with the EQ from time to time and I almost always listen to my music with at least the “loudness” switch on my receiver on. Still, I’d rather have control over it and adjust it to my tastes than use a gimmicky DSP that from my experience is hit or miss depending on the song you are playing.

If the crystallizer can make a cheap pair of headphones or computer speakers sound better, then I think it is a great technology, because I’d assume that is what most people are using their X-Fi with.

 

[Hvatum]

Idiots can do whatever want with their music. You can rip my pure FLAC files and Grado SR-225's from my cold dead fingers.

Crystallizer sounds like it just mucks up the music to me. It's like a dynamic EQ adjustment or something so all of your music sounds like well synthed hip-hop. I can see why people like it because things tend to sound punchier. On a high quality listening setup having all your music sound like that gets a bit tiresome though. The treble can actually get a bit painful when the Crystallizer is on.

 

[BBA]

Idiots can do whatever want with their music. You can rip my pure FLAC files and Grado SR-225's from my cold dead fingers.

Xi-Fi sounds like it just mucks up the music to me. It's like a dynamic EQ adjustment or something so all of your music sounds like well synthed hip-hop. I can see why people like it because things tend to sound punchier. On a high quality listening setup having all your music sound like that gets a bit tiresome though. The treble can actually get a bit painful when Xi-Fi is on.

Sounds like you have confused the term Crystallizer with X-Fi. Am I correct? I can't see how you could make those statements otherwise.

 

[Hvatum]

Sounds like you have confused the term Crystallizer with X-Fi. Am I correct? I can't see how you could make those statements otherwise.

Yeah, I just woke up at 4:30 this morning to get some last minute studying done so my brain was functioning purely on the plane of organic chemistry.

 

[BBA]

Cool, at least you replied without a flame, opinions about the crystallizer aside.

Thanks

 

[Hvatum]

Cool, at least you replied without a flame, opinions about the crystallizer aside.

Thanks

I'm not one to flame my fellow audio enthusiasts on Hardforums when there are people who deserve it much more.

Besides, I never ran any professional freqeuncy analysis or sample comparison between "crystallized" and pure audio. I was just recounting my subjective opinion from a few hours listening time. With different listening equipment and even a different set of Scilia the same output could easily sound completely different.

 

[zachary80]

As long as we're on the subject, could someone post a sample with and without Crystallizer? I don't have the card, and I'd like to hear it. If you don't have hosting, email it to me at hardfolding@users.sf.net and I'll host.


I wish I could say that speaks for itself, but indubitably I'll catch crap for it. Oh well.

BBA, maybe we can agree to disagree - I think you're arguing that Crystallizer sounds better, and I'm arguing that it sounds less accurate. I like accurate, it helps me hear what's wrong instead of what's right. You like good, it sounds better.

And keep it a clean argument, please - no need to flame.

THIS POST DELIVERS

I would love to hear a comparison sample

 

[Deadsexy]

ok I'm a consumer looking for a consumer grade soundcard. I have a set of klipsch promedia 2.1's and pretty much only listen to mp3 and game sound and am not anal about sound by any means. Would this card suit me ya think?

Whats the deal with professionals whining over consumer level products marketed to consumers? Fine the crystalizer upsets the professional community but what about the rest of us?

 

[Donnie27]

ok I'm a consumer looking for a consumer grade soundcard. I have a set of klipsch promedia 2.1's and pretty much only listen to mp3 and game sound and am not anal about sound by any means. Would this card suit me ya think?

Whats the deal with professionals whining over consumer level products marketed to consumers? Fine the crystalizer upsets the professional community but what about the rest of us?

Then the X-Fi Xtreme Music or nothing less than an Audigy 2 ZS will do IMHO. If I'm more serious about Music playback than that, then I'm investing more money in my Set top and other stuff downstairs in my Den.

For the record, Power DVD 6 Deluxe can do Software MLP Lossless discrete 5.1 on almost any real 5.1 card. This works on even my old Hercules MUSE 5.1 and has NO problems working on even Software based cards. This is one of the tests I did besides Game Sounds playback. Audigy 2 ZS sounded a little better than the so called better REVO 5.1but X-Fi killed it LOL (Audigy 2 as well)! That's without Crystalizer. With a 2.1 setup you can also play around with the Headphone settings as well. Just like with Games, Creative's two speaker/headphone surround sound has NO compeition=P GamePC said it best.

The audio quality of the X-Fi is phenomenal, and I doubt many will dispute this claim. Creative’s new X-Fi processor is capable of superb, realistic enhancement of audio streams on the fly to increase their audio quality with their new 24-bit Crystalizer feature., but even without this feature, the X-Fi delivers terrific analog and digital audio quality across the board. In addition, their EAX and Surround effects are more polished than ever, putting competitors to shame and making all other faux surround environments seem child-like and faked. If you’re a gamer or a music/movie lover, the X-Fi would be our first choice for a high-end card, assuming money was not an influence.

They are a VAR and do sale sound cards from all manufactures. It hurts their sales when they say one card kills the rest. They at least try to be honest and point out pros and cons.

With such an expensive card, we wish Creative would have thrown in all the extras which enthusiasts out there have been demanding for the last five years. For one, Creative really needs to put optical and coaxial S/PDIF digital outputs on their high-end cards to get in line with the rest of the industry, as these are the standards for high-end digital speaker setups. While Creative’s digital port can be modified to utilize either one of these interfaces, you should not have to go out and purchase an expensive adapter after already dropping so much cash on a high-end audio card. If Creative isn’t going to support these ports natively, they should at least put adapters in their box like high-end graphics card manufacturers do (supporting as many output types as possible).

As soon as I settled on keeping my X-Fi XM, other than price, its limited connectability is what I didn't like about it as well. But DDL COMPRESSION would mean a DECREASE in Game sounds sound quality. yes, it would make an already expesnsive card even more expensive.

These cards are not great! What they are though is better than the rest of the cards in their price range.

Donnie27

 

[PGHammer]

Your post makes some sense except for that comment.

One, lets look at natural sounds: From what I have read, and I could be wrong, but I don't think I am: The Instruments and mechanical devices themselves (unless electronically altered) do not produce odd order harmonics, nature has this silly thing about even order harmonics.

Two: It has been proven in case studies that even order harmonics do not sound unnatural. while odd order harmonics do.

This is why records and other analog recording media have a more 'pleasing' sound than digitally recorded source media does. Wether they capture and reproduce the inherent natural even order harmonics or simply create their own, it DOES make a difference to perception. It is also why using tube pre-amps as the first stage of microphone coupling devices produces a better sound than even the best electronics input devices.

But, my second point is what you seem to be taking exception to, is that correct? If so, I am sure a quick google search can clear that point up for you.

Not to belittle your experience but being a recording studio engineer really doesn't mean much to me. I know many 'recording engineers' who think 'boomy bass is where its at'.

Now, someone like myself, being an electronics technician who actually learned theory; who actually designed and built amplifiers for a hobby; one who has spent thousands of hours listening to every little nuance claimed by thousands ranging from 'professional audiophiles' to mere hobbyist, tends to make one a little better for judgement on a perceptual topic such as this. But thats just MY opinion, and I don't mind if YOUR opinion differs, doesnt change a thing.

I have to ask: did you study John Carver, and the work of his company?

Carver Audio specializes in building high-end audio components (it's also one of the few companies that actually still uses vacuum tubes in some of their products, even today). Many years ago, Carver built one of best-known (among audiophiles) amplifiers available: the Carver Silver Seven. The problem was, that due to the extremely rigorous QA that was used on every single vacuum tube (yes; I DID say vacuum tube!), most of which were made exclusively for the Silver Seven, an original Silver Seven cost as much as a Rolls-Royce did new. So he set the company's engineers a challenge: Duplicate the transfer functionality and quality of the Silver Seven, *without vacuum tubes*. It took years (several of them, in fact), and QC was a right bastard. However, the product did actually see the light of day (and exists today: the Carver Silver Seven-t). It's far less expensive than the original Silver Seven; however, it's still not what most of us would consider *affordable*, by any means.

Computer audio (like all other audio) is utterly rife with compromise points, including those defined simply by its nature. One rather *large* compromise point (that I have, in fact, tried to point out here in this forum) is that in order to export PCM audio for external processing, you simply *must* give up audio acceleration. In short, you can have PCM, or audio acceleration, but not both. If you look at *every* company that supports Dolby Digital Live/Dolby Master Studio, there is one name deliberately, and conspicuously, absent: Creative Technology, Ltd. I had been wondering why that was, until, after several months of cogitating on it, the answer hit me with the subtlety of a sledgehammer through tofu: it all comes down to CPU cycles and how to use them. The PCM audio camp firmly believes that *outside the box* is the best place to do any post-audio decoding and decompressing; also, PCM, due to its structure, is unfriendly in the extreme to audio acceleration. Creative, however, is not only a firm believer in audio acceleration, it's also the *only* company that ever built a programmable DSP that can do so for computer usage since the death of Aureal. The fact that Creative is the first company that enabled the offoad of Dolby Digital processing off the CPU (and followed that up with DTS) certainly didn't hurt their case. However, Creative didn't need to support Dolby Digital *encoding* as the Creative System handled decoding on an as-needed/when-needed basis itself thanks to audio acceleration provided by a series of EMU DSPs

Segue to today, and the emergence of H.264 video and Windows Media HD. Again, there are two approaches to how to deal with the separate audio and video issues presented by each: host-based (software) and acceleration (hardware). Exportation of a signal to an external processor (HT, receiver, etc) requires a host-based approach; dealing with any processing on an ASAP basis can be done with either host-based processing or acceleration (though there is less CPU bog-down with an accelerated process). Intel and AMD are both CPU companies, so which would each company be more in favor of customers adopting? (The very fact that Intel is a Dolby Master Studio licensee should speak for itself.) While nVidia is the company with the more recent audio history, some folks seem to forget that ATI in the days of the 486 also sold sound cards and modems itself; ATI is also very much in bed with Intel. (nVidia, like Intel, is a Dolby Master Studio licensee.) So, who's left that *isn't* a Dolby Master Studio licensee? Creative; the Last Company Standing when it comes to audio acceleration on the computer.

I have little respect for host-based audio processing for the same reason I have little respect for integrated graphics: it creates unnecessary (to me) bogdown, and there is already much that can go wrong! It's basically the same approach used to create the Silver Seven-t: instead of a bunch of vacuum tumes, it uses a bunch of DSPs, both programmable and pre-programmed. In audio, it's about choosing your compromises.

 

[BBA]

I have to ask: did you study John Carver, and the work of his company?

Carver Audio specializes in building high-end audio components (it's also one of the few companies that actually still uses vacuum tubes in some of their products, even today). Many years ago, Carver built one of best-known (among audiophiles) amplifiers available: the Carver Silver Seven. The problem was, that due to the extremely rigorous QA that was used on every single vacuum tube (yes; I DID say vacuum tube!), most of which were made exclusively for the Silver Seven, an original Silver Seven cost as much as a Rolls-Royce did new. So he set the company's engineers a challenge: Duplicate the transfer functionality and quality of the Silver Seven, *without vacuum tubes*. It took years (several of them, in fact), and QC was a right bastard. However, the product did actually see the light of day (and exists today: the Carver Silver Seven-t). It's far less expensive than the original Silver Seven; however, it's still not what most of us would consider *affordable*, by any means.

Computer audio (like all other audio) is utterly rife with compromise points, including those defined simply by its nature. One rather *large* compromise point (that I have, in fact, tried to point out here in this forum) is that in order to export PCM audio for external processing, you simply *must* give up audio acceleration. In short, you can have PCM, or audio acceleration, but not both. If you look at *every* company that supports Dolby Digital Live/Dolby Master Studio, there is one name deliberately, and conspicuously, absent: Creative Technology, Ltd. I had been wondering why that was, until, after several months of cogitating on it, the answer hit me with the subtlety of a sledgehammer through tofu: it all comes down to CPU cycles and how to use them. The PCM audio camp firmly believes that *outside the box* is the best place to do any post-audio decoding and decompressing; also, PCM, due to its structure, is unfriendly in the extreme to audio acceleration. Creative, however, is not only a firm believer in audio acceleration, it's also the *only* company that ever built a programmable DSP that can do so for computer usage since the death of Aureal. The fact that Creative is the first company that enabled the offoad of Dolby Digital processing off the CPU (and followed that up with DTS) certainly didn't hurt their case. However, Creative didn't need to support Dolby Digital *encoding* as the Creative System handled decoding on an as-needed/when-needed basis itself thanks to audio acceleration provided by a series of EMU DSPs

Segue to today, and the emergence of H.264 video and Windows Media HD. Again, there are two approaches to how to deal with the separate audio and video issues presented by each: host-based (software) and acceleration (hardware). Exportation of a signal to an external processor (HT, receiver, etc) requires a host-based approach; dealing with any processing on an ASAP basis can be done with either host-based processing or acceleration (though there is less CPU bog-down with an accelerated process). Intel and AMD are both CPU companies, so which would each company be more in favor of customers adopting? (The very fact that Intel is a Dolby Master Studio licensee should speak for itself.) While nVidia is the company with the more recent audio history, some folks seem to forget that ATI in the days of the 486 also sold sound cards and modems itself; ATI is also very much in bed with Intel. (nVidia, like Intel, is a Dolby Master Studio licensee.) So, who's left that *isn't* a Dolby Master Studio licensee? Creative; the Last Company Standing when it comes to audio acceleration on the computer.

I have little respect for host-based audio processing for the same reason I have little respect for integrated graphics: it creates unnecessary (to me) bogdown, and there is already much that can go wrong! It's basically the same approach used to create the Silver Seven-t: instead of a bunch of vacuum tumes, it uses a bunch of DSPs, both programmable and pre-programmed. In audio, it's about choosing your compromises.

As a matter of fact, I had a Carver sonic holography preamp (still have parts of it in my attic) and spent much time with a 1.5t magnetic field amp.

Of course, I had to rebuild the amp after it self destructed about half of it's transisters...it's very touchy about bias currents and leaky transistors. (And the transistors weren't cheap back in those days)

But...just so you know, the transformer design in Carvers amps is a multitapped output transformer with transistors coupling the different tap outs, and because of the transformer design, carvers magnetic field amplifiers do produce the same distortions a tube amp produces...which are even order harmonics.

I haven't played with a silver seven/t, but one of my best friends builds tube amps and redesigns them for pay and hobby (also has a few of his designs published in the esoteric circle publications) and I have auditioned many of his and other tube amps. What I have learned is you don't exactly have to spend over $600 for a tube amp that will compare to a $20k model...if you have the right design, get the right transformers and build it yourself.

 

[Floruro]

All i can say is to me, the crystalizer is terrible. Maybe its fine for hip hop or pop music where there are easier tempoes to keep control of, but try drumbass, jazz or whatever. I think its terrible. Especially drumnbass, the Crystalizer gets confused alot, and amplifies sections very unnaturally and ALOT. It feels like a yo-yo in some mixes.
To me the crystalizer destroys the natural flow of the music. Also, getting more highs and lows is not what i am after in general. And the CL statement that it makes mp3s sound better than the original cds is just .

I think music LISTENERS are not the target for this crystalizer. Like someone stated earlier, if something is lost in compression, its lost. Using the Crystalizer then is more like taking any crap in general, repackage it and send it out in a plastic sounding wrapper, were things supposedly sound "right". Well how can something synthetically designed understand whats "right" in music. It just doesnt work.

I do like the x-fi though in general, just dont use the crystalizer :/

 

[agent420]

I don't have any CL products to make comparisons with, but this technology sounds suspiciously like the processing used in the Waves L3 Multimaximizer plugin in my DAW. When used properly it really sounds amazing, but like any mastering effect it is easily abused. Also, as I use it in the mastering process, the tracks are virgn, not already processed like audio from a retail cd is.

People will always process audio to create a sound they like, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that (provided I don't have to suffer by listening to it). The sad fact is that probably 99% of the population that purchases audio media products (music etc) really are quite ignorant of the technical details involved and what an 'expert' would consider proper reproduction. Hell, even when creating live music in my band I can see that most people don't have a clue about music or sound. But does it really matter if the end result is someone enjoying themselves?

I get a kick out of these silly arguments, it's no wonder there's no hope for world peace or the greenhouse effect when humanity can't be civil over some eq settings.

 

[insanarchist]

...most people don't have a clue about music or sound. But does it really matter if the end result is someone enjoying themselves?

I get a kick out of these silly arguments, it's no wonder there's no hope for world peace or the greenhouse effect when humanity can't be civil over some eq settings.

Hah, I read through this entire damn thread and just when I'm thinking about posting a response, you come in and type mine for me!

 

[TheManko]

I have 200 dollar bookshelves and Sennheiser 595 headphones and the Crystalizer gives me physical pain in the ears, so I never use it. But I tested it with some really cheap and crappy headphones and it did wonders for them, so I guess I'm not their target audience.
Anyway, I like the X-fi Music a lot and I hope they modify the Crystalizer in future versions so that it could be a fun equalizer to use and not be a masochist device for those with good setups. Even with the Logitech Z-5500 and Gigaworks S750 systems it gives me pain.

 

[magnetik]

Now that the crystallizer is explained... I am sorry I didn't catch this thread earlier..

I hope you guys can have a civilized conversation in the future w/out yelling and personal attacks. Everyone has their opinion and has the right to express it on [H] forums... but please let's not let it get out of hand and turn it into a flamefest like other forums.

Thanks in advance.