X-fi vs Mobo... not seeing much diff... whats wrong?

[phide]

OK, they use proprietary AAC which is another annoyance of theirs, along with their MP3 players that have a proprietary port instead of just using USB like everyone else.

AAC isn't proprietary, but it is patented. There are free third-party encoders, decoders and other tools available, just as it is with MP3. Technically, MP3 is actually more restrictive in terms of technology licensing than AAC.

So, first you say iTunes sells MP3s (they don't, and never did), now you claim they use a proprietary format (they don't)? Curious.

As far as I'm aware, the Crystalizer doesn't do any expansion, compansion or upwards compression, but I haven't seen any tech docs, just measurements. If you have a link to a white paper of some sort, I'd love to see it.

 

[Klob]

Considering that you are being anal because I called iTunes MP3 instead of AAC why should I go search for the info I read and do you any favors? When X-Fi was first released there were many reviuews and articles on exactly what Crystalizer does. Why would they lie and say it is more than just an EQ if it is just an EQ as you claim? The point I was making was that apple only sold 128kb/s music files at one time and charged $0.99 for them which is a big scam. Whether they are called AAC or MP3 is beside the fucking point. MP3 is the standard all other sites use to sell music so the fact Apple chooses to use AAC makes it proprietary and DRM infested in my book. The fact you have to burn to cdr and then rip to mp3 to remove the DRM makes it a big joke and only a fool would buy music from them.

 

[Klob]

OK, changed my mind. Here is a little info for you on Crystalizer. All the info is easy enough to search for yourself though with a little bit of effort. As you can see from this article it is not EQ and is in fact some sort of dynamic range thingy. I never use it anyway because I am an audio purist. Whether you like it to use it or not is purely subjective and no one should tell someone else not to use it. That is their choice and like/dislike.

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/multimedia/creative-x-fi-part2.html

The primary goal of the 24-bit Crystalizer is to partially compensate for the inherent dynamic range limitations of 16-bit audio content by applying appropriate post-processing during playback.

 

[Alai]

OK, changed my mind. Here is a little info for you on Crystalizer. All the info is easy enough to search for yourself though with a little bit of effort. As you can see from this article it is not EQ and is in fact some sort of dynamic range thingy. I never use it anyway because I am an audio purist. Whether you like it to use it or not is purely subjective and no one should tell someone else not to use it. That is their choice and like/dislike.

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/multimedia/creative-x-fi-part2.html

The primary goal of the 24-bit Crystalizer is to partially compensate for the inherent dynamic range limitations of 16-bit audio content by applying appropriate post-processing during playback.

Blech. Prefer NOS DACs... Non-oversampling = win

 

[phide]

The primary goal of the 24-bit Crystalizer is to partially compensate for the inherent dynamic range limitations of 16-bit audio content by applying appropriate post-processing during playback.

Well, thanks for the link.

Some of what I thought were highlights of the article:

As we can see, Crystalizer does not expand DR of the 16 bit signal, it even reduces it. By default (50%), Crystalizer amplifies the signal so that the two 60 Hz @ -5 dB and 7000 Hz @ -17 dB sines (it's a standard SMPTE-IMD test signal) cause about 1% of distortions (IMD+Noise).

You can chant 1000 times that the dynamic range is increased, but the standard tests by AES methods and approved by ANSI/IEC standard show that "Dynamic Range" gets narrower with Crystalizer.

Thus, applying Crystalizer to modern maximized records will lead to manifold growth of distortions, resulting in cracks and pollution of the recording with spurious harmonics.

These are only indicative of either: A) compression or B) increased gain, which is what the result would be of an equalizer that isn't configured to produce an equal RMS output. In other words, it's indicative of an equalizer that only boosts frequency regions. Based on the measurements, it's fairly clear to me that the Crystalizer's main draw is that it increases the signal level, which can be perceptually interpreted as an "improvement" (and the Crystalizer does it poorly to boot).

If everyone knew this, I doubt anyone would ever bother with the Crystalizer. Crazy stuff.

Blech. Prefer NOS DACs... Non-oversampling = win

Why?

 

[450]

Why is NOS better than one that over samples?

If the sampling rate is 88.2 KHz or 176.4 KHz for 16/44.1 media then what is the issue?

 

[Alai]

Because every time the DAC and/or sound processing software tries to tweak the sound to a "higher sampling rate", it adds it's flavor to it. I am constantly tweaking my audio gear to be more and more natural sounding. I want to hear the people as though they were right next to me, not as though I were listening to them through a phone or radio or blue tooth (which definitely can change a person's voice due to frequency variance limitations and distortions and processing).

I am fairly happy with the natural sounds of my K701, but I need a NOS DAC and a neutral amp to really complete my real sounding system. Lol.

 

[phide]

In theory, oversampling doesn't introduce any distortion at all. It's only done so less aggressive anti-aliasing filters can be used. Your claim that oversampling DACs add a "flavor" that non-oversampling DACs don't is, well, ridiculous.

If you want to put this theory to the test yourself, all you have to do is resample any signal to a multiple of that signal. So, take an average 44.1 kHz signal, resample it to 176.4 kHz and attempt to A/B it. You'll fail. Guaranteed.

 

[m1abram]

@ Cricciro: MY whole family is against Logitec, despite owning a mouse by them, I'm not buying any of their products, they all seem sub-par quality.

Also I agree, after hearing 320kbps audio my old MP3s, WMAs, and RAs at 128, 96, or even lower, are S---! Sadly untill I learn to remaster them myself, there's not much I can do with them since the original sources for most are unavailable...

About Logitech, that is a very large company to outright ban. Most of the stuff they sell was made by smaller companies that they slap their brand on. In some cases they do not even touch how the smaller companies operate beyond doing the packaging and marketing.

Check out http://slimdevices.com/ . They are a company that is now owned by Logitech, however the original owner is still very much involved in its day to day operations. Also they make very nice gear. The Transporter, while expensive is an extremely well put together and thought out in the component layout.

Another Logitech company, Harmony was bought by them. They make incredible universal remotes.

Now of course Logitech sells some stuff that is not of great quality. Some of their computer speakers are not very good, but then again these are 5.1 systems for less than $200. What can you expect to get when you buy 5 speakers, a subwoofer and a 6 channel amp for under $200!.

 

[Klob]

Logitech is a very good company to deal with and have very good customer service. They also happen to sell some of the best mice you can get. I have MX518 mouse and a mouse pad fell off, I asked them for a replacement pad but they don't sell them so they sent me a brand new MX518 and didn't even ask me to send the old one back so I now have two MX518 mice for the price of one. Not many companies around with that kind of customer service. Oh yea, my warranty had expired by 2 months too and yet they still set things right for me.

 

[st4rk]

I hate elitist Audiophiles that are so anti-eq. EQ is total preference. Just like the brightness on your monitor.

 

[phide]

I think some people are anti-EQ because they feel it's too degrading to the "purity" of the original signal, so they psychologically object to using it. Now, regardless of what level of precision a digital EQ processes (even it's 512 bits, 1024 bits, or whatever), post-processing will technically degrade the signal. After all is said and done, there will be rounding errors, but a good dither will transparently suppress distortion when/if the signal is re-quantized to a lower bit depth. Any decently designed 32-bit EQ won't introduce audible distortions unless the output level is significantly higher than the input level (if users just aggressively boost every band rather than intelligently boosting and cutting bands to match the input levels).

 

[Klob]

I hate elitist Audiophiles that are so anti-eq. EQ is total preference. Just like the brightness on your monitor.

If you set brightness so that it crushes the blacks or washes out black to grey then you should not be allowed to touch the brightness control. Brightness is not a matter of taste, it has a very small tolerance setting and is set to the black levels in a grey scale so that all steps are clearly visible. Contrast is set the same way but to the highlights of a grey scale. If you don't do that then you don't now how to correctly set brightness or contrast. I guess that makes me an elitist.

 

[magnetik]

I think this thread got off on a wild tangent. I think the real reason the OP didn't notice a difference is because the speakers he's using doesn't have enough detail to discern a difference in soundcards. (Along with a mix of low resolution MP3's.) I noticed a pretty noticeable difference using my KRK's when I switched from onboard. (my source files were uncompressed recordings from vinyl, fwiw)