Am I wrong in assuming that having high stereo crosstalk in the upper ranges is worse than having it in the lower ranges? If not then this X-fi is junk because that crosstalk is way too high.
You're right: the whole idea behind a 5.1 setup. With most modern music however a lot of high frequencies aren't even panned in a distinctive direction.
Creative still hasn't got it right. The chip resamples all audio, just like the Audigy series. This is no good for musicians and amateurs that want to use it to record audio. If you set your audio software to record 24bit 96KHz, it will downsample to 16bit 48KHz, and then upsample output back to 96KHz. Cheaper audio cards from M-Audio can do true sampling faithfully. Why can't Creative get it right?
Sorry, but I'm passing it up and sticking with M-Audio. I may lose a few FPS and not have EAX3, but true, faithful sampling is what I also need for recording. I don't just play games. Creative thinks audio cards are only good for games, not recording. I'm not wasting money to buy two different audio cards.
What product do you refer to? X-Fi does not need to down- or upsample. Everybody has their preferences but being M-Audio advocate does not mean you do not have to read review of the product you are posting comments about. X-Fi's clock works at the speed of your choice. And if you WANT to use sample rate conversion this has been vastly improved. That is the only card on the market that does distortion-free SRC which is great if you want to mix sounds from sources recorded at differnet sampling rates. Are you musician? I wish you were because you are not in position to appreciate how much this card can help a recordist or sound engineer...
dejerez is right -- you can set the card to internally sample everything at 96kHz.
I'll also agree that mixing sources of different samplerates with no distortion and no conversion necessary is a nice thing. But locking samplerate is also important in the current landscape of audio software.
I'm not so sure you're correct here. Setting it to "sample everything at 96Hz" may be exactly what causes the resampling that audiophiles want to avoid. Internal sampling rate is a variable any card could do with software alone, but I/O sampling rate is not.
It also appears to have NO 44.1 crystal, meaning it can't even play back an audio CD properly without resampling it.
You can set X-Fi to play back audio CDs at 44.1kHz without any resampling. In the Audio Creation mode, you can easily set the master clock to 44.1kHz if desired. On the other hand, resampling is no longer a negative with X-Fi as all audio test graphs clearly show that X-Fi's resampling produces a very clean signal. Resampling should no longer be considered a weakness of X-Fi.
Unless you can provide the technical means used, I will tend to disbelieve this as the card itself is evidence to the contrary. You can't do in software what the hardware doesn't "really" support and have same result. To get 44.1 out without resampling, you have to START with a 44.1 clock rate, have that specific frequency generator. You can't do "math tricks" to derive a 44.1 rate, it's just an end-run to same end- resampled.
Resampling IS clearly a negative. "clean signal" is foolish talk in the context of audio, because typical distortion figures are not enough to discriminate what the human ear can. Proof-positive is that people can, reproducibly, conduct blind abx tests and discriminate between two different sources that have insignificant "measurable" signal differences.
Resampling is always considering one of the most significant factors, it destroys the music's detail to do it. If the rest of your gear is crap and you can't hear the difference, it matters less- but if you are buying this card I would HOPE it's not to be paired with low-end links in the rest of the system.
When you "set a clock", you are causing it to resample. Doing without resampling requires multiple clock crystals, at least the base frequencies if upsampled further for better DAC resolution on an analog output. You don't "set" a clock rate in such a superior scheme, only selecting (which) clock input.
In Audio Creation mode you can set "Bit-Matched Playback" which will disable the SRC and any EQ. The X-Fi has a flexible signal routing architecture so that you change the sampling rate. The Digit-Life review confirms that you can play back at 44.1kHz without SRC.
I guess you haven't auditioned the X-Fi yet, otherwise you would not notice how improved the SRC is on the X-Fi compared to the previous generation. Even if you did not like the SRC, there is now the option to avoid the SRC altogether. Music listening is very subjective, so there's no way people will agree on the quality of the sound. If the X-Fi is not up to your standards, then don't get it. I'm personally more than satisfied with my Elite Pro.
I'll consider it a return when they offer it for $100-200. This is nothing more than Creative moving to a price model similar to other computer hardware components such as videocards. The only thing returning is the bullsh*t.
Hello? Anyone out there? Creative, 2004 is calling, and it would like a PCI-express audio card.
More seriously, I'd be hesitant to spend $100+ on a new sound card for my new system(about 5 months away) that may not work on my next system after that(About 2 years away). Sound cards are not a huge performance bottleneck w/ only two speakers. I don't NEED a new card, so I'll probably just use the Realtek 850 audio on my next motherboard.
Why would Creative release their only innovative product from the past 5 years, without support for the most current interface? I'm sure they can add it down the line, but it doesn't make sense to me not to have it now.
There is no PCI-E soundcard out there yet, strange it may seem, but that must be because the industry had an easier time introducing PCI-E on motherboards than they expected, and so no need to push it further by rushing "killer hardware". Or mabe more right, the killer hardware was SLI.
There are other much more interesting audiowork being done than X-Fi, like the team which are writing an audiodriver for Geforce-cards. There we can talk about a capable DSP, and with lots of "X-RAM" already in place.
As been pointed out, the most annoying thing about X-Fi are the driver issues:
no Linux-driver, or even support for external development of one
no Windows Vista-support
the general low quality of ALL Creative drivers, the slow updates or correction of bugs, the bloat, and not being able to download full drivers but must buy a CD.
And what about usability ? If I build a new computer, do I really need more audio-performance than what I have ? Yes, if I'm a musician I need "as much" audio performance as I can get, but I don't usually get it from a soundcard(or audiointerface) but instead I get it from software or dedicated hardware. What I need is a fast, faster, fastest cpu and lots of matching RAM. No need to even bother to use any part of Creatives software bundle, as there already are endless amounts of much better dedicated music-creating software out there. All i need is a fast PC and a clean sounding audio-interface. Even an Audiophile 2496 for under a 100$ sounds clean enough for professional use and has as low latency as the 400$ X-Fi, and the drivers aren't buggy. It just works, clean and simple. If I wan't to make music I would be much more interested in Creatives E-MU cards, especially since X-Fi are so insanely highly priced. The cheaper cards in the X-Fi line will NOT do to take make music on because they use inferior AD-converters, which renders the good enough DACs on them useless for recording live instruments.
For other use, ie games, gamers aren't audiophiles. They just want cool effects in their game, any Audigy-card will do for that. Analogue sound, that is, if you use SPDIF to good quality external hardware i guess there aren't many that can't do with an ALC850.
And pure audiophiles who don't make any music, just listens to it ? Well, if the musician who made the music thinks an M-Audio-card is good enough to create the music on I see no reason why an Audiophile can't think that the same soundquality as in the studio is good enough for him.
And movies ? SPDIF and ALC850 once again ... but i prefer my standalone DVD-player.
In fact, noone NEEDS X-Fi, it's just bloatware and marketing. Most people annoyed with their soundquality need better speakers, not better soundcards. Or prove me wrong.
In my current system, I have an audigy(First gen) "mp3". And the nForce 2 soundstorm w/ dolby digital(I think? NF7-S v.2.0, I don't use dolby if I do have it thoguh). I have no room for a 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, etc.. sound system, and it would just annoy my roommates and neighbors. So I wanted to find a good, high quality 2.1 system w/ optical audio in.. I couldn't find one from any computer speaker company. In retrospect, I should have looked at home theatre type stuff? But that probably woulda been at least twice the price(Good speakers + good amp?, vs. my logitech 2200s for about $70). My audigy, due to drivers, or whatever.. crackles after the system has been on a while, and multiple sounds are playing(Winamp + any game?). The Soundstorm has SHITTY sounding midi playback. I have both cards installed and configured.. midis play through the audigy's hardware midi playback, are 'recorded' on the audigy without leaving the card, and played back through speakers hooked up to the soundstorm. If I get an ALC850 sound card, I'll probably have to do the same thing to get decent midi playback. Plus, as scary as it sounds.. Creative's drivers are the BEST among all the consumer 'gaming' sound cards. And they SUCK ASS. I know from experience that the intel chipset built-in audio isn't always as stable as my audigy was.. (At least on my first gen centrino chipset). So, no, not everyone can put up with just an ALC850.. 99% of people can, but anyone who has a collection of MIDIs and likes decent sound banks.. has to buy creative, or get dedicated MIDI hardware.
Doesn't PCI-E have a transport mode designed to give predictable latencies? I would think the ability to have multiple sound cards interacting with the controller 100% independantly, getting all 1Gbps(Per lane) of bandwidth, would be desirable for high quality multi-channel sounds. It IS refreshing to finally see another creative product that isn't based on the Emu10kX chips. And who knows, if ATI can make their drivers good enough that some people are saying they're better than nVidia(In certain areas), maybe even Creative can pull their drivers out of the gutter too.
True, the speakers are usually the weakest link but that doesn't begin to make the sound card any stronger. Unfortunately as any audiophile will tell you, the better the /rest/ of your gear is, the more you'll notice the weakest link. Can't tell for sure from the pics but it doen't even look like Creative is using decent output coupling caps, which is sad on a $400 card.
Plus: would an audiophile be listening to his best CDs from a PC or a standalone high end CD player? I guess I could do without the background noise of a PC and I do not consider myself an audiophile.
PCIe is designed for graphics and high data transfer, but audio sends very small packets and the overhead can be big. Performance of PCIe is bad for audio, therefore no-one was tempted to come up with a product yet...Correct me if I am wrong.
Creative says they are working on that, I have just came across this interview:
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=...">http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=...
From that interview:
"So what we have to do is go back to the drawing board and work on the transport part of the chip and re-design it to add more silicon to overcome some of the problems we had with PCIe. So for us to come up with a PCIe solution is going to take a while because we have to overcome the problems we're facing with that bus."
It sounds like they thought it would be a simple transition, and had their product mostly designed(around PCI 2.x) before they tried to adapt it to PCI-Express.
In order for sound cards to make efficient use of an overcrowded PCI bus(common in older chipsets, before the nforce era or so), they had to pull a LOT of tricks, including using a very low(relatively speaking) IRQ. W/ the PCI-express bus, they have to re-engineer their chips to send data earlier, since it is sent serially instead of parallel, meaning they can't buffer one big clump and expect it to get to the destination all at once, they have to send the first part when it's ready, and then the second part.. sequentially.. I just honestly thought that the delay in the X-Fi WAS to get pci-express working.. It's not like they haven't had plenty of time (What, 3? 4? years since the first working silicon was available for engineers to test on?)
I think if creative had a serious competitor, they may have been more eager to have pci-express support, but since noone else is even making a dent in their market, they only need to improve over their past product... and that isn't hard to do.
I was a little surprised to see that the X-Fi has a higher level of CPU usage and results in a sligthly lower FPS average when playing Battlefield 2 than what you can get with an Audigy card. I really would have hoped that all that onboard processing power would have taken a significant load off of the CPU, but perhaps this will improve with newer drivers down the road, as you seemed to suggest.
I wondered if this might not deserve a bit of a closer look. An average of FPS, as you know, doesn't really do a very good job of capturing how well a game runs on particular system. This seems especially to be true with Battlefield 2. For example, when I run a timedemo of this game and then exam the cvs file, which captures the time for each frame rendered, I see that while my system gets an average of 50 fps, the range is from 2-106 fps. If you look at a graph of all these framerates, it looks prety ugly with all those momentary dips into single digits and low teens.
My wishful thinking is that a sound card that is capable of taking more of the load off of the CPU might help with this. Even if the average frame rate was slightly lower, if it cleaned up some of those framerate dips, it would still be a good thing.
By the way, how did you disable sound in Battlefield 2 for you tests? Did you simply lower all the sound settings to 0, or is there a command line switch or console command that will do this? I've been meaning to run a timedemo with no sound to compare to a timedemo with sound just to see if the audio contributes significantly to the framerate dips mentioned previously.
Thanks for this review. As an avid gamer, despite my frustration with Creative's cards, they still seem to be the undisputed gamer's card, simply because no one else fully supports all the 3D effects (such as the latest EAX features) in hardware that Creative does. And certainly, no other game card manufacturer is in the position (that Aureal was at one point) to challenge Creative with a competing set of 3D audio effects and features. Much as I'd like to jump to someone else's solution (I loved my Aureal card while it was supported, and I also was happy with my Santa Cruz when Turtle Beach kept their drivers up to date), I'm skeptical that any one really has the clout, now, to establish themselves as a solid card for game players or that they could survive under Creative's shadow.
[quote]We therefore see slightly lower performance from the X-Fi card. With the X-Fi being brand new, driver improvements could also change the performance picture over time. [\quote]
Given creative's past record, don't count on them.
Seems a nice card though, once it is available at 50$
So if you do run a comprehensive audio test, please also differentiate between Intel and AMD machines and subsequently Intel, nF3 and nF4 chipsets. Also vary on graphics cards. It is said that a higher grade PCI-E graphicscard on nF4 increases latency. Maybe you can shed your own light on that. Please use excessive amounts of audio and processing and push the systems real hard.
While the X-Fi looks to have some nice tech to it, I am afraid that a lot of its tech will sit unused for years to come while missing a few attractive things like Dolby Digital Live and balanced inputs.
I have read DDL may introduce delays like the DICE did with first XBOX. This whole DDL does not mean cinema quality and does not make a card. DDL is not as goog as full dolby. And it always means compression. So it is just a feature which I can live without. I have good analog set anyway. Balanced inputs are important for those who need them. I presume EMU will come up with something but I do not think I want to wait. X-Fi is the best option for me, thanks for all your comments that helped me a lot. Does anybody know where I can order it in Europe?
I've been using dual CPU (and now dual-core) systems for quite a while, and Creative have dissappointed me time and again with their Windows drivers...Constant "pops and clicks" is always present with the Live and Audigy series. However, this doesn't occur in Linux...For some reason its fine. (I guess its a different driver team working on it).
So my question is, does this new Creative solution suffer from the same issues as its older ones? (Where you are forced to either try third-party drivers OR disable Hardware Acceleration just to get rid of the "pops and clicks" in games/videos/music)
Let's assume you actually need a semi-pro sound card. Is Creative really going to be your first choice? At the $400-$500 price point you have a few options. Given Creative's less than stellar track record with drivers and software support, only those who insist on the absolute cleanest sound above all else will jump right into this one. This will be those who can (or at least think they can) hear the difference between Audigy sound and X-Fi sound.
So, now let's look at the more mainstream version. $130 for a card that uses lesser components (therefore will show even less difference from current Audigy cards), won't have the on board RAM, and doesn't do Dolby encoding. I can get the same sound quality, WITH Dolby encoding for $100 or less right now. Plus the same driver/support issues apply here as well.
Now, most hardcore gamers aren't gonna pop for a semi-pro card they don't need, nor will they skimp by grabbing the low-end board. I'm assuming the $280 version will have middle of the road components, but it will definitely have the RAM. They won't buy it for cleaner sound necessarily, but more for the potential performance boost of the RAM.
But, how much of a boost will there be? The (admittedly limited) benchmarks would seem to show there's a good bit of driver overhead. Also, with dual core chips filtering down to the masses, will the RAM actually get you that much more? Many game designers have said how very hard it will be to make games that can effectively use a dual core rig. So, if they can't send graphics related work to the 2nd core, what are they gonna do with it? The most likely candidates are sound, physics, and AI. If you've already got a decent sound card, I think you'd get more milage out of your $280 by dropping it on a 2nd core than a new "faster" sound card.
While the tech behind this card, certainly seems impressive. The card just seems to be a lot more about hype and clever marketing than any real leap in sound cards. The article mentions plenty of analog and digital I/O, but the picture used doesn't even show a digital output (but it does have a outdated game port, strange). There appears to be a connector for a daughter card, but I don't recall a mention of it. I'm not saying the thing is a piece of crap, but at the prices they're asking, you're paying more for the SB name than the card itself.
oh, and there is a clear audible difference between X-Fi and Audigy cards.
The coloration from the poor frequency response and IMD sweep at 16-bit 44.1kHz really deadens cd auido and mp3s. Its not about a slightly higher noise floor or a little less dynamic range. It's about poor sound reproduction and bad sample rate conversion.
I agree with you on the point of your post though -- it is hard to justify the price of this card.
That's not a game port, its a digital connector to the break out box. The breakout box has optical in and out, spdif out, RCA out, quarter inch out, and problabaly a few things I'm forgetting right now.
There is no daughter card connection. The thing that looks like it is a dell case front panel connector. For whatever reason.
I'm trying hard not to be the wet blanket, but why in the world is everyone so gung-ho about creative products? I know I'm not the only one whose suffered from scratchy sound, static generation, swapped speaker channels, and dropped speaker channels with Creative cards. I've lost count of the number of games I've played where a sound issue has been specifically traced to a Creative driver set or Creative hardware problem. I don't want to even think about leaving the "well supported" windows world and looking towards systems that use ALSA, ARTS, or OSS sound systems. The lack of documentation makes setting up and running creative cards a pain in the rear.
Quite frankly, given what I've seen of Creative's products and experienced, I'll stick with my Via Envy and wait for Via Envy2 if I'm going to upgrade. Just doesn't seem to be any sense to stick to Creative's path which invariably either winds up with less than desirable products and higher than desirable prices.
a) any REAL pro will probably NOT get a creative soundcard
b) a gamer/casual PC enthusiast will probably NOT spend $400 on a soundcard.
c) i had to stop reading the article and laughed when i read "$400"...and i laughed even more when i read that " Unfortunately, there are not a great many games out there that support X-Fi yet. On our list are Doom 3 and Battlefield 2. We tested both of these games and attained good results. We weren't able to create accurate and repeatable sound tests, but from our subjective analysis of gameplay, we couldn't really discern a quality difference between older hardware and the X-Fi."
in other words: You did NOT see (hear) any difference between a Audigy 2 and this card - besides the sad fact that there's barely a game out which supports X-FI.
What (please ?) is the point of this card/review ? Makeing us PC enhusiasts want to spend $400 on a soundcard which has no real-life use at all - or convince the *real* audio-professionals that now Creative is a contender in the "pro-market" ?
Creative is a contender and active member in the pro market with their EMU line.
I wouldn't use a consumer product for professional applications. I also woulnd't use a pro card for gaming.
I don't recommend the Elite Pro at the $400 price point. But to people who want a gaming card with excellent sound quality and lots of recording features (and have money to burn), the Elite Pro fits their needs.
to be clear, games that support EAX do support the X-Fi ... just not X-RAM -- the defining performance feature. It would be more accurate to say that no game exploits all the features of X-Fi.
Unfortunately Derek, you failed to make it VERY clear that the bottom of the range x-fi card (which most gamers would probably be happy with) is $130, which is very much more in people's spending range for an everyday soundcard. Obviously you didn't get to test it, having the elite pro instead, but because the basic model is very similar with only very slightly worse DACs (only audiophiles can tell), no extra RAM (no/v little impact today), no remote or break out box, some intelligent guesses could have been made as to its value.
What's the deal with the 1 K spikes in Dynamic Range and THD? The Gina at least is smooth. The creative stuff is all over. You should be aware graphs are useful but are not a good indicator of how a card sounds.
"The SoundBlaster X-Fi Elite Pro is the best non-pro sound solution for audio listening, features and recording. "
That's like saying that a Prescott is the best non-low-wattage, non-AMD solution for games. Yes, whoopee, but what if you don't have stupid limitations?
To make myself clearer: a pro sound solution at the same price point or below would offer better sound quality, more features, and better recording capability.
Wherever I search web before spending any larger sum there are always people complaining about the stuff they have never seen an/or have no clue about.
Why do you post opinion like that and give no example? What is the point?
I mean I am reading reviews and I am trying to make a well informed decision about how to spend my money. If you draw a comparison, do it really, so that it is a valid point.
So what is the soundcard that would give me better quality of sound at recording, playback and more features at the same time at the same price?
I did not have opportunity to listen to music played back with system using X-Fi so I am looking for opinions from those who did before I eventually decide to order it online, too. Thanks to Derek this review. I have read about X-Fi enough to believe it is worth the price and that it will serve me well for a good few years like the Live card did.
>>Why do you post opinion like that and give no example? What is the point? >>
Well, gee, I don't know. Why do you post your own opinion? Because we both like to post our opinions, of course. Everyone here does, else their posts wouldn't be there.
I agree that it's only fair to provide examples, so I have done so in my post. Beyond that, some general rules before buying ANYTHING:
- Determine what measurements and features you should be looking for. For example, with a CPU or GPU, you'd know you'd want to look for benchmarks in applications that you find yourself using most often, and what features you wanted or needed for those applications (SSE3? Multiple cores?). With a PSU, you would look for power quality (as determined by rail sag under load, AC ripple on all rails under load, etc.), ability to supply a given amount of power over a long period, whatever features you needed (modular cables? no fan?), component quality, and preferably a large amount of samples (there is often a great difference in quality from PSU to PSU from the same manufacturer).
- See if you can obtain some background knowledge in that field. It's a pain, I know, but it can come in really handy if you don't know what sources to trust or what features to look for. For power supplies, that means getting some basic power-specific EE knowledge (or asking an EE, heh); for CPUs or GPUs, that means trying to understand a little about how these processors work, what specific attributes are valuable in the applications you use, and how performance can be affected by the rest of the system.
- Find resources that you trust. You can identify these by whether or not the reviews or analyses in these resources take into account relevant measurements and features, and by how knowledgeable the reviewer seems in a specific area. A video card review that only does AquaMark and 3DMark should not be trusted (and the site or person that does it should be regarded with some suspicion in that field), and neither should a power supply review where the reviewer does not once mention ripple or do anything more than check the rails under light load with a Windows utility.
- Consider bias. This is not relevant at AT, where I at least trust the editors, but it is very important with some guy that spent a big chunk of money buying something. Of course someone who spent $500 on the latest and greatest processor is going to say that they like it, unless something is horribly wrong. How often do you hear people say that they think their stereos sound bad, that their computers are overpriced, that the PSU that they bought doesn't use the components they would expect at its price point? Now, I grant you, rational people do buy things BECAUSE they feel they are good choices, but there is almost always a significant degree of personal bias with some personal item.
(bias is also relevant when considering smaller or less trustworthy sites that may rely on manufacturers' goodwill, including but not limited to THG.)
A little long, I know, but maybe what little I know can help you with future purchases. If not, you don't have to read it, heh.
thanks for that. Much appreciated. Well, I did quite a research and virtually all reviews I came across including digit-life appreciate technology behind X-Fi. Most reviewers like even this much doubted Crystallizer feature, which is not obligatory and adjustable anyway.I do not believe Creative is so powerfull to exercise pressure on all the reviewers. So if both RMAA etc tests and subjective tests give positive results this card is probobly good and I think I am going to buy it
previous one posted to early, sorry. So my final question to all who listened to music using the X-Fi card and can compare it to other sound cards: Is there anything that would give more better features at the same quality level and at the same price? Please do not reply on Audigy or Live because X-Fi is a completely different card.
It depends on what you are looking for, but in most cases I will have to disagree with you.
The Gina 3G sells for $350 and does not off the quality of the X-Fi Elite Pro. Features include hardware 3D audio buffers, filters, and effects. Again Pro cards fall short (especially for gaming).
In fact, the only thing that I would give as an advantage of similarly priced professional audio solutions is balanced audio. This is a big advantage if the user intends to setup a completely balanced audio chain.
If I had to guess at a product that would best the X-Fi in terms of quality, I would have to point to the LynxTWO-B ... For which you would easily spend more than twice what the X-Fi Elite Pro costs. If you know of a pro card that you feel fits your claim, please point it out to us and we will do a comparison.
From what we have seen, your prescott/athlon64 comparison doesn't make much sense. If you take away the non-pro qualifier, we would still maintain that the X-Fi Elite Pro is the best sound card for any application at it's price point (unless you need balanced I/O). If you include no upper limit on price, then we will have to wait for our LynxTwo comparison before we shoot our mouths off too much.
So to recap, pro audio cards at the same price point or below offer fewer features, equivalent or lower sound quality, and similar recording capabilities (with the exception of balanced I/O).
>>The Gina 3G sells for $350 and does not off the quality of the X-Fi Elite Pro. Features include hardware 3D audio buffers, filters, and effects. Again Pro cards fall short (especially for gaming). >>
I never said anything about gaming, unless you're interested in recording gaming sessions. Anyway, you're relying on a logical fallacy-- specifically, a hasty generalization. More specifically, that the Gina 3G (a small sample) is representative of all pro audio cards in its price bracket.
>>If you know of a pro card that you feel fits your claim, please point it out to us and we will do a comparison. >>
Well, the E-MU 1212m is a rather capable card at half that price. The 1820 and 1820m are also capable pro cards. (Yes, I'm aware what E-MU is. The issue is capability for the price, not who owns what.) The Delta 1010LT is also an option, I guess, though it's a little dated now. There are also external options... Edirol equipment was fairly popular here last I checked (prefer separates, so I'm not entirely up-to-date). You're welcome to do your own research, of course-- that would be a good idea if you're going to make statements about what's the best.
>>From what we have seen, your prescott/athlon64 comparison doesn't make much sense. If you take away the non-pro qualifier, we would still maintain that the X-Fi Elite Pro is the best sound card for any application at it's price point (unless you need balanced I/O). If you include no upper limit on price, then we will have to wait for our LynxTwo comparison before we shoot our mouths off too much.
So to recap, pro audio cards at the same price point or below offer fewer features, equivalent or lower sound quality, and similar recording capabilities (with the exception of balanced I/O).>>
The comparison was solely to illustrate the issue of specialized comparisons. If you are willing to remove the "non-pro" qualifier, it is irrelevant.
I appreciate that the fine folks at AnandTech often have experience with as many as three or four different sound cards, but I must ask: exactly how many pro sound cards have you tested and reviewed? I don't mean "read the specs of", I don't even mean "measured the noise floor of", I mean given a full, comprehensive test. I sincerely doubt it is a very high number, and that you have and are utilizing the proper measurement equipment (and again, simple audio quality measurements say nothing but that everything out there today has obscenely good measurements).
Why do I doubt that? Well, ffs, you didn't even recognize the "24-bit Crystallizer" for what it was, relying instead on Creative's description that it clears up the high end and adds dynamic range. Someone who can't recognize a crude equalization's effect on the sound and who then regards said equalizer as a noteworthy feature is not someone I am inclined to trust for statements about professional audio.
"I appreciate that the fine folks at AnandTech often have experience with as many as three or four different sound cards, but I must ask: exactly how many pro sound cards have you tested and reviewed? I don't mean "read the specs of", I don't even mean "measured the noise floor of", I mean given a full, comprehensive test. I sincerely doubt it is a very high number, and that you have and are utilizing the proper measurement equipment (and again, simple audio quality measurements say nothing but that everything out there today has obscenely good measurements).
Why do I doubt that? Well, ffs, you didn't even recognize the "24-bit Crystallizer" for what it was, relying instead on Creative's description that it clears up the high end and adds dynamic range. Someone who can't recognize a crude equalization's effect on the sound and who then regards said equalizer as a noteworthy feature is not someone I am inclined to trust for statements about professional audio. "
Well this is what happens when you have a PC hardware review site in the day and age where the hardware is running out of 'hot new features' and starting to overlap with professional grade equipment in order to justify the pricing.
It's also what happens when you get a review site reaching out into random other areas like digital cameras - realms where there are other sites that exist solely to do such reviews and will obviously do them to a much finer degree. As you get into the realm of professional audio products with the features of PC hardware audio products, it necessitates one of two things: Delving into the field of pro audio equipment to a large degree, or not making comparisons to items in a field one isn't highly knowledgeable about. :)
"Derek - The concern I have is that your review, as it stands, is a ringing endorsement for a product in a market you do not fully understand. The users who rely upon Anandtech as their only source for this type of reccomendation are likely to purchase something like this, even though there are a wide variety of competitive solutions out there for a quarter of the price. I feel you should at the least post a disclaimer that your audio review process is a work in progress and make it very clear that you do not fully understand the market that the X-Fi is being marketed to, nor have adequate experience with competitive audio solutions. "
We've played with a few different cards extensively, in cluding the TerraTec EWS88 MT the M-Audio Delta 1010 and the EMU 1212 ... We didn't run any RMAA tests on them, as they were used for listening and recording. From our experience, I can say I'd rather have the X-Fi Elite Pro for a non-balanced setup. Currently I have an external ADC for converting balanced line-ins to ADAT and run digital audio to the computer and I use the Gina 3G for recording the ADAT signal.
Regaurdless of our experience, we haven't done indepth electrical analysis of these parts yet. It is our intention to test other consumer, semi-pro and pro cards and compare them. We drew our assessment of the X-Fi from our experience with hardware and the in-depth tests we have done so far.
As far as the Crystallizer goes, we are talking about more than one effect if Digit-Life is correct. Yes, there's equalization, but that's not all. I wasn't expecting multiband compression to be added which (as digit-life points out) decreases the dynamic range of the original signal. We will certainly be speaking with Creative about this (there are other things that could be going on that an RMAA test doesn't determine), and if our analysis leads us to the same conclusion we will certainly have some things to say about it. We certainly noticed the general increase in dB level though ... If I didn't mention it, when comparing crystallizer audio with unmodified audio we decreased the volume to match.
On top of that, the word noteworthy carries a positive connotation. If you mean only to say that we noted the Crystallizer as a feature and tested it, that's fine. Beyond that, our assessment was that the crystallizer had limited application to some audio sources that were already subpar. I would say we were not wrong.
At the same time, we are still finding our way in PC audio. We recognize we have some room for improvement and appreciate any direction and help we can get. We will expand our coverage to include indepth signal analysis on features like the Crystallizer. There are difficulties in going down this route, and it is hard to correctly talk about the value of psychoacoustic functions or environmental effects from such analysis. We haven't gone there yet because it is like opening a can of worms. Any suggestions are welcome.
Thanks very much for taking the time to bring all of these issues to our attention.
Why, jooc, would you rather have the Elite Pro? Just what listening equipment are you using (I'd really like to know this part), and what tests have you performed with them (other than introductory spec measurement)?
Noteworthy does carry positive connotations, but then the fact that your review sees it as a feature that can be useful for some does mean to me that you've classified it as a noteworthy feature when, in reality, it is utterly useless (anything that can benefit from it can benefit from a better, simpler software EQ that you can carry with you from card to card).
I tend to agree with Reflex here. I understand and appreciate that you guys are trying, and you'll notice I haven't made any stupid accusations about bias, but the fact is that this is an unqualified endorsement. If you're still finding your way in PC audio, you should be a little more cautious about making sweeping general statements.
I would rather have an Elite Pro because I also like to play games and movies as well as record and listen to music. I do to perfer my external ADC for recording, and would probably rely on it instead of the soundcard itself.
For listening, I generally stick with my Sony MDR-7509 headset. I also have the Sennheiser HD580 that I use to audition sound hardware. The reason I stick with the Sony gear for general listening is due to my environment. I can turn everything off when I need to do a noise test or listen closely to something, but the lab with all the computers and workstations running is not a quiet environment. I realize that open air headests will reproduce (especially) the low end in a more appropraite manner, so I do listen with them, but I know the sound a little better on the MDR-7509s as I've been using them for a long time.
I am planning on picking up the HD650 as I've heard great things about them.
The tests I've performed with them include recording and editing audio on them. I've used each of the solutions I mentioned in my home rig before I moved to lightpipe. I'm definitely not saying they don't get the job done well. And if that's all you want a sound card for, then I'd certainly go with one of those solutions over the X-Fi. Likewise, if all you are doing is stereo audio listening then one of the other solutions is still a better choice.
The advantage of the X-Fi (and I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear in the article) is that it is capable of high quality recording, high quality playback, EAX 2+ with 127 voices, has lots of analog and digital I/O, and generally meets any requirement anyone could have from a consumer or semi-pro sound card (except, again, balanced I/O). But $400 is still too much to pay for this solutioin.
Doing something like a double blind subjective study on audio is difficult. People that don't know how to listen won't be any help because even if they hear a difference they won't know how to describe it very well. People who do know what they are talking about are hard to come by in volume. Don't get me wrong, we'd love to do something like this. But we just don't have any idea how to work out the logistics. Suggestions are welcome.
Also, I appreciate the suggestion to avoid general statements about the goodness of something. It is a good suggestion even in cases where we know everything about everything in detail. There are always surprises and erring on the side of caution is the best way to go. We will be more careful in the future.
>>For listening, I generally stick with my Sony MDR-7509 headset. I also have the Sennheiser HD580 that I use to audition sound hardware. The reason I stick with the Sony gear for general listening is due to my environment. I can turn everything off when I need to do a noise test or listen closely to something, but the lab with all the computers and workstations running is not a quiet environment. I realize that open air headests will reproduce (especially) the low end in a more appropraite manner, so I do listen with them, but I know the sound a little better on the MDR-7509s as I've been using them for a long time. >>
Are either of those headphones being amplified? If not, you are probably putting unfair stress on the sound card's line out, and should at least compare with and without an amp (lots of sound devices sound great if not under undue stress). Also, consider getting monitor speakers to test surround sound output.. old Minimus-7s will do if you're on that tight of a budget (no bass whatsoever, but surprisingly neutral midrange and treble for small bucks and a small room), otherwise look around.
>>I am planning on picking up the HD650 as I've heard great things about them. >>
Enh, they're not different enough from the HD580 to warrant buying if you're looking for sound test gear. Get something with a different flavor first (Grado SR-225 or Alessandro MS-2 for high-current low-impedance rock phones, AKG K501 for analytical ridiculously inefficient mid-impedance phones), and get a reasonably good amplifier (no need for audiophile BS, just something with enough balls to run a K501).
>>Doing something like a double blind subjective study on audio is difficult. People that don't know how to listen won't be any help because even if they hear a difference they won't know how to describe it very well. People who do know what they are talking about are hard to come by in volume. Don't get me wrong, we'd love to do something like this. But we just don't have any idea how to work out the logistics. Suggestions are welcome. >>
Find three different people who know what they're talking about and aren't slaves to the placebo effect. Have them test the gear in a double-blind setting.
More specific advice... look for musicians. Especially look for musicians for testing songs heavy on specific instruments: someone who plays, say, the violin will know exactly what a violin will sound.
>>Also, I appreciate the suggestion to avoid general statements about the goodness of something. It is a good suggestion even in cases where we know everything about everything in detail. There are always surprises and erring on the side of caution is the best way to go. We will be more careful in the future. >>
And, fwiw, I appreciate the maturity and responsibility one gets from AT editors. (Yes, I can give compliments too!)
I am not sure if I want to go with active amplification. I understand that stressing the opamps on the card towards the top end of their range could adversly affect their linearity. But my impression is that spending this much money on an audio card means a listener should not have to invest in an amp to get the best quality sound. We want talk about the audio as it will be heard by our readers.
Do you have a different opinion on the subject?
And thanks for the suggestions on speakers and other headsets.
>>I am not sure if I want to go with active amplification. I understand that stressing the opamps on the card towards the top end of their range could adversly affect their linearity. But my impression is that spending this much money on an audio card means a listener should not have to invest in an amp to get the best quality sound. We want talk about the audio as it will be heard by our readers.
Do you have a different opinion on the subject? >>
The amplifiers on sound card line-outs are rarely equipped to drive headphones, especially not extremely power-hungry one. While I agree there is value in an ampless test, I also feel that an amplifier would be a good idea for pure line-out performance. A lot of us don't put any real strain on the line-outs, after all, and I'd like to see how evening the playing field a little helps various cards.
At any rate, spending this much money on (insert piece of equipment here) never entitles a listener to avoiding another link in the chain entirely. Not that headphone amps are a necessity, but hooking a $200 headphone to a line-out of a $400 sound card is a little silly and probably wouldn't yield sound as good as a lower-tier sound card and a cheap headphone amp (the things don't need to be pricey, just gutsy enough to power any normal dynamic headphone with ease).
Sorry this is a bit off-topic, but you seem to know what you're talking about, and everywhere else I've asked I've gotten audiophile answers (e.g. buy this or that $2000 piece of equipment), so...
...What reasonably priced headphone amp(s) can you recommend for use between a soundcard and a set of HD570's?
The PPA and M^3 are reasonably priced, at least from a DIY perspective. At a lower price point, PIMETAs are fine.
If I were you, though, I would upgrade that HD570 first-- driver upgrade (meaning speakers or headphones) is generally much more noticeable than amp or source upgrade. If you like a bass-n-treble signature, try the HD590; if you like something bassy and trebley but with midrange in the bargain, try a Grado or Alessandro. A very simple amp / 'CMoy' (buy on Head-Fi or somewhere, they're overpriced on eBay) with a decent op-amp (OPA2134PA is fine) covers a surprisingly large amount of the gap between no amp and top-end amp-- the biggest thing is taking undue stress off of the sound card's line out.
Or, you know, buy a $3000 amplifier, and line it with sound-improving rainbow foil (hur hur hur).
Personally I found an unbuffered design like a CMOY to be a more similar to a soundcard's line-out than to a Pimeta, PPA or M3... they're all fairly harsh with terrible channel separation.
What op-amp? An unbuffered design is bound to be heavily opamp-dependent.. I've heard some that I'd prefer a Sony D-33's headphone out to, and I've heard others that are 80% of a META42. A great op-amp might be terrible in an unbuffered design for current output reasons.
Just about any mid-grade or better? I find some of my favorites, like AD8610, AD843, and OPA637, all sound far better unbuffered than jellybeans like TL072 or old standards like JRC4556/8, BUT *almost* anything buffered beats them. Higher current chps like LM6171 give more current but still lack quality sound. I "almost" find completely dreadful, entirely unmusical general purpose opamps sound as good buffered as the average "good" opamps in an unbuffered configuration... and it doesn't even take much of a buffer to make that difference.
This is of course keeping in mind the current limitations, they don't even sound very good at low output. IMO, a CMOY type design is only useful for higher Z cans that need a bit of a volume boost. Then again, vast difference in price too, some people have enough spare parts to crank out a CMOY on protoboard plus $10. CMOY is like a gateway drug, it only teased me onto harder habits.
Wow... well, I guess our ears just disagree there, especially since the AD8610 is my favorite for unbuffered. I still prefer buffered, of course, I've just always felt that an unbuffered AD8610/20 or similar CMoy-type amp covers a good chunk of the gap. Well, each to their own, I suppose, and AT editors should be looking for something higher-end anyway.
Well, LOL.
"Audiophile" <> reasonably priced... never has and never will.
However, a ballpark $200 headamp might be a "PPA v2" custom-built with AD843 opamps rolled in. Thee are a few lists of trade builders for PPA2 or other customizable amps that you can DIY, actually tailor to your cans, or to your tastes, there is a vast gulf between gamer pseudo-audiophiles that buy Creative Labs cards with digital tricks and those who simply want cleanest analog possible and bit-perfect digi out. Wheverver you fit into the grand scheme, may dictate the optimal amp for you.
Then you'll want another amp, and more cans, and another sound card, and a DAC, and... Sorry about your wallet. ;-)
Well said, SDA. And yes, I also appreciate the maturity of AT editors. I do feel a disclaimer needs to be added to the article, that said they could easily have overreacted(as THG editors tend to).
Derek - The concern I have is that your review, as it stands, is a ringing endorsement for a product in a market you do not fully understand. The users who rely upon Anandtech as their only source for this type of reccomendation are likely to purchase something like this, even though there are a wide variety of competitive solutions out there for a quarter of the price. I feel you should at the least post a disclaimer that your audio review process is a work in progress and make it very clear that you do not fully understand the market that the X-Fi is being marketed to, nor have adequate experience with competitive audio solutions.
More damaging, from my perspective, is the fact that Creative has not pledged to support future standards or alternative OS's. On a $400 product it should not be obsolete in the 14 months between today and the release of Windows Vista. You need to at the least get a solid statement on whether or not the X-Fi will support the new audio standard natively, or if they intend to only support it in legacy interfaces. This is a sound card, not a video card, a user should not expect to have to upgrade in a little over a year.
Try an M-Audio Audiophile 24/96. I used to run a TB Pinnacle which seriously kicked ass on all creative products including all the audigys I ran into.
The M-Audio Audiphile is better. A very sweet card pushing the limits of what is possible with a switching power supply.
After what creative did to Carmack there is no way I will ever buy their stuff again. As they continually make crap as far as I can tell, it's no problem.
My card goes directly to Kimber braided, RCAs on the Audiophile, then to my Sonic Frontier's factory modded (mostly voltage control cicuits) SFL-1 Signiture preamp. From there we go to a pair of SFM-75 monoblocks, again not stock, running Svetlyna 6550B power tubes. That goes, biwired, on Tara Time and Space cables to a pair of BMW Matrix 1 speakers.
hold on, no non-Cretaive card does EAX 3,4,5 at present...So it may sound awesome but you do not get max out of the game
Does this card produce surround sound over the headphones? Call it gimmicks, but I'd be much interested in that. For practical space reasons and occasional nite gaming.
Sound is what I care about. Positional audio in games is really not much more use than stereo. We can meet somewhere and see who walks away ... ;). Nexuiz is open source Quake,Quake2,Quake3 on steroids. Fun is back in deathmatch.
I wonder why my account disapeared, I just recreated it but that is kinda strange.
I guess I was unaware that the Intel solution had this ability. It may make sense to get a board featuring this ability to hook it up to my receiver, I can't believe creative can't figure out that we would really like to hook up a high quality card via a digital cable...
This is exactly why I got the HDA X-Mystique 7.1. I believe it is a licensing issue that Creative does not wish to bother with, or does not care to bother with. It's not a perfect card (minor control panel issues) but it does exactly what I want, and has great audio qualiy.
It may not be as super ultra quality as this new card, but I would rather enjoy the fact it has DD 5.1 Live. The review kind of says it anyways, he mentions that using existing hardware compared... *ahem* this new "extreme" sound card doesnt really make an audible difference. If your onboard 5.1 sounds ok to you, why even bother upgrading?
One thing that I find troubling is that game performance is slightly less with the X-Fi and considering Creative's lack of promtness with driver updates I would feel worried about optimizations.
The last Creative card I owned was a SBLive! 5.1 and I don't really miss the brand.
In fact, if Anandtech could do a review of the HDA X-Mystique 7.1 it'd be appreciated as I've heard quite a few good things about this card, not least its reasonable price point and dolby digital live output.
By the way, on a separate note, for all the people here giving anandtech grief, people should look at more than just one site before making informed purchasing decisions and anandtech did much better than tomshardware which was extremely partisan. Also, I would like to use and trust dedicated sound sites like www.3Dsoundsurge.com but unfortunately they are often too slow in reviewing new hardware...
I've had these cards in my lab and all I can say is that this is the first time I've ever really doubted Anandtech's credibility. This reads like a spiced up piece of PR from Creative, and subjective listening would not put this as the best consumer audio solution as so prominently stated on the first page of the review.
Derek - What the hell is going on here? You don't even include any results from competing products to make such a statement. The war was over before a shot was fired is the impression this review gives. The fact that Creative finally has a card to match the specs that otehr cards have had for three years now makes it a 'revolution'? Sorry, I have been working with these cards for months now and they definatly are nothing special. Just expensive.
We will be looking at more cards, and including an envy24 based solution is something that we intend to do in the future.
We do include a result from a competing solution -- the Gina 3G is a pro audio card which has excellent audio quality. The Elite Pro is closer to a pro audio product in the component selection and construction.
envy24 based consumer products don't score as well as the Gina 3G from what we have seen. Granted we do have to test this for ourselves, but we would certainly expect the Gina 3G to outperform something from Terratec or M-Audio.
That being said, the X-Fi outperforms the Gina 3G in just about ever test we ran.
It is very difficult to subjectively compare audio between cards. There have been some cases (the audigy line) where there was a very clear problem with the aural experience. With the X-Fi line, we can no longer say that we can hear problems with the audio.
We spent days listening to this card, the Gina, and the Audigy 4. We frankly disagree with the statement that subjective listening does not put this card on par with the best audio solutions out there. We found no reason in our subjective listening tests to conclude otherwise.
On top of that, after simply listening to the card for days, we ran the RMAA tests. These tests showed clearly that not only was the card void of any issues, but that the quality of the output was much closer to the source than any other card we tested. These two points add up to the conclusion you disagree with.
And as we said, if this card performs better than the Gina 3G and the Gina performs better than consumer level envy24 parts, it stands to reason that the X-Fi would outperform just about everything but a LynxTWO ... and even then we would need to run some tests of our own ...
The big problem is that at these incredibly low noise levels, high dynamic range, low distortion, good separation, etc... it is very difficult to hear differences in the audio. To the average person, the audigy 4 Pro, Gina 3G, and X-Fi will sound exactly the same. To a hardcore audiophile, we wouldn't doubt it if the X-Fi won their hearts. The X-Fi (in spite of its features) can provide a very true-to-the-source signal with less coloration than all but the best pro audio cards out there.
For musicians, the high quality provides a better platform for work than the rest of the pack -- unless, of course, balance audio is desired.
Show me a consumer audio card that matches the specs of the X-Fi ... From the tests other people have performed on the LynxTwo B at 16-bit/44.1kHz (the unofficial standard in PC audio quality), the X-Fi posts http://audio.rightmark.org/test/lynx-two-b-1644.ht...">better numbers in every category but frequency response (and it's darn close in that area)...
The high end components used do not make the X-Fi Elite Pro "nothing special" ... They make it nothing most people will need. And certainly, between this and other products that use good quality components, most people won't notice much (if any) difference.
We very much agree that the card is too expensive. And please rest assured that we will be comparing this card to an evny24 based solution -- and hopefully a lynxtwo -- in the future.
Look into the BlueGears X-Mystique. It's pretty much the best PC soundcard available at a reasonable price right now - and it's not Creative so there's no assorted bloatware to install.
I am not trying to bash you here, however you have to understand that when you start an article by proclaiming something the best in its class, but then your test does not include the other solutions in the class at all, that things seem fishy.
I work with audio devices for a living. I've worked with the X-Fi since it was a prototype(as have a couple dozen other people in my lab). Certainly it is an improvement over previous Creative efforts, and at first we were a bit wowed by the paper specs and proposal. However after working closely with it for months, I honestly can say that no one here feels its anything special. Perhaps some of that is the novelty wearing off, but in any ad-hoc test with someone who hadn't heard it before, they could rarely tell the difference between it and an Audigy, and the M-Audio Revolution generally was said to produce clearer sound. Not that our tests were scientific or anything, we weren't trying to write articles for publication.
I'd really suggest some blind tests with a variety of content. I think you may be suprised to find that while for MP3's the X-Fi sounds good, for CD's and especially SACD's the mid-range is poorly reproduced. Make certain you use a wide range of music, and prefferably classical numbers that you know very well.
Something else is you could list what type of speakers/headphones and recievers you are using, if you are testing with something like Klipsch then your credibility would go down considerably for anything but games and action movies, after all the card cannot make up for poor speakers(when measured by reproduction accuracy, not volume).
I would suggest establishing a baseline and going from there. Based on my experience, in the 'consumer' segment the M-Audio Revolution 7.1 is a good baseline, however any baseline that you could compare against would be beneficial to strengthening the credibility of the review. Granted anything audio is subjective, but when you say something is 'better' you need to at least be able to point to some specific reasons as to why.
And finally, the section that read like Creative marketing PR was your explanation of their audio architecture. There is nothing inherantly 'better' about the approach Creative is taking, it is simply different, there are both advantages and drawbacks. Furthermore, while they make the product seem like the 'next generation of audio' no one has managed to get a commitment from them to support the upcoming Windows Audio Architecture that will be a part of Vista, without that support they will be behind several others. Their lack of support for Linux is also a drawback for many.
Thank you for the effort, I hope that this feedback will help you improve your audio reviews in the future. I have read AT since the beginning and rarely doubted what is posted here, there just seemed to be some rather glaring flaws in how this review was handled. At least in my humble opinion.
Thank you very much for the helpful feedback. Some of your suggestions will absolutly make it into future audio reviews.
I would tend to disagree with your assesment of Creative's architectural direction. If the intent is to very heavily process many audio streams, then the flexibility and power are helpful. This could be a boon to game designers or electronic musicisans looking for some hefty sample rate or dsp power.
For straight up listening to a single source or recording the architecture is unnecessary.
I agree that windows driver and linux support are drawbacks as well.
We absolutely appreciate and need our readers feedback. Thanks for taking the time.
Derek, please read the following http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/audio/uaa.msp...">article on Universal Audio Architecture. Between that and Intel's HD Audio spec, all the supposed benefits of the X-Fi driver architecture are achieved already, and in a standard fashion that other sound card manufacturers can follow. There is nothing unique about what Creative is offering, only the marketing surrounding it, and in fact its been on the market since Intel's HD Audio first came out.
Multiple source/multiple channel audio is definatly a major application in the future, but Creative is not the company leading the charge on this, only following suit.
Once again I feel that your article in its present state serves as an advertisement rather than an objective analysis. I am certain that was not the intention, however due to the lack of research it came out that way anyways.
The ASUS boards have the capability to play audio CDs from BIOS (I remember something like that, I don't have the ASUS board/manual to check). Maybe if you start the CD it will play while your computer is stopped?
I believe HP has a media center pc that can run a dvd drive, but not need to be in windows to use it. I don't know if it has the option of the Dual Core X2s though.
I want to see a few more reviews go up before I make my judgements on these cards.
This still won't make myself, and a lot of people, upgrade from onboard sound. What I would like to see is more comparisons of how this is going to affect my FPS in more then 1 game, and how it stacks up to common on board solutions. They bring out all of this marketing because realities are not many people care about sound greater then onboard, and with no game support or evidence of existing game improvement there is little reason to pick this up.
I bought the $130 X-Fi last night at bestbuy. I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere but compared to all my other sound cards, including onboard sound, when listening to MP3s or any other sound format it is very muffled unless the crystalizer is turned on. But, just as the review says the crystalizer doesn't really work well with everything.
Games sound fine though. I haven't tested any movies since I don't watch movies on my pc.
Are you sure you don't have CMSS-3D turned on? I find that sound can get very muffled and muddied when playing music using CMSS-3D ... That could be your problem.
Our experience is that the sound quality with no filtering is better on the X-Fi than most other solutions. Of course, we do still need to look at the XtremeMusic card.
Ok, SoundBlaster is the only game when it comes to games... but what about listening to music or watching DVDs?
Does it sound any better than my $30 chaintech VIA ENVY24 card or M-audio Revolution? I would like to see some blind listening tests.
You have many many software based solutions that claim to make mp3s and other lossy formats sound better, for example SRS WOW effects that come bundled with Windows Media Player or Qsound. Is the creative crystallizer any better when compared to such software solutions?
Yeah, I'm somewhat curious as to how the crystalizer does in comparison to Qsound's methods, Qsizzle, Qrumble, and Qexpander, which I have enjoyed for a while. Probably the best candidate for comparison would be the envy24(with-some-tricks)-based PSC724 Ultimate Edge. Of course.... that thing only costs 30 bucks at outpost, and philips is kinda bad at releasing drivers.
I wish Qsound Labs would create some kind of hardware chip. Some kind of alternative to the various successions to EAX. Their expander kicks ass.
Or it would be nice to see something with Creative's hardware power combined with Qsound's algorithms.
>>>
i highly doubt it. Better save your money and invest in better speakers [if not already]..this is really all bunk. ALL they can sell is features and irrelevant addons/gadgets/specs...specs which are only relevant MAYBE for hardcore pro-musicians. But then i dont know any pro-musician who does his recordings on a creative card :)
>>>
Btw, i also highly, highly doubt that for listeining to music/mp3s etc. people will notice a difference (towards the better) with a VERY old AWE32/64 card compared to any of the newest cards out right now. I remember actually that years agomy AWE64 had this certain "punch" to her which i liked...and i cant even necessarely say that for listening to music my current Audigy2 is noticeable "better"...but then this is a long time ago :)
Anyway...leave 'em the fun to sell their products with dumb marketing terms....and as stated elsewhere...hope that the OEM/lower end cards will be much cheaper. (For what it's worth)
I found also that my Creative Sound Blaster 16 (ISA card, with 2x4W amplifier on card) sounded more "musical" (let's say I consider it better sounding) than the newer Audigy 2 gamer
I went from SBLIVE to Chaintech VIAEnvy to Audigy 2 ZS.
It would be nice to have a card good in games and music.
Subjectively I think the Audigy 2 ZS better with MP3's and games than
the Envy Card.
Also I've found that the software makes a big difference.
Anyone notice that Itunes free player sounds much better than Windows Media Player or
Creative Player? (With any audio Card)
I really liked the ViaEnvy sound but it really won't do games well.
i never use the creative software, neither do i use itunes.
If i want to have highest quality sound then i use foobar2000 with kernel streaming or foobar/winamp with direct asio (plugin) output. I dont think there's anything better right now (in terms of player/output/quality)
"Creative informed us that cards should be shipping as of last week, but we still can't find them online or in stores. Even Creative's own site lists the X-Fi line up as pre-order. We will have to check into the availability of these parts as we certainly don't want the recently ATI disease (“paperlaunchitis”) to spread to the rest of the computer industry. "
Actully you can order it on creative site, I see you can do it as i type this. Also can purchase it at Best Buy, they have dozens of them on display. There are 3 online retailors that have it listed. Was this artical typed out a week ago or something? lol
I will sum of this card for everyone: Wait a few months, and you can get it for a little over $50 for cheaper one. The high end card are pretty much same as cheaper one, you just get some extra CRAP with it. Pretty much %90 of the stuff on card is useless to the average user. This is essentially a Audigy 5 card...go go marketing from creative :P
I saw an X-Fi card in Best Buy last week (Phoenix AZ, US) Looked pretty neat and I had just heard of them, so I was surprised to see it on the shelf so soon.
It is Xtreme Fidelity with Xcellent Xquality for XTREME music and XTREME gameZ!!!!
No thanks! When will this XTREMEly stupid marketing stop??
I'm still using the nforce2 soundforge because my audigy didnt ship with Creative Mediasource which allows output of music to 5.1. Newer Audigys did ship with MediaSource and could handle 5.1 music output just fine. Needless to say I am XTREMEly pissed and creative and wont be buying something from them again.
media source is available for download from creative site. It is a few files all together but this software is for free if you have Audigy. 5.1. upmix option is not in media source but in the card settings that install with the drivers. I had Audigy and used Playcenter and than upgraded for free to Media Source. No problem. I used Audigy with tweaked driver for Audigy 2 to get more features and then eventually bought Audigy 2 ZS and used that with Software availble from their site. I had no problem with an upmix option. I cannot see your point here. Which version of the card do you have?
yeah those "extreme gamez" are actually just TWO, namely doom3 and bf2..which (i THINK) support x-fi....if at all. Was not clear in the review. The point is that they even said they did not hear ANY diff between this and "older" hardware.....
I think it's ironic that (at elast for gaming and occasional music listening) a $42 Audigy 2 OEM (which has 5.1 output btw) is AS GOOD as a card 10x the money.....and, in all honesty, i do NOT think that my ears are good enough to "notice" a 4db better SNR ratio or similiar nonsense....not to mention someone would have a hard time selling me this card :)
The coloration from the poor frequency response and IMD sweep at 16-bit 44.1kHz really deadens cd auido and mp3s on the Audigy 2 line. Its not about a slightly worse SNR or a little less dynamic range. It's about poor sound reproduction and bad sample rate conversion.
Of course, gamers won't care as much about this problem. And we can help get around some of the issues by bypassing windows kernel mixer on Audigy hardware.
I wouldn't buy an X-Fi Elite Pro either. The price point is hard to swallow.
Sample rate conversion does not seem to be an issue any more, right?
X-fi audio processor has SRC engine that converts to and from any resolution at 136dB THD+N. Check the review on digit-life. They say
"Judging from our measurements, the problem with a lot of distortions is a thing of the past now. The 44.1 kHz mode in X-Fi cards is no different from 48 kHz"
They also compared the quality of the new hardware SRC X-Fi vs the wide-spread real-time SSRC WinAmp plug-in, "notable for its relatively high quality and decent CPU load"
They conclided by saying
SRC of the X-Fi outperforms the SSRC plug-in and it causes no distortions - audible or visible on the diagram.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
110 Comments
Back to Article
Fricardo - Saturday, October 29, 2005 - link
I would really like to see performance numbers on the cheaper x-fi components.flachschippe - Monday, October 24, 2005 - link
"Thread-Interleaved" could also mean simply multithreading, but on a single processor ("engine").
Gooberslot - Thursday, September 1, 2005 - link
Am I wrong in assuming that having high stereo crosstalk in the upper ranges is worse than having it in the lower ranges? If not then this X-fi is junk because that crosstalk is way too high.ceefka - Thursday, September 1, 2005 - link
You're right: the whole idea behind a 5.1 setup. With most modern music however a lot of high frequencies aren't even panned in a distinctive direction.Anton74 - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
What's the resolution of the ADC? Is it the same for the various X-Fi cards available at the moment?MrCoyote - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
Creative still hasn't got it right. The chip resamples all audio, just like the Audigy series. This is no good for musicians and amateurs that want to use it to record audio. If you set your audio software to record 24bit 96KHz, it will downsample to 16bit 48KHz, and then upsample output back to 96KHz. Cheaper audio cards from M-Audio can do true sampling faithfully. Why can't Creative get it right?Sorry, but I'm passing it up and sticking with M-Audio. I may lose a few FPS and not have EAX3, but true, faithful sampling is what I also need for recording. I don't just play games. Creative thinks audio cards are only good for games, not recording. I'm not wasting money to buy two different audio cards.
dejerez - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
What product do you refer to? X-Fi does not need to down- or upsample. Everybody has their preferences but being M-Audio advocate does not mean you do not have to read review of the product you are posting comments about. X-Fi's clock works at the speed of your choice. And if you WANT to use sample rate conversion this has been vastly improved. That is the only card on the market that does distortion-free SRC which is great if you want to mix sounds from sources recorded at differnet sampling rates. Are you musician? I wish you were because you are not in position to appreciate how much this card can help a recordist or sound engineer...DerekWilson - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
dejerez is right -- you can set the card to internally sample everything at 96kHz.I'll also agree that mixing sources of different samplerates with no distortion and no conversion necessary is a nice thing. But locking samplerate is also important in the current landscape of audio software.
mindless1 - Thursday, September 1, 2005 - link
I'm not so sure you're correct here. Setting it to "sample everything at 96Hz" may be exactly what causes the resampling that audiophiles want to avoid. Internal sampling rate is a variable any card could do with software alone, but I/O sampling rate is not.It also appears to have NO 44.1 crystal, meaning it can't even play back an audio CD properly without resampling it.
Somerset - Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - link
You can set X-Fi to play back audio CDs at 44.1kHz without any resampling. In the Audio Creation mode, you can easily set the master clock to 44.1kHz if desired. On the other hand, resampling is no longer a negative with X-Fi as all audio test graphs clearly show that X-Fi's resampling produces a very clean signal. Resampling should no longer be considered a weakness of X-Fi.mindless1 - Wednesday, September 21, 2005 - link
Unless you can provide the technical means used, I will tend to disbelieve this as the card itself is evidence to the contrary. You can't do in software what the hardware doesn't "really" support and have same result. To get 44.1 out without resampling, you have to START with a 44.1 clock rate, have that specific frequency generator. You can't do "math tricks" to derive a 44.1 rate, it's just an end-run to same end- resampled.Resampling IS clearly a negative. "clean signal" is foolish talk in the context of audio, because typical distortion figures are not enough to discriminate what the human ear can. Proof-positive is that people can, reproducibly, conduct blind abx tests and discriminate between two different sources that have insignificant "measurable" signal differences.
Resampling is always considering one of the most significant factors, it destroys the music's detail to do it. If the rest of your gear is crap and you can't hear the difference, it matters less- but if you are buying this card I would HOPE it's not to be paired with low-end links in the rest of the system.
When you "set a clock", you are causing it to resample. Doing without resampling requires multiple clock crystals, at least the base frequencies if upsampled further for better DAC resolution on an analog output. You don't "set" a clock rate in such a superior scheme, only selecting (which) clock input.
Byzantine - Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - link
In Audio Creation mode you can set "Bit-Matched Playback" which will disable the SRC and any EQ. The X-Fi has a flexible signal routing architecture so that you change the sampling rate. The Digit-Life review confirms that you can play back at 44.1kHz without SRC.I guess you haven't auditioned the X-Fi yet, otherwise you would not notice how improved the SRC is on the X-Fi compared to the previous generation. Even if you did not like the SRC, there is now the option to avoid the SRC altogether. Music listening is very subjective, so there's no way people will agree on the quality of the sound. If the X-Fi is not up to your standards, then don't get it. I'm personally more than satisfied with my Elite Pro.
Sea Shadow - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
How do you know this, I have yet to see any data proving or disproving your rantings.yacoub - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
I'll consider it a return when they offer it for $100-200. This is nothing more than Creative moving to a price model similar to other computer hardware components such as videocards. The only thing returning is the bullsh*t.Araemo - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
Hello? Anyone out there? Creative, 2004 is calling, and it would like a PCI-express audio card.More seriously, I'd be hesitant to spend $100+ on a new sound card for my new system(about 5 months away) that may not work on my next system after that(About 2 years away). Sound cards are not a huge performance bottleneck w/ only two speakers. I don't NEED a new card, so I'll probably just use the Realtek 850 audio on my next motherboard.
Why would Creative release their only innovative product from the past 5 years, without support for the most current interface? I'm sure they can add it down the line, but it doesn't make sense to me not to have it now.
xeizo - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
There is no PCI-E soundcard out there yet, strange it may seem, but that must be because the industry had an easier time introducing PCI-E on motherboards than they expected, and so no need to push it further by rushing "killer hardware". Or mabe more right, the killer hardware was SLI.There are other much more interesting audiowork being done than X-Fi, like the team which are writing an audiodriver for Geforce-cards. There we can talk about a capable DSP, and with lots of "X-RAM" already in place.
As been pointed out, the most annoying thing about X-Fi are the driver issues:
no Linux-driver, or even support for external development of one
no Windows Vista-support
the general low quality of ALL Creative drivers, the slow updates or correction of bugs, the bloat, and not being able to download full drivers but must buy a CD.
And what about usability ? If I build a new computer, do I really need more audio-performance than what I have ? Yes, if I'm a musician I need "as much" audio performance as I can get, but I don't usually get it from a soundcard(or audiointerface) but instead I get it from software or dedicated hardware. What I need is a fast, faster, fastest cpu and lots of matching RAM. No need to even bother to use any part of Creatives software bundle, as there already are endless amounts of much better dedicated music-creating software out there. All i need is a fast PC and a clean sounding audio-interface. Even an Audiophile 2496 for under a 100$ sounds clean enough for professional use and has as low latency as the 400$ X-Fi, and the drivers aren't buggy. It just works, clean and simple. If I wan't to make music I would be much more interested in Creatives E-MU cards, especially since X-Fi are so insanely highly priced. The cheaper cards in the X-Fi line will NOT do to take make music on because they use inferior AD-converters, which renders the good enough DACs on them useless for recording live instruments.
For other use, ie games, gamers aren't audiophiles. They just want cool effects in their game, any Audigy-card will do for that. Analogue sound, that is, if you use SPDIF to good quality external hardware i guess there aren't many that can't do with an ALC850.
And pure audiophiles who don't make any music, just listens to it ? Well, if the musician who made the music thinks an M-Audio-card is good enough to create the music on I see no reason why an Audiophile can't think that the same soundquality as in the studio is good enough for him.
And movies ? SPDIF and ALC850 once again ... but i prefer my standalone DVD-player.
In fact, noone NEEDS X-Fi, it's just bloatware and marketing. Most people annoyed with their soundquality need better speakers, not better soundcards. Or prove me wrong.
Araemo - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
Some agreements and counter-points:In my current system, I have an audigy(First gen) "mp3". And the nForce 2 soundstorm w/ dolby digital(I think? NF7-S v.2.0, I don't use dolby if I do have it thoguh). I have no room for a 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, etc.. sound system, and it would just annoy my roommates and neighbors. So I wanted to find a good, high quality 2.1 system w/ optical audio in.. I couldn't find one from any computer speaker company. In retrospect, I should have looked at home theatre type stuff? But that probably woulda been at least twice the price(Good speakers + good amp?, vs. my logitech 2200s for about $70). My audigy, due to drivers, or whatever.. crackles after the system has been on a while, and multiple sounds are playing(Winamp + any game?). The Soundstorm has SHITTY sounding midi playback. I have both cards installed and configured.. midis play through the audigy's hardware midi playback, are 'recorded' on the audigy without leaving the card, and played back through speakers hooked up to the soundstorm. If I get an ALC850 sound card, I'll probably have to do the same thing to get decent midi playback. Plus, as scary as it sounds.. Creative's drivers are the BEST among all the consumer 'gaming' sound cards. And they SUCK ASS. I know from experience that the intel chipset built-in audio isn't always as stable as my audigy was.. (At least on my first gen centrino chipset). So, no, not everyone can put up with just an ALC850.. 99% of people can, but anyone who has a collection of MIDIs and likes decent sound banks.. has to buy creative, or get dedicated MIDI hardware.
Doesn't PCI-E have a transport mode designed to give predictable latencies? I would think the ability to have multiple sound cards interacting with the controller 100% independantly, getting all 1Gbps(Per lane) of bandwidth, would be desirable for high quality multi-channel sounds. It IS refreshing to finally see another creative product that isn't based on the Emu10kX chips. And who knows, if ATI can make their drivers good enough that some people are saying they're better than nVidia(In certain areas), maybe even Creative can pull their drivers out of the gutter too.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
That needs to be said quite a few more times ...
mindless1 - Thursday, September 1, 2005 - link
True, the speakers are usually the weakest link but that doesn't begin to make the sound card any stronger. Unfortunately as any audiophile will tell you, the better the /rest/ of your gear is, the more you'll notice the weakest link. Can't tell for sure from the pics but it doen't even look like Creative is using decent output coupling caps, which is sad on a $400 card.ceefka - Thursday, September 1, 2005 - link
Plus: would an audiophile be listening to his best CDs from a PC or a standalone high end CD player? I guess I could do without the background noise of a PC and I do not consider myself an audiophile.yacoub - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
As does "it's just bloatware and marketing".Eskimooo - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
PCIe is designed for graphics and high data transfer, but audio sends very small packets and the overhead can be big. Performance of PCIe is bad for audio, therefore no-one was tempted to come up with a product yet...Correct me if I am wrong.Creative says they are working on that, I have just came across this interview:
http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=...">http://www.hardwarezone.com/articles/view.php?cid=...
Araemo - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
From that interview:"So what we have to do is go back to the drawing board and work on the transport part of the chip and re-design it to add more silicon to overcome some of the problems we had with PCIe. So for us to come up with a PCIe solution is going to take a while because we have to overcome the problems we're facing with that bus."
It sounds like they thought it would be a simple transition, and had their product mostly designed(around PCI 2.x) before they tried to adapt it to PCI-Express.
In order for sound cards to make efficient use of an overcrowded PCI bus(common in older chipsets, before the nforce era or so), they had to pull a LOT of tricks, including using a very low(relatively speaking) IRQ. W/ the PCI-express bus, they have to re-engineer their chips to send data earlier, since it is sent serially instead of parallel, meaning they can't buffer one big clump and expect it to get to the destination all at once, they have to send the first part when it's ready, and then the second part.. sequentially.. I just honestly thought that the delay in the X-Fi WAS to get pci-express working.. It's not like they haven't had plenty of time (What, 3? 4? years since the first working silicon was available for engineers to test on?)
I think if creative had a serious competitor, they may have been more eager to have pci-express support, but since noone else is even making a dent in their market, they only need to improve over their past product... and that isn't hard to do.
Spacecomber - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
I was a little surprised to see that the X-Fi has a higher level of CPU usage and results in a sligthly lower FPS average when playing Battlefield 2 than what you can get with an Audigy card. I really would have hoped that all that onboard processing power would have taken a significant load off of the CPU, but perhaps this will improve with newer drivers down the road, as you seemed to suggest.I wondered if this might not deserve a bit of a closer look. An average of FPS, as you know, doesn't really do a very good job of capturing how well a game runs on particular system. This seems especially to be true with Battlefield 2. For example, when I run a timedemo of this game and then exam the cvs file, which captures the time for each frame rendered, I see that while my system gets an average of 50 fps, the range is from 2-106 fps. If you look at a graph of all these framerates, it looks prety ugly with all those momentary dips into single digits and low teens.
My wishful thinking is that a sound card that is capable of taking more of the load off of the CPU might help with this. Even if the average frame rate was slightly lower, if it cleaned up some of those framerate dips, it would still be a good thing.
By the way, how did you disable sound in Battlefield 2 for you tests? Did you simply lower all the sound settings to 0, or is there a command line switch or console command that will do this? I've been meaning to run a timedemo with no sound to compare to a timedemo with sound just to see if the audio contributes significantly to the framerate dips mentioned previously.
Thanks for this review. As an avid gamer, despite my frustration with Creative's cards, they still seem to be the undisputed gamer's card, simply because no one else fully supports all the 3D effects (such as the latest EAX features) in hardware that Creative does. And certainly, no other game card manufacturer is in the position (that Aureal was at one point) to challenge Creative with a competing set of 3D audio effects and features. Much as I'd like to jump to someone else's solution (I loved my Aureal card while it was supported, and I also was happy with my Santa Cruz when Turtle Beach kept their drivers up to date), I'm skeptical that any one really has the clout, now, to establish themselves as a solid card for game players or that they could survive under Creative's shadow.
Spacecomber
jr9k - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
[quote]We therefore see slightly lower performance from the X-Fi card. With the X-Fi being brand new, driver improvements could also change the performance picture over time. [\quote]Given creative's past record, don't count on them.
Seems a nice card though, once it is available at 50$
ceefka - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
So if you do run a comprehensive audio test, please also differentiate between Intel and AMD machines and subsequently Intel, nF3 and nF4 chipsets. Also vary on graphics cards. It is said that a higher grade PCI-E graphicscard on nF4 increases latency. Maybe you can shed your own light on that. Please use excessive amounts of audio and processing and push the systems real hard.While the X-Fi looks to have some nice tech to it, I am afraid that a lot of its tech will sit unused for years to come while missing a few attractive things like Dolby Digital Live and balanced inputs.
Eskimooo - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
I have read DDL may introduce delays like the DICE did with first XBOX. This whole DDL does not mean cinema quality and does not make a card. DDL is not as goog as full dolby. And it always means compression. So it is just a feature which I can live without. I have good analog set anyway. Balanced inputs are important for those who need them. I presume EMU will come up with something but I do not think I want to wait. X-Fi is the best option for me, thanks for all your comments that helped me a lot. Does anybody know where I can order it in Europe?stmok - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
I've been using dual CPU (and now dual-core) systems for quite a while, and Creative have dissappointed me time and again with their Windows drivers...Constant "pops and clicks" is always present with the Live and Audigy series. However, this doesn't occur in Linux...For some reason its fine. (I guess its a different driver team working on it).So my question is, does this new Creative solution suffer from the same issues as its older ones? (Where you are forced to either try third-party drivers OR disable Hardware Acceleration just to get rid of the "pops and clicks" in games/videos/music)
The Blue Moose - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
Let's assume you actually need a semi-pro sound card. Is Creative really going to be your first choice? At the $400-$500 price point you have a few options. Given Creative's less than stellar track record with drivers and software support, only those who insist on the absolute cleanest sound above all else will jump right into this one. This will be those who can (or at least think they can) hear the difference between Audigy sound and X-Fi sound.So, now let's look at the more mainstream version. $130 for a card that uses lesser components (therefore will show even less difference from current Audigy cards), won't have the on board RAM, and doesn't do Dolby encoding. I can get the same sound quality, WITH Dolby encoding for $100 or less right now. Plus the same driver/support issues apply here as well.
Now, most hardcore gamers aren't gonna pop for a semi-pro card they don't need, nor will they skimp by grabbing the low-end board. I'm assuming the $280 version will have middle of the road components, but it will definitely have the RAM. They won't buy it for cleaner sound necessarily, but more for the potential performance boost of the RAM.
But, how much of a boost will there be? The (admittedly limited) benchmarks would seem to show there's a good bit of driver overhead. Also, with dual core chips filtering down to the masses, will the RAM actually get you that much more? Many game designers have said how very hard it will be to make games that can effectively use a dual core rig. So, if they can't send graphics related work to the 2nd core, what are they gonna do with it? The most likely candidates are sound, physics, and AI. If you've already got a decent sound card, I think you'd get more milage out of your $280 by dropping it on a 2nd core than a new "faster" sound card.
While the tech behind this card, certainly seems impressive. The card just seems to be a lot more about hype and clever marketing than any real leap in sound cards. The article mentions plenty of analog and digital I/O, but the picture used doesn't even show a digital output (but it does have a outdated game port, strange). There appears to be a connector for a daughter card, but I don't recall a mention of it. I'm not saying the thing is a piece of crap, but at the prices they're asking, you're paying more for the SB name than the card itself.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
oh, and there is a clear audible difference between X-Fi and Audigy cards.The coloration from the poor frequency response and IMD sweep at 16-bit 44.1kHz really deadens cd auido and mp3s. Its not about a slightly higher noise floor or a little less dynamic range. It's about poor sound reproduction and bad sample rate conversion.
I agree with you on the point of your post though -- it is hard to justify the price of this card.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
That's not a game port, its a digital connector to the break out box. The breakout box has optical in and out, spdif out, RCA out, quarter inch out, and problabaly a few things I'm forgetting right now.There is no daughter card connection. The thing that looks like it is a dell case front panel connector. For whatever reason.
Saist - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
I'm trying hard not to be the wet blanket, but why in the world is everyone so gung-ho about creative products? I know I'm not the only one whose suffered from scratchy sound, static generation, swapped speaker channels, and dropped speaker channels with Creative cards. I've lost count of the number of games I've played where a sound issue has been specifically traced to a Creative driver set or Creative hardware problem. I don't want to even think about leaving the "well supported" windows world and looking towards systems that use ALSA, ARTS, or OSS sound systems. The lack of documentation makes setting up and running creative cards a pain in the rear.Quite frankly, given what I've seen of Creative's products and experienced, I'll stick with my Via Envy and wait for Via Envy2 if I'm going to upgrade. Just doesn't seem to be any sense to stick to Creative's path which invariably either winds up with less than desirable products and higher than desirable prices.
flexy - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
i take 10 ! :)
a) any REAL pro will probably NOT get a creative soundcard
b) a gamer/casual PC enthusiast will probably NOT spend $400 on a soundcard.
c) i had to stop reading the article and laughed when i read "$400"...and i laughed even more when i read that " Unfortunately, there are not a great many games out there that support X-Fi yet. On our list are Doom 3 and Battlefield 2. We tested both of these games and attained good results. We weren't able to create accurate and repeatable sound tests, but from our subjective analysis of gameplay, we couldn't really discern a quality difference between older hardware and the X-Fi."
in other words: You did NOT see (hear) any difference between a Audigy 2 and this card - besides the sad fact that there's barely a game out which supports X-FI.
What (please ?) is the point of this card/review ? Makeing us PC enhusiasts want to spend $400 on a soundcard which has no real-life use at all - or convince the *real* audio-professionals that now Creative is a contender in the "pro-market" ?
DerekWilson - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
Creative is a contender and active member in the pro market with their EMU line.I wouldn't use a consumer product for professional applications. I also woulnd't use a pro card for gaming.
I don't recommend the Elite Pro at the $400 price point. But to people who want a gaming card with excellent sound quality and lots of recording features (and have money to burn), the Elite Pro fits their needs.
to be clear, games that support EAX do support the X-Fi ... just not X-RAM -- the defining performance feature. It would be more accurate to say that no game exploits all the features of X-Fi.
JNo - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
Unfortunately Derek, you failed to make it VERY clear that the bottom of the range x-fi card (which most gamers would probably be happy with) is $130, which is very much more in people's spending range for an everyday soundcard. Obviously you didn't get to test it, having the elite pro instead, but because the basic model is very similar with only very slightly worse DACs (only audiophiles can tell), no extra RAM (no/v little impact today), no remote or break out box, some intelligent guesses could have been made as to its value.AnnihilatorX - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
"The SoundBlaster X-Fi Elite Pro is the best non-pro sound solution for audio listening, features and recording"Ironic isn't it lol
PenGun - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
What's the deal with the 1 K spikes in Dynamic Range and THD? The Gina at least is smooth. The creative stuff is all over. You should be aware graphs are useful but are not a good indicator of how a card sounds.PenGun
SDA - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
"The SoundBlaster X-Fi Elite Pro is the best non-pro sound solution for audio listening, features and recording. "That's like saying that a Prescott is the best non-low-wattage, non-AMD solution for games. Yes, whoopee, but what if you don't have stupid limitations?
To make myself clearer: a pro sound solution at the same price point or below would offer better sound quality, more features, and better recording capability.
Googer - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
I Love the irony of this statement.
Eskimooo - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
Wherever I search web before spending any larger sum there are always people complaining about the stuff they have never seen an/or have no clue about.Why do you post opinion like that and give no example? What is the point?
I mean I am reading reviews and I am trying to make a well informed decision about how to spend my money. If you draw a comparison, do it really, so that it is a valid point.
So what is the soundcard that would give me better quality of sound at recording, playback and more features at the same time at the same price?
I did not have opportunity to listen to music played back with system using X-Fi so I am looking for opinions from those who did before I eventually decide to order it online, too. Thanks to Derek this review. I have read about X-Fi enough to believe it is worth the price and that it will serve me well for a good few years like the Live card did.
Enlighten me, cus I am looking better feature set
SDA - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
>>Why do you post opinion like that and give no example? What is the point? >>Well, gee, I don't know. Why do you post your own opinion? Because we both like to post our opinions, of course. Everyone here does, else their posts wouldn't be there.
I agree that it's only fair to provide examples, so I have done so in my post. Beyond that, some general rules before buying ANYTHING:
- Determine what measurements and features you should be looking for. For example, with a CPU or GPU, you'd know you'd want to look for benchmarks in applications that you find yourself using most often, and what features you wanted or needed for those applications (SSE3? Multiple cores?). With a PSU, you would look for power quality (as determined by rail sag under load, AC ripple on all rails under load, etc.), ability to supply a given amount of power over a long period, whatever features you needed (modular cables? no fan?), component quality, and preferably a large amount of samples (there is often a great difference in quality from PSU to PSU from the same manufacturer).
- See if you can obtain some background knowledge in that field. It's a pain, I know, but it can come in really handy if you don't know what sources to trust or what features to look for. For power supplies, that means getting some basic power-specific EE knowledge (or asking an EE, heh); for CPUs or GPUs, that means trying to understand a little about how these processors work, what specific attributes are valuable in the applications you use, and how performance can be affected by the rest of the system.
- Find resources that you trust. You can identify these by whether or not the reviews or analyses in these resources take into account relevant measurements and features, and by how knowledgeable the reviewer seems in a specific area. A video card review that only does AquaMark and 3DMark should not be trusted (and the site or person that does it should be regarded with some suspicion in that field), and neither should a power supply review where the reviewer does not once mention ripple or do anything more than check the rails under light load with a Windows utility.
- Consider bias. This is not relevant at AT, where I at least trust the editors, but it is very important with some guy that spent a big chunk of money buying something. Of course someone who spent $500 on the latest and greatest processor is going to say that they like it, unless something is horribly wrong. How often do you hear people say that they think their stereos sound bad, that their computers are overpriced, that the PSU that they bought doesn't use the components they would expect at its price point? Now, I grant you, rational people do buy things BECAUSE they feel they are good choices, but there is almost always a significant degree of personal bias with some personal item.
(bias is also relevant when considering smaller or less trustworthy sites that may rely on manufacturers' goodwill, including but not limited to THG.)
A little long, I know, but maybe what little I know can help you with future purchases. If not, you don't have to read it, heh.
Eskimooo - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
thanks for that. Much appreciated. Well, I did quite a research and virtually all reviews I came across including digit-life appreciate technology behind X-Fi. Most reviewers like even this much doubted Crystallizer feature, which is not obligatory and adjustable anyway.I do not believe Creative is so powerfull to exercise pressure on all the reviewers. So if both RMAA etc tests and subjective tests give positive results this card is probobly good and I think I am going to buy itEskimooo - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
previous one posted to early, sorry. So my final question to all who listened to music using the X-Fi card and can compare it to other sound cards: Is there anything that would give more better features at the same quality level and at the same price? Please do not reply on Audigy or Live because X-Fi is a completely different card.DerekWilson - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
It depends on what you are looking for, but in most cases I will have to disagree with you.The Gina 3G sells for $350 and does not off the quality of the X-Fi Elite Pro. Features include hardware 3D audio buffers, filters, and effects. Again Pro cards fall short (especially for gaming).
In fact, the only thing that I would give as an advantage of similarly priced professional audio solutions is balanced audio. This is a big advantage if the user intends to setup a completely balanced audio chain.
If I had to guess at a product that would best the X-Fi in terms of quality, I would have to point to the LynxTWO-B ... For which you would easily spend more than twice what the X-Fi Elite Pro costs. If you know of a pro card that you feel fits your claim, please point it out to us and we will do a comparison.
From what we have seen, your prescott/athlon64 comparison doesn't make much sense. If you take away the non-pro qualifier, we would still maintain that the X-Fi Elite Pro is the best sound card for any application at it's price point (unless you need balanced I/O). If you include no upper limit on price, then we will have to wait for our LynxTwo comparison before we shoot our mouths off too much.
So to recap, pro audio cards at the same price point or below offer fewer features, equivalent or lower sound quality, and similar recording capabilities (with the exception of balanced I/O).
SDA - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
>>The Gina 3G sells for $350 and does not off the quality of the X-Fi Elite Pro. Features include hardware 3D audio buffers, filters, and effects. Again Pro cards fall short (especially for gaming). >>I never said anything about gaming, unless you're interested in recording gaming sessions. Anyway, you're relying on a logical fallacy-- specifically, a hasty generalization. More specifically, that the Gina 3G (a small sample) is representative of all pro audio cards in its price bracket.
>>If you know of a pro card that you feel fits your claim, please point it out to us and we will do a comparison. >>
Well, the E-MU 1212m is a rather capable card at half that price. The 1820 and 1820m are also capable pro cards. (Yes, I'm aware what E-MU is. The issue is capability for the price, not who owns what.) The Delta 1010LT is also an option, I guess, though it's a little dated now. There are also external options... Edirol equipment was fairly popular here last I checked (prefer separates, so I'm not entirely up-to-date). You're welcome to do your own research, of course-- that would be a good idea if you're going to make statements about what's the best.
>>From what we have seen, your prescott/athlon64 comparison doesn't make much sense. If you take away the non-pro qualifier, we would still maintain that the X-Fi Elite Pro is the best sound card for any application at it's price point (unless you need balanced I/O). If you include no upper limit on price, then we will have to wait for our LynxTwo comparison before we shoot our mouths off too much.
So to recap, pro audio cards at the same price point or below offer fewer features, equivalent or lower sound quality, and similar recording capabilities (with the exception of balanced I/O).>>
The comparison was solely to illustrate the issue of specialized comparisons. If you are willing to remove the "non-pro" qualifier, it is irrelevant.
I appreciate that the fine folks at AnandTech often have experience with as many as three or four different sound cards, but I must ask: exactly how many pro sound cards have you tested and reviewed? I don't mean "read the specs of", I don't even mean "measured the noise floor of", I mean given a full, comprehensive test. I sincerely doubt it is a very high number, and that you have and are utilizing the proper measurement equipment (and again, simple audio quality measurements say nothing but that everything out there today has obscenely good measurements).
Why do I doubt that? Well, ffs, you didn't even recognize the "24-bit Crystallizer" for what it was, relying instead on Creative's description that it clears up the high end and adds dynamic range. Someone who can't recognize a crude equalization's effect on the sound and who then regards said equalizer as a noteworthy feature is not someone I am inclined to trust for statements about professional audio.
If you're curious now about the Crystallizer, you might want to read Digit-Life's significantly better review, linked below.
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/multimedia/cre...">http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/multimedia/cre...
yacoub - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
"I appreciate that the fine folks at AnandTech often have experience with as many as three or four different sound cards, but I must ask: exactly how many pro sound cards have you tested and reviewed? I don't mean "read the specs of", I don't even mean "measured the noise floor of", I mean given a full, comprehensive test. I sincerely doubt it is a very high number, and that you have and are utilizing the proper measurement equipment (and again, simple audio quality measurements say nothing but that everything out there today has obscenely good measurements).Why do I doubt that? Well, ffs, you didn't even recognize the "24-bit Crystallizer" for what it was, relying instead on Creative's description that it clears up the high end and adds dynamic range. Someone who can't recognize a crude equalization's effect on the sound and who then regards said equalizer as a noteworthy feature is not someone I am inclined to trust for statements about professional audio. "
Well this is what happens when you have a PC hardware review site in the day and age where the hardware is running out of 'hot new features' and starting to overlap with professional grade equipment in order to justify the pricing.
It's also what happens when you get a review site reaching out into random other areas like digital cameras - realms where there are other sites that exist solely to do such reviews and will obviously do them to a much finer degree. As you get into the realm of professional audio products with the features of PC hardware audio products, it necessitates one of two things: Delving into the field of pro audio equipment to a large degree, or not making comparisons to items in a field one isn't highly knowledgeable about. :)
yacoub - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
Ah, I see you say as much here:"Derek - The concern I have is that your review, as it stands, is a ringing endorsement for a product in a market you do not fully understand. The users who rely upon Anandtech as their only source for this type of reccomendation are likely to purchase something like this, even though there are a wide variety of competitive solutions out there for a quarter of the price. I feel you should at the least post a disclaimer that your audio review process is a work in progress and make it very clear that you do not fully understand the market that the X-Fi is being marketed to, nor have adequate experience with competitive audio solutions. "
Very well put!
DerekWilson - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
We've played with a few different cards extensively, in cluding the TerraTec EWS88 MT the M-Audio Delta 1010 and the EMU 1212 ... We didn't run any RMAA tests on them, as they were used for listening and recording. From our experience, I can say I'd rather have the X-Fi Elite Pro for a non-balanced setup. Currently I have an external ADC for converting balanced line-ins to ADAT and run digital audio to the computer and I use the Gina 3G for recording the ADAT signal.Regaurdless of our experience, we haven't done indepth electrical analysis of these parts yet. It is our intention to test other consumer, semi-pro and pro cards and compare them. We drew our assessment of the X-Fi from our experience with hardware and the in-depth tests we have done so far.
As far as the Crystallizer goes, we are talking about more than one effect if Digit-Life is correct. Yes, there's equalization, but that's not all. I wasn't expecting multiband compression to be added which (as digit-life points out) decreases the dynamic range of the original signal. We will certainly be speaking with Creative about this (there are other things that could be going on that an RMAA test doesn't determine), and if our analysis leads us to the same conclusion we will certainly have some things to say about it. We certainly noticed the general increase in dB level though ... If I didn't mention it, when comparing crystallizer audio with unmodified audio we decreased the volume to match.
On top of that, the word noteworthy carries a positive connotation. If you mean only to say that we noted the Crystallizer as a feature and tested it, that's fine. Beyond that, our assessment was that the crystallizer had limited application to some audio sources that were already subpar. I would say we were not wrong.
At the same time, we are still finding our way in PC audio. We recognize we have some room for improvement and appreciate any direction and help we can get. We will expand our coverage to include indepth signal analysis on features like the Crystallizer. There are difficulties in going down this route, and it is hard to correctly talk about the value of psychoacoustic functions or environmental effects from such analysis. We haven't gone there yet because it is like opening a can of worms. Any suggestions are welcome.
Thanks very much for taking the time to bring all of these issues to our attention.
Derek Wilson
SDA - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
Why, jooc, would you rather have the Elite Pro? Just what listening equipment are you using (I'd really like to know this part), and what tests have you performed with them (other than introductory spec measurement)?Noteworthy does carry positive connotations, but then the fact that your review sees it as a feature that can be useful for some does mean to me that you've classified it as a noteworthy feature when, in reality, it is utterly useless (anything that can benefit from it can benefit from a better, simpler software EQ that you can carry with you from card to card).
I tend to agree with Reflex here. I understand and appreciate that you guys are trying, and you'll notice I haven't made any stupid accusations about bias, but the fact is that this is an unqualified endorsement. If you're still finding your way in PC audio, you should be a little more cautious about making sweeping general statements.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
I would rather have an Elite Pro because I also like to play games and movies as well as record and listen to music. I do to perfer my external ADC for recording, and would probably rely on it instead of the soundcard itself.For listening, I generally stick with my Sony MDR-7509 headset. I also have the Sennheiser HD580 that I use to audition sound hardware. The reason I stick with the Sony gear for general listening is due to my environment. I can turn everything off when I need to do a noise test or listen closely to something, but the lab with all the computers and workstations running is not a quiet environment. I realize that open air headests will reproduce (especially) the low end in a more appropraite manner, so I do listen with them, but I know the sound a little better on the MDR-7509s as I've been using them for a long time.
I am planning on picking up the HD650 as I've heard great things about them.
The tests I've performed with them include recording and editing audio on them. I've used each of the solutions I mentioned in my home rig before I moved to lightpipe. I'm definitely not saying they don't get the job done well. And if that's all you want a sound card for, then I'd certainly go with one of those solutions over the X-Fi. Likewise, if all you are doing is stereo audio listening then one of the other solutions is still a better choice.
The advantage of the X-Fi (and I'm sorry if I didn't make this clear in the article) is that it is capable of high quality recording, high quality playback, EAX 2+ with 127 voices, has lots of analog and digital I/O, and generally meets any requirement anyone could have from a consumer or semi-pro sound card (except, again, balanced I/O). But $400 is still too much to pay for this solutioin.
Doing something like a double blind subjective study on audio is difficult. People that don't know how to listen won't be any help because even if they hear a difference they won't know how to describe it very well. People who do know what they are talking about are hard to come by in volume. Don't get me wrong, we'd love to do something like this. But we just don't have any idea how to work out the logistics. Suggestions are welcome.
Also, I appreciate the suggestion to avoid general statements about the goodness of something. It is a good suggestion even in cases where we know everything about everything in detail. There are always surprises and erring on the side of caution is the best way to go. We will be more careful in the future.
Derek Wilson
SDA - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
>>For listening, I generally stick with my Sony MDR-7509 headset. I also have the Sennheiser HD580 that I use to audition sound hardware. The reason I stick with the Sony gear for general listening is due to my environment. I can turn everything off when I need to do a noise test or listen closely to something, but the lab with all the computers and workstations running is not a quiet environment. I realize that open air headests will reproduce (especially) the low end in a more appropraite manner, so I do listen with them, but I know the sound a little better on the MDR-7509s as I've been using them for a long time. >>Are either of those headphones being amplified? If not, you are probably putting unfair stress on the sound card's line out, and should at least compare with and without an amp (lots of sound devices sound great if not under undue stress). Also, consider getting monitor speakers to test surround sound output.. old Minimus-7s will do if you're on that tight of a budget (no bass whatsoever, but surprisingly neutral midrange and treble for small bucks and a small room), otherwise look around.
>>I am planning on picking up the HD650 as I've heard great things about them. >>
Enh, they're not different enough from the HD580 to warrant buying if you're looking for sound test gear. Get something with a different flavor first (Grado SR-225 or Alessandro MS-2 for high-current low-impedance rock phones, AKG K501 for analytical ridiculously inefficient mid-impedance phones), and get a reasonably good amplifier (no need for audiophile BS, just something with enough balls to run a K501).
>>Doing something like a double blind subjective study on audio is difficult. People that don't know how to listen won't be any help because even if they hear a difference they won't know how to describe it very well. People who do know what they are talking about are hard to come by in volume. Don't get me wrong, we'd love to do something like this. But we just don't have any idea how to work out the logistics. Suggestions are welcome. >>
Find three different people who know what they're talking about and aren't slaves to the placebo effect. Have them test the gear in a double-blind setting.
More specific advice... look for musicians. Especially look for musicians for testing songs heavy on specific instruments: someone who plays, say, the violin will know exactly what a violin will sound.
>>Also, I appreciate the suggestion to avoid general statements about the goodness of something. It is a good suggestion even in cases where we know everything about everything in detail. There are always surprises and erring on the side of caution is the best way to go. We will be more careful in the future. >>
And, fwiw, I appreciate the maturity and responsibility one gets from AT editors. (Yes, I can give compliments too!)
DerekWilson - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
I am not sure if I want to go with active amplification. I understand that stressing the opamps on the card towards the top end of their range could adversly affect their linearity. But my impression is that spending this much money on an audio card means a listener should not have to invest in an amp to get the best quality sound. We want talk about the audio as it will be heard by our readers.Do you have a different opinion on the subject?
And thanks for the suggestions on speakers and other headsets.
SDA - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
>>I am not sure if I want to go with active amplification. I understand that stressing the opamps on the card towards the top end of their range could adversly affect their linearity. But my impression is that spending this much money on an audio card means a listener should not have to invest in an amp to get the best quality sound. We want talk about the audio as it will be heard by our readers.Do you have a different opinion on the subject? >>
The amplifiers on sound card line-outs are rarely equipped to drive headphones, especially not extremely power-hungry one. While I agree there is value in an ampless test, I also feel that an amplifier would be a good idea for pure line-out performance. A lot of us don't put any real strain on the line-outs, after all, and I'd like to see how evening the playing field a little helps various cards.
At any rate, spending this much money on (insert piece of equipment here) never entitles a listener to avoiding another link in the chain entirely. Not that headphone amps are a necessity, but hooking a $200 headphone to a line-out of a $400 sound card is a little silly and probably wouldn't yield sound as good as a lower-tier sound card and a cheap headphone amp (the things don't need to be pricey, just gutsy enough to power any normal dynamic headphone with ease).
Xentropy - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
Sorry this is a bit off-topic, but you seem to know what you're talking about, and everywhere else I've asked I've gotten audiophile answers (e.g. buy this or that $2000 piece of equipment), so......What reasonably priced headphone amp(s) can you recommend for use between a soundcard and a set of HD570's?
SDA - Thursday, September 1, 2005 - link
The PPA and M^3 are reasonably priced, at least from a DIY perspective. At a lower price point, PIMETAs are fine.If I were you, though, I would upgrade that HD570 first-- driver upgrade (meaning speakers or headphones) is generally much more noticeable than amp or source upgrade. If you like a bass-n-treble signature, try the HD590; if you like something bassy and trebley but with midrange in the bargain, try a Grado or Alessandro. A very simple amp / 'CMoy' (buy on Head-Fi or somewhere, they're overpriced on eBay) with a decent op-amp (OPA2134PA is fine) covers a surprisingly large amount of the gap between no amp and top-end amp-- the biggest thing is taking undue stress off of the sound card's line out.
Or, you know, buy a $3000 amplifier, and line it with sound-improving rainbow foil (hur hur hur).
mindless1 - Friday, September 2, 2005 - link
Personally I found an unbuffered design like a CMOY to be a more similar to a soundcard's line-out than to a Pimeta, PPA or M3... they're all fairly harsh with terrible channel separation.SDA - Friday, September 2, 2005 - link
What op-amp? An unbuffered design is bound to be heavily opamp-dependent.. I've heard some that I'd prefer a Sony D-33's headphone out to, and I've heard others that are 80% of a META42. A great op-amp might be terrible in an unbuffered design for current output reasons.mindless1 - Friday, September 2, 2005 - link
Just about any mid-grade or better? I find some of my favorites, like AD8610, AD843, and OPA637, all sound far better unbuffered than jellybeans like TL072 or old standards like JRC4556/8, BUT *almost* anything buffered beats them. Higher current chps like LM6171 give more current but still lack quality sound. I "almost" find completely dreadful, entirely unmusical general purpose opamps sound as good buffered as the average "good" opamps in an unbuffered configuration... and it doesn't even take much of a buffer to make that difference.This is of course keeping in mind the current limitations, they don't even sound very good at low output. IMO, a CMOY type design is only useful for higher Z cans that need a bit of a volume boost. Then again, vast difference in price too, some people have enough spare parts to crank out a CMOY on protoboard plus $10. CMOY is like a gateway drug, it only teased me onto harder habits.
SDA - Friday, September 2, 2005 - link
Wow... well, I guess our ears just disagree there, especially since the AD8610 is my favorite for unbuffered. I still prefer buffered, of course, I've just always felt that an unbuffered AD8610/20 or similar CMoy-type amp covers a good chunk of the gap. Well, each to their own, I suppose, and AT editors should be looking for something higher-end anyway.mindless1 - Thursday, September 1, 2005 - link
Well, LOL."Audiophile" <> reasonably priced... never has and never will.
However, a ballpark $200 headamp might be a "PPA v2" custom-built with AD843 opamps rolled in. Thee are a few lists of trade builders for PPA2 or other customizable amps that you can DIY, actually tailor to your cans, or to your tastes, there is a vast gulf between gamer pseudo-audiophiles that buy Creative Labs cards with digital tricks and those who simply want cleanest analog possible and bit-perfect digi out. Wheverver you fit into the grand scheme, may dictate the optimal amp for you.
Then you'll want another amp, and more cans, and another sound card, and a DAC, and... Sorry about your wallet. ;-)
DerekWilson - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
we'll try itReflex - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
Well said, SDA. And yes, I also appreciate the maturity of AT editors. I do feel a disclaimer needs to be added to the article, that said they could easily have overreacted(as THG editors tend to).Reflex - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
Derek - The concern I have is that your review, as it stands, is a ringing endorsement for a product in a market you do not fully understand. The users who rely upon Anandtech as their only source for this type of reccomendation are likely to purchase something like this, even though there are a wide variety of competitive solutions out there for a quarter of the price. I feel you should at the least post a disclaimer that your audio review process is a work in progress and make it very clear that you do not fully understand the market that the X-Fi is being marketed to, nor have adequate experience with competitive audio solutions.More damaging, from my perspective, is the fact that Creative has not pledged to support future standards or alternative OS's. On a $400 product it should not be obsolete in the 14 months between today and the release of Windows Vista. You need to at the least get a solid statement on whether or not the X-Fi will support the new audio standard natively, or if they intend to only support it in legacy interfaces. This is a sound card, not a video card, a user should not expect to have to upgrade in a little over a year.
PenGun - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
Try an M-Audio Audiophile 24/96. I used to run a TB Pinnacle which seriously kicked ass on all creative products including all the audigys I ran into.The M-Audio Audiphile is better. A very sweet card pushing the limits of what is possible with a switching power supply.
After what creative did to Carmack there is no way I will ever buy their stuff again. As they continually make crap as far as I can tell, it's no problem.
My card goes directly to Kimber braided, RCAs on the Audiophile, then to my Sonic Frontier's factory modded (mostly voltage control cicuits) SFL-1 Signiture preamp. From there we go to a pair of SFM-75 monoblocks, again not stock, running Svetlyna 6550B power tubes. That goes, biwired, on Tara Time and Space cables to a pair of BMW Matrix 1 speakers.
I do have a revealing system eh' ;).
PenGun
Eskimooo - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
would that be any good for games, too?PenGun - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
It's pretty awesome actually. No hardware acceleration of course, but it's not a problem on my new Athy 64.PenGun
Eskimooo - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
hold on, no non-Cretaive card does EAX 3,4,5 at present...So it may sound awesome but you do not get max out of the gameDoes this card produce surround sound over the headphones? Call it gimmicks, but I'd be much interested in that. For practical space reasons and occasional nite gaming.
PenGun - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
Sound is what I care about. Positional audio in games is really not much more use than stereo. We can meet somewhere and see who walks away ... ;). Nexuiz is open source Quake,Quake2,Quake3 on steroids. Fun is back in deathmatch.I wonder why my account disapeared, I just recreated it but that is kinda strange.
PenGun
blckgrffn - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
Where is it, dammit?!?!I guess I was unaware that the Intel solution had this ability. It may make sense to get a board featuring this ability to hook it up to my receiver, I can't believe creative can't figure out that we would really like to hook up a high quality card via a digital cable...
segagenesis - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
This is exactly why I got the HDA X-Mystique 7.1. I believe it is a licensing issue that Creative does not wish to bother with, or does not care to bother with. It's not a perfect card (minor control panel issues) but it does exactly what I want, and has great audio qualiy.It may not be as super ultra quality as this new card, but I would rather enjoy the fact it has DD 5.1 Live. The review kind of says it anyways, he mentions that using existing hardware compared... *ahem* this new "extreme" sound card doesnt really make an audible difference. If your onboard 5.1 sounds ok to you, why even bother upgrading?
One thing that I find troubling is that game performance is slightly less with the X-Fi and considering Creative's lack of promtness with driver updates I would feel worried about optimizations.
The last Creative card I owned was a SBLive! 5.1 and I don't really miss the brand.
JNo - Thursday, September 1, 2005 - link
In fact, if Anandtech could do a review of the HDA X-Mystique 7.1 it'd be appreciated as I've heard quite a few good things about this card, not least its reasonable price point and dolby digital live output.By the way, on a separate note, for all the people here giving anandtech grief, people should look at more than just one site before making informed purchasing decisions and anandtech did much better than tomshardware which was extremely partisan. Also, I would like to use and trust dedicated sound sites like www.3Dsoundsurge.com but unfortunately they are often too slow in reviewing new hardware...
DerekWilson - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
you can output sound digitally ... dolby sources (DVDs) can be output to a reciever, and audio can be output via SPDIF to a reciver as well ...What you can't do is take a source that's not already dolby (like music, games and the like), encode it to dolby, and then send it to a reciver.
Lwood - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
I found this on the ALSA mailing list (http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel...">http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel...:"We are not going to get any support from Creative for the X-Fi chip.
We do not get support from Creative for any Creative chip that has a DSP
in it."
It looks like we won't see a Linux driver for the X-Fi anytime soon... :-(
sprockkets - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
Oh well, even nVidia's soundstorm worked in linux, and with the 5.1 encoding out.Reflex - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
I've had these cards in my lab and all I can say is that this is the first time I've ever really doubted Anandtech's credibility. This reads like a spiced up piece of PR from Creative, and subjective listening would not put this as the best consumer audio solution as so prominently stated on the first page of the review.Derek - What the hell is going on here? You don't even include any results from competing products to make such a statement. The war was over before a shot was fired is the impression this review gives. The fact that Creative finally has a card to match the specs that otehr cards have had for three years now makes it a 'revolution'? Sorry, I have been working with these cards for months now and they definatly are nothing special. Just expensive.
flexy - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
100% agree...tried to keep my complaints back, tho.Btw. nice nick :)
DerekWilson - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
Hello,We will be looking at more cards, and including an envy24 based solution is something that we intend to do in the future.
We do include a result from a competing solution -- the Gina 3G is a pro audio card which has excellent audio quality. The Elite Pro is closer to a pro audio product in the component selection and construction.
envy24 based consumer products don't score as well as the Gina 3G from what we have seen. Granted we do have to test this for ourselves, but we would certainly expect the Gina 3G to outperform something from Terratec or M-Audio.
That being said, the X-Fi outperforms the Gina 3G in just about ever test we ran.
It is very difficult to subjectively compare audio between cards. There have been some cases (the audigy line) where there was a very clear problem with the aural experience. With the X-Fi line, we can no longer say that we can hear problems with the audio.
We spent days listening to this card, the Gina, and the Audigy 4. We frankly disagree with the statement that subjective listening does not put this card on par with the best audio solutions out there. We found no reason in our subjective listening tests to conclude otherwise.
On top of that, after simply listening to the card for days, we ran the RMAA tests. These tests showed clearly that not only was the card void of any issues, but that the quality of the output was much closer to the source than any other card we tested. These two points add up to the conclusion you disagree with.
And as we said, if this card performs better than the Gina 3G and the Gina performs better than consumer level envy24 parts, it stands to reason that the X-Fi would outperform just about everything but a LynxTWO ... and even then we would need to run some tests of our own ...
The big problem is that at these incredibly low noise levels, high dynamic range, low distortion, good separation, etc... it is very difficult to hear differences in the audio. To the average person, the audigy 4 Pro, Gina 3G, and X-Fi will sound exactly the same. To a hardcore audiophile, we wouldn't doubt it if the X-Fi won their hearts. The X-Fi (in spite of its features) can provide a very true-to-the-source signal with less coloration than all but the best pro audio cards out there.
For musicians, the high quality provides a better platform for work than the rest of the pack -- unless, of course, balance audio is desired.
Show me a consumer audio card that matches the specs of the X-Fi ... From the tests other people have performed on the LynxTwo B at 16-bit/44.1kHz (the unofficial standard in PC audio quality), the X-Fi posts http://audio.rightmark.org/test/lynx-two-b-1644.ht...">better numbers in every category but frequency response (and it's darn close in that area)...
The high end components used do not make the X-Fi Elite Pro "nothing special" ... They make it nothing most people will need. And certainly, between this and other products that use good quality components, most people won't notice much (if any) difference.
We very much agree that the card is too expensive. And please rest assured that we will be comparing this card to an evny24 based solution -- and hopefully a lynxtwo -- in the future.
Thanks for the feedback,
Derek Wilson
yacoub - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
Look into the BlueGears X-Mystique. It's pretty much the best PC soundcard available at a reasonable price right now - and it's not Creative so there's no assorted bloatware to install.Reflex - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
Derek -I am not trying to bash you here, however you have to understand that when you start an article by proclaiming something the best in its class, but then your test does not include the other solutions in the class at all, that things seem fishy.
I work with audio devices for a living. I've worked with the X-Fi since it was a prototype(as have a couple dozen other people in my lab). Certainly it is an improvement over previous Creative efforts, and at first we were a bit wowed by the paper specs and proposal. However after working closely with it for months, I honestly can say that no one here feels its anything special. Perhaps some of that is the novelty wearing off, but in any ad-hoc test with someone who hadn't heard it before, they could rarely tell the difference between it and an Audigy, and the M-Audio Revolution generally was said to produce clearer sound. Not that our tests were scientific or anything, we weren't trying to write articles for publication.
I'd really suggest some blind tests with a variety of content. I think you may be suprised to find that while for MP3's the X-Fi sounds good, for CD's and especially SACD's the mid-range is poorly reproduced. Make certain you use a wide range of music, and prefferably classical numbers that you know very well.
Something else is you could list what type of speakers/headphones and recievers you are using, if you are testing with something like Klipsch then your credibility would go down considerably for anything but games and action movies, after all the card cannot make up for poor speakers(when measured by reproduction accuracy, not volume).
I would suggest establishing a baseline and going from there. Based on my experience, in the 'consumer' segment the M-Audio Revolution 7.1 is a good baseline, however any baseline that you could compare against would be beneficial to strengthening the credibility of the review. Granted anything audio is subjective, but when you say something is 'better' you need to at least be able to point to some specific reasons as to why.
And finally, the section that read like Creative marketing PR was your explanation of their audio architecture. There is nothing inherantly 'better' about the approach Creative is taking, it is simply different, there are both advantages and drawbacks. Furthermore, while they make the product seem like the 'next generation of audio' no one has managed to get a commitment from them to support the upcoming Windows Audio Architecture that will be a part of Vista, without that support they will be behind several others. Their lack of support for Linux is also a drawback for many.
Thank you for the effort, I hope that this feedback will help you improve your audio reviews in the future. I have read AT since the beginning and rarely doubted what is posted here, there just seemed to be some rather glaring flaws in how this review was handled. At least in my humble opinion.
DerekWilson - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
Thank you very much for the helpful feedback. Some of your suggestions will absolutly make it into future audio reviews.I would tend to disagree with your assesment of Creative's architectural direction. If the intent is to very heavily process many audio streams, then the flexibility and power are helpful. This could be a boon to game designers or electronic musicisans looking for some hefty sample rate or dsp power.
For straight up listening to a single source or recording the architecture is unnecessary.
I agree that windows driver and linux support are drawbacks as well.
We absolutely appreciate and need our readers feedback. Thanks for taking the time.
Derek Wilson
Reflex - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
Derek, please read the following http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/audio/uaa.msp...">article on Universal Audio Architecture. Between that and Intel's HD Audio spec, all the supposed benefits of the X-Fi driver architecture are achieved already, and in a standard fashion that other sound card manufacturers can follow. There is nothing unique about what Creative is offering, only the marketing surrounding it, and in fact its been on the market since Intel's HD Audio first came out.Multiple source/multiple channel audio is definatly a major application in the future, but Creative is not the company leading the charge on this, only following suit.
Once again I feel that your article in its present state serves as an advertisement rather than an objective analysis. I am certain that was not the intention, however due to the lack of research it came out that way anyways.
HardwareD00d - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
Thanks for your post. I was thinking I'd upgrade from my Audigy2 to an X-Fi, but now I think I'll pass.PenGun - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
Could not have put it better, thanks.PenGun
monsoon - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
guys, i'm looking for an HTPC config with dual-core AMD where i can use the opticl drive without turning on the PC......i know, seems a bit out of context; but if this card or any lesser ( ? ) can be used in such context, what product would you recommend ?
i like the HP DEC form factor, but i'll take anything proven worthy WITH AMD DUAL CORE and and an optical drive independent from PC.
thanks for feedback,
cordially,
a.
Calin - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
The ASUS boards have the capability to play audio CDs from BIOS (I remember something like that, I don't have the ASUS board/manual to check). Maybe if you start the CD it will play while your computer is stopped?whymeintrouble - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
I believe HP has a media center pc that can run a dvd drive, but not need to be in windows to use it. I don't know if it has the option of the Dual Core X2s though.I want to see a few more reviews go up before I make my judgements on these cards.
RussG - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
This still won't make myself, and a lot of people, upgrade from onboard sound. What I would like to see is more comparisons of how this is going to affect my FPS in more then 1 game, and how it stacks up to common on board solutions. They bring out all of this marketing because realities are not many people care about sound greater then onboard, and with no game support or evidence of existing game improvement there is little reason to pick this up.NeonFlak - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
I bought the $130 X-Fi last night at bestbuy. I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere but compared to all my other sound cards, including onboard sound, when listening to MP3s or any other sound format it is very muffled unless the crystalizer is turned on. But, just as the review says the crystalizer doesn't really work well with everything.Games sound fine though. I haven't tested any movies since I don't watch movies on my pc.
DerekWilson - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
Are you sure you don't have CMSS-3D turned on? I find that sound can get very muffled and muddied when playing music using CMSS-3D ... That could be your problem.Our experience is that the sound quality with no filtering is better on the X-Fi than most other solutions. Of course, we do still need to look at the XtremeMusic card.
knitecrow - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
Ok, SoundBlaster is the only game when it comes to games... but what about listening to music or watching DVDs?Does it sound any better than my $30 chaintech VIA ENVY24 card or M-audio Revolution? I would like to see some blind listening tests.
You have many many software based solutions that claim to make mp3s and other lossy formats sound better, for example SRS WOW effects that come bundled with Windows Media Player or Qsound. Is the creative crystallizer any better when compared to such software solutions?
NovaPolice - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
Yeah, I'm somewhat curious as to how the crystalizer does in comparison to Qsound's methods, Qsizzle, Qrumble, and Qexpander, which I have enjoyed for a while. Probably the best candidate for comparison would be the envy24(with-some-tricks)-based PSC724 Ultimate Edge. Of course.... that thing only costs 30 bucks at outpost, and philips is kinda bad at releasing drivers.I wish Qsound Labs would create some kind of hardware chip. Some kind of alternative to the various successions to EAX. Their expander kicks ass.
Or it would be nice to see something with Creative's hardware power combined with Qsound's algorithms.
flexy - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
>>>i highly doubt it. Better save your money and invest in better speakers [if not already]..this is really all bunk. ALL they can sell is features and irrelevant addons/gadgets/specs...specs which are only relevant MAYBE for hardcore pro-musicians. But then i dont know any pro-musician who does his recordings on a creative card :)
>>>
Btw, i also highly, highly doubt that for listeining to music/mp3s etc. people will notice a difference (towards the better) with a VERY old AWE32/64 card compared to any of the newest cards out right now. I remember actually that years agomy AWE64 had this certain "punch" to her which i liked...and i cant even necessarely say that for listening to music my current Audigy2 is noticeable "better"...but then this is a long time ago :)
Anyway...leave 'em the fun to sell their products with dumb marketing terms....and as stated elsewhere...hope that the OEM/lower end cards will be much cheaper. (For what it's worth)
Calin - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
I found also that my Creative Sound Blaster 16 (ISA card, with 2x4W amplifier on card) sounded more "musical" (let's say I consider it better sounding) than the newer Audigy 2 gamerCalin
Wellsoul2 - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
I went from SBLIVE to Chaintech VIAEnvy to Audigy 2 ZS.It would be nice to have a card good in games and music.
Subjectively I think the Audigy 2 ZS better with MP3's and games than
the Envy Card.
Also I've found that the software makes a big difference.
Anyone notice that Itunes free player sounds much better than Windows Media Player or
Creative Player? (With any audio Card)
I really liked the ViaEnvy sound but it really won't do games well.
flexy - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
i never use the creative software, neither do i use itunes.If i want to have highest quality sound then i use foobar2000 with kernel streaming or foobar/winamp with direct asio (plugin) output. I dont think there's anything better right now (in terms of player/output/quality)
Parak - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
Seconded, would love to see a matchup of this card versus Envy24 solutions.imaheadcase - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
"Creative informed us that cards should be shipping as of last week, but we still can't find them online or in stores. Even Creative's own site lists the X-Fi line up as pre-order. We will have to check into the availability of these parts as we certainly don't want the recently ATI disease (“paperlaunchitis”) to spread to the rest of the computer industry. "Actully you can order it on creative site, I see you can do it as i type this. Also can purchase it at Best Buy, they have dozens of them on display. There are 3 online retailors that have it listed. Was this artical typed out a week ago or something? lol
I will sum of this card for everyone: Wait a few months, and you can get it for a little over $50 for cheaper one. The high end card are pretty much same as cheaper one, you just get some extra CRAP with it. Pretty much %90 of the stuff on card is useless to the average user. This is essentially a Audigy 5 card...go go marketing from creative :P
HardwareD00d - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
I saw an X-Fi card in Best Buy last week (Phoenix AZ, US) Looked pretty neat and I had just heard of them, so I was surprised to see it on the shelf so soon.missleman - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
All that mumbo jumbo doesn't look like it will have any real use for me.HardwareD00d - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
Tom's Hardware seemed to really like this card. They were much more impressed by the sound than Anand was.http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20050818/inde...">http://www.tomshardware.com/consumer/20050818/inde...
tayhimself - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
XTREME Yawn!!It is Xtreme Fidelity with Xcellent Xquality for XTREME music and XTREME gameZ!!!!
No thanks! When will this XTREMEly stupid marketing stop??
I'm still using the nforce2 soundforge because my audigy didnt ship with Creative Mediasource which allows output of music to 5.1. Newer Audigys did ship with MediaSource and could handle 5.1 music output just fine. Needless to say I am XTREMEly pissed and creative and wont be buying something from them again.
Googer - Thursday, September 1, 2005 - link
http://sonicfocus.com/help/help_page.html">http://sonicfocus.com/help/help_page.htmldejerez - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
media source is available for download from creative site. It is a few files all together but this software is for free if you have Audigy. 5.1. upmix option is not in media source but in the card settings that install with the drivers. I had Audigy and used Playcenter and than upgraded for free to Media Source. No problem. I used Audigy with tweaked driver for Audigy 2 to get more features and then eventually bought Audigy 2 ZS and used that with Software availble from their site. I had no problem with an upmix option. I cannot see your point here. Which version of the card do you have?flexy - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
yeah those "extreme gamez" are actually just TWO, namely doom3 and bf2..which (i THINK) support x-fi....if at all. Was not clear in the review. The point is that they even said they did not hear ANY diff between this and "older" hardware.....I think it's ironic that (at elast for gaming and occasional music listening) a $42 Audigy 2 OEM (which has 5.1 output btw) is AS GOOD as a card 10x the money.....and, in all honesty, i do NOT think that my ears are good enough to "notice" a 4db better SNR ratio or similiar nonsense....not to mention someone would have a hard time selling me this card :)
DerekWilson - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
The coloration from the poor frequency response and IMD sweep at 16-bit 44.1kHz really deadens cd auido and mp3s on the Audigy 2 line. Its not about a slightly worse SNR or a little less dynamic range. It's about poor sound reproduction and bad sample rate conversion.Of course, gamers won't care as much about this problem. And we can help get around some of the issues by bypassing windows kernel mixer on Audigy hardware.
I wouldn't buy an X-Fi Elite Pro either. The price point is hard to swallow.
dejerez - Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - link
Sample rate conversion does not seem to be an issue any more, right?X-fi audio processor has SRC engine that converts to and from any resolution at 136dB THD+N. Check the review on digit-life. They say
"Judging from our measurements, the problem with a lot of distortions is a thing of the past now. The 44.1 kHz mode in X-Fi cards is no different from 48 kHz"
They also compared the quality of the new hardware SRC X-Fi vs the wide-spread real-time SSRC WinAmp plug-in, "notable for its relatively high quality and decent CPU load"
They conclided by saying
SRC of the X-Fi outperforms the SSRC plug-in and it causes no distortions - audible or visible on the diagram.
xpose - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
i was so close to first :(vijay333 - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
Thanks for the review. Was looking into maybe getting one of these soon but I'll stick with onboard for a while until I get one of the Audigy boards.InuYasha - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
first!Phantronius - Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - link
1st!!! Yes!!!Seriously, looks like I have no reason to part with my Audigy 2 quit yet.