is their a significant difference in sound qaulity

dafloppyone · 1 Jul 2006 at 19:13

what does this crystaliser do ...is it like reverb or something like that?

james.miller · 1 Jul 2006 at 19:16

the crystaliser is nothign more than a compressor and a graphic eq. In other words, it destroys dynamic and alters the equalisation to make it sound better on cheap speakers. That's the reason audio 'purists' dont like it - they dont use cheap speakers

Shakey_Jake33 · 1 Jul 2006 at 19:23

I dunno, I know my Z-5500's aren't high end or anything, but I really like the results. Then again, I'm one of the few who prefers the StereoSurround CMSS effect to the StereoXpand *shurgs*

Even without the crystaliser, the X-Fi still sounds better. You just have to think to yourself whether you listen to music enough to justify the expendature. It does sound better, but not the same kind of leap as going from onboard to Audigy2. I listen to music all the time, and my PC is my main media device for video too, so a decent sound card was a no-brainer for me.

james.miller · 1 Jul 2006 at 19:31

im sure it does sound better. well, i know it does lol. However, of course, nothing beats straight stereo to an amp and 2 speakers. No effecct any sound card can produce for music does anythign other than degrade sound quality

but its all about what you want and where you draw that line

jbloggs · 1 Jul 2006 at 21:03

I went from a Audigy 2ZS to a Terratec DMX6 Fire 24/96 with a set of Logitech Z680 speakers, and noticed a good improvement in sound quality on music, CDs/MP3 etc.

Then added a Cambridge Audio A5 amp and a pair of Wharfedale Diamond 9.1 speakers, which gave another great improvement in playing music.

If you play mostly music, the Audigy/X-FI really does not give the best sound quality, if you play games and watch vidoes mostly, then (in my opinion) the Audigy/X-FI is what one should go for.

Curio · 2 Jul 2006 at 03:35

james.miller said:
im sure it does sound better. well, i know it does lol. However, of course, nothing beats straight stereo to an amp and 2 speakers. No effecct any sound card can produce for music does anythign other than degrade sound quality but its all about what you want and where you draw that line

True, but MP3's aren't exactly "hi-fi" anyway. The Crystalizer just helps give them a lift. I don't see the point in trying to capture a pure hi-fi experience from an MP3 coming through a sound card in the first place - I'd spend the money on a proper hi-fi system instead

TooNice · 2 Jul 2006 at 03:53

Lost-Prophet said:
I watch TV and a few movies on my pc. So do you think a M-Audio card will be better? Can you recommend one?

Not really. I'd go EMU or M-Audio if I was solely listening to music, but it is hard to beat the versality of an X-Fi: IMO, for videos and games, the X-Fi would get the edge, as those audio "tweaks" while not ideal from a purist point of view work pretty well there (it's not like TV/movies are typically recorded in ultra high bitrate on the sound side of things). And for stereo music, there is always the option to connect an decent external DAC to it, which in most likelyhood would be better than the EMU/M-Audio card. Of course, that's an upgrade path that adds to the cost, but it is there as an option.

-------------------------------------------

As to the Crystalizer, I don't think it is so much as a case of "MP3 = Bad, hence Crystalizer = Good for them". I have both MP3s and lossless tracks, and I don't like the Crystalizer on either. Basically, the Crystalizer change the sound significantly, moreso than the difference between a FLAC file and it's corresponding LAME APS/APE encoded track. Some people like it, I don't. to each their own there. I don't have a particularly purist view in the sense that I do use an equalizer. And I reckon that is more or less what the Crystalizer does in practice. Only that it's setting does not go with how I like to hear my music.

Shakey_Jake33 · 2 Jul 2006 at 09:11

Would you guys argue that the main advantage of the M-Audio, HDA and similar cards over the X-Fi is the support for multichannel upmixing using DDL and DTS Connect over SPDIF, and if a user does not consider digitial support important, they may be better off with an X-Fi?

I ask this seriously, as I have never tried those cards, and an interested in how they compare to the X-Fi. The HDA 7.1 Xplosion is a similar price to the X-Fi XtremeMusic now, after all.

james.miller · 2 Jul 2006 at 15:52

Curio said:
True, but MP3's aren't exactly "hi-fi" anyway. The Crystalizer just helps give them a lift. I don't see the point in trying to capture a pure hi-fi experience from an MP3 coming through a sound card in the first place - I'd spend the money on a proper hi-fi system instead

mp3's can be as hi-fi as you need them to be. of course you cant beat a lossless compressed format, but many many people fail mp3 blind listen tests, so the difference isnt as large as people like to think.

Noopz · 2 Jul 2006 at 19:47

I just upgraded from my Nforce onboard audio to M-Audio 2496. Coupled with a decent interconnect, the sound quality is about as good as you are going to get for a 2.1 computer speaker setup.

mi9tchy · 2 Jul 2006 at 21:29

i've tried a sb live, soundstorm, what ever is on the nforce 4 audigy 1 and 2, some laptops and an x-fi on marantz a/v reciever with tannoy m1's.

the x-fi is clearly the winner in terms of crispness and produces a lot less hiss than the rest, i dont use all the silly audio enhancing stuff
i've seen the x-fi xtreme music for 40-45 and would recommend it if you dont use optical connects to amp/speakers

sinister_stu · 3 Jul 2006 at 09:52

Noopz said:
I just upgraded from my Nforce onboard audio to M-Audio 2496. Coupled with a decent interconnect, the sound quality is about as good as you are going to get for a 2.1 computer speaker setup.

Decent interconnect? Don't believe the hype. The difference will be less than audible.

dango111 · 3 Jul 2006 at 13:55

I'll echo Stu here. The only difference I've noticed with interconnects is going for unshielded to sheilded. All this £30+ on a 70cm length of wire is totally unecessary.

caister · 3 Jul 2006 at 21:44

yes without a doubt

Curio · 4 Jul 2006 at 09:28

james.miller said:
mp3's can be as hi-fi as you need them to be. of course you cant beat a lossless compressed format, but many many people fail mp3 blind listen tests, so the difference isnt as large as people like to think.

What I mean is that I don't get too fussy about sound quality from my PC. If I want proper hi-fi I'll go listen to my Marantz separates. To me, MP3's coming off a PC are a compromise, so anything I can do to make it sound better (to my ears, of course) is fine with me. If the Crystalizer or EQ sound good or rubbish then that's up to the individual, but I don't see the point in getting all "precious" over something that is, by its very nature, flawed anyway

sinister_stu · 4 Jul 2006 at 09:53

Curio said:
What I mean is that I don't get too fussy about sound quality from my PC. If I want proper hi-fi I'll go listen to my Marantz separates. To me, MP3's coming off a PC are a compromise, so anything I can do to make it sound better (to my ears, of course) is fine with me. If the Crystalizer or EQ sound good or rubbish then that's up to the individual, but I don't see the point in getting all "precious" over something that is, by its very nature, flawed anyway

The mp3 standard says that audio encoded at 96kb/s will sound the same as the original to a group of trained listeners (I can't remember the exact term, but suffice to say that they are people with better ears than you or I). To my knowledge this hasn't quite been achieved yet but anything encoded at 192 kb/s (using a reasonable encoder) will certainly contain only inaudible differences. So although it is flawed in that it contains less information than the original, it will be inaudibly flawed.

Curio · 4 Jul 2006 at 11:36

sinister_stu said:
The mp3 standard says that audio encoded at 96kb/s will sound the same as the original to a group of trained listeners (I can't remember the exact term, but suffice to say that they are people with better ears than you or I). To my knowledge this hasn't quite been achieved yet but anything encoded at 192 kb/s (using a reasonable encoder) will certainly contain only inaudible differences. So although it is flawed in that it contains less information than the original, it will be inaudibly flawed.

OK.....and how about if you play an MP3 using a sound card in a PC, then compare it to the original played on a high quality hi-fi system. Still think you won't be able to tell the difference?

My point is that the whole package (MP3 and soundcard) isn't perfect - so I don't care about making it slightly less perfect by using the crystalizer if I think it sounds better.

Sound is so subjective anyway, it's really a silly argument

james.miller · 4 Jul 2006 at 11:39

Curio said:
OK.....and how about if you play an MP3 using a sound card in a PC, then compare it to the original played on a high quality hi-fi system. Still think you won't be able to tell the difference?

i thought we'd discussed this when i made the comment about people failing blind ABX mp3 tests. Thats people not being able to tell the difference between 192k mp3's and the original wav. file, or not being able to pick the two out of a group of 5 or 6 samples?

nothing is going to beat a cd player and amp, i never said otherwise. its just some people seem to think there is a massive difference between cd/amp and pc/amp. There isn't, not unless you are spending hundreds on the cd/amp combo.

sinister_stu · 4 Jul 2006 at 12:05

james.miller said:
nothing is going to beat a cd player and amp, i never said otherwise. its just some people seem to think there is a massive difference between cd/amp and pc/amp.

Pretty much my view on this. There isn't any reason why an mp3 can't be used as a source for hi-fi. Pureists will of course argue this.

Curio, if the DAC on the soundcard is similar in quality to the DAC on the CD player (quite likely unless your CD player is very expensive) and the mp3 is of a good quality then I don't think you or I will be able to tell which one is which.

As you say, sound is subjective. This means that many of the differences you hear aren't actually there.

Codmate · 4 Jul 2006 at 13:29

If an M-Audio Audiophile 192 (or even 2496) is good enough to master commercial albums on (and they are), then it's good enough to listen to music on.