WooHoo! X-Fi baby!

TooNice · 18 Apr 2006 at 23:48

I'd like to note a few things:

- The X-Fi is a better source than onboard. Better DAC/opamp mean better analog out, which benefit all sources you attach to it, be it low end or hi end.
- The X-Fi is designed with gaming in mind, so if you want a gaming card, then it is one of the better choice you can make.
- The X-Fi can drive headphones about as well as it drive speakers of it's own class. There are a few implications here. Speakers tend to be a lot more expensive than headphones for the same class, hence the X-Fi can push more expensive speakers compared to headphones.
- The X-Fi is only refered to as particularly good for headphone because of CMSS (which has been upgraded since the A2ZS). This allow you to have nice surround in games. The "really serious" headphone users may still question the X-Fi's quality for music playback, at least for the lower end versions.
- But the questioning is relative. Compared to onboard, there is no question that the X-Fi walk all over onboard. You just need to try with demanding headphones. There is no reason why it would be different with speakers. The reason the "audio guru" may complain about the X-Fi would most likely be because they come from a background that uses even higher end gear. A good £500 DAC will beat the flagship X-Fi, but that shouldn't surprise anyone right?
- However, for pure music playback, there are other options which may provide better bang for buck.

... finally. I think it is about enjoying the music

I happen to enjoy my music without CMSS/Crystalizer. But use it if you prefer the sound with it. I do equalize my sound card to tweak the sound to my liking. My ear tells me it sound better - and I listen with/to them

Tommy B · 18 Apr 2006 at 23:51

fish99 said:
I do think people should look beyond PC speakers though.

Yes, I agree. However, many people don't listen to music on their PCs, in which case having a Hi-Fi connected to it is pointless. Also PC speakers are attractive, small and portable.

Codmate · 19 Apr 2006 at 10:36

Tommy B said:
A Hardcore Hi-Fi enthusiast wants PURE audio; No EQ, NO effects, nothing. That's exactly what the X-fi Doesn't do.

Having said that, I personally think the Crystalizer does an excellent job.

That's really self-contradictory, becuase as far as I can tell the 'Crystalizer' includes a whole range of effects, mostly multiband compression, but also a bit of EQ.

Basically it hammers the all life out of the music IMO.

Now that I've heard it in action I can see why some people might think it sounds better initially. I thought I heard it compressing the bass energy, making it sound more punchy (but introducing severe pumping with the bass-drum), applying some EQ at around 5k for clarity of vocals (while also introducing some brittle harshness); and loads of other stuff.

I'd like to use a spectrum analyser on it too see what's going on - but at the end of the day I'll always try my best to re-produce what the mastering engineer wanted me to hear, rather than attempting to use a machine, with impresonal presets, in some attempt to make it 'sound better'.

It's like when people discover plate reverb the first time they record using a nice 60s/70s desk. They put loads of it on everything.

Effects can sound great at first (especially compression), before you realise what you're losing as a result...

Tommy B · 19 Apr 2006 at 10:51

Codmate said:
That's really self-contradictory, becuase as far as I can tell the 'Crystalizer' includes a whole range of effects, mostly multiband compression, but also a bit of EQ.

Basically it hammers the all life out of the music IMO.

Now that I've heard it in action I can see why some people might think it sounds better initially. I thought I heard it compressing the bass energy, making it sound more punchy (but introducing severe pumping with the bass-drum), applying some EQ at around 5k for clarity of vocals (while also introducing some brittle harshness); and loads of other stuff.

I'd like to use a spectrum analyser on it too see what's going on - but at the end of the day I'll always try my best to re-produce what the mastering engineer wanted me to hear, rather than attempting to use a machine, with impresonal presets, in some attempt to make it 'sound better'.

It's like when people discover plate reverb the first time they record using a nice 60s/70s desk. They put loads of it on everything.

Effects can sound great at first (especially compression), before you realise what you're losing as a result...

It's not self-contradictory. I'm not really a purist tbh. I like tweaking the sound to my personal preference, which is why I usually use EQs to enhance high and low tones.

The crystalizer does a great job when you're listening to a 128kbps MP3 file, although it's not as good on losless rips and higher quality audio.

TooNice · 19 Apr 2006 at 11:03

Codmate said:
I'd like to use a spectrum analyser on it too see what's going on - but at the end of the day I'll always try my best to re-produce what the mastering engineer wanted me to hear, rather than attempting to use a machine, with impresonal presets, in some attempt to make it 'sound better'.

It's a bit of a purist view, which I have nothing against, but I don't follow myself. The music/track are most likely mastered using a different equipment than you use. This automatically makes it almost impossible to reproduce the music as it was done in the studio. So really, you can only guess what is "neutral". The purist side of me try not to throw away data (reason why I like to keep things lossless), but at the same time, I have no problem with tweaks, EQs to be precise. Done sensibly, I do think that I am not losing any details (I can certainly hear all the sound as I do without EQing), but presented in a way that I appreciate the music more. Of course, if music without any sort -happens- to be what your ear enjoy most, then great. But chances are, we none of us listen to things exactly the same way, so we probably all have a different preference to how we like the music to be presented to us

Tommy B · 19 Apr 2006 at 11:34

TooNice said:
It's a bit of a purist view, which I have nothing against, but I don't follow myself. The music/track are most likely mastered using a different equipment than you use. This automatically makes it almost impossible to reproduce the music as it was done in the studio. So really, you can only guess what is "neutral". The purist side of me try not to throw away data (reason why I like to keep things lossless), but at the same time, I have no problem with tweaks, EQs to be precise. Done sensibly, I do think that I am not losing any details (I can certainly hear all the sound as I do without EQing), but presented in a way that I appreciate the music more. Of course, if music without any sort -happens- to be what your ear enjoy most, then great. But chances are, we none of us listen to things exactly the same way, so we probably all have a different preference to how we like the music to be presented to us

That's one of the reasons I rather like the X-Fi. I always prefer music on the bass side. Other sound cards have EQ settings, but don't balance them for every song. So if you listen to something like hip-hop music the bass blows the speakers out. The X-Fi analyses each song in real time and adjusts the equalizer accordingly so I always have my prefered amount of bass.

fish99 · 19 Apr 2006 at 12:52

Tommy B said:
Also PC speakers are attractive, small and portable.

To me hi-fi speakers look far nicer than PC speakers, which look cheap and plasticy (because they are). Hi-fi doesn't mean they have to be huge btw, there's plenty of compact hi-fi speakers available with satellites no bigger than Z5500 sats. Also I don't think something like Z5500 is exactly 'portable' with that massive sub and a mountain of wires.

All hi-fi means is high fidelity - in other words highly faithful to the original recording. If you want to use EQ, fine - that's your decision, but hi-fi speakers and quality amp will still bring out far more detail and induce less distortion, noise and colouration no matter what sound you're supplying them with. I've owned loads of PC speakers including X530 and £200 megaworks (not the current ones), and they're just plain rubbish TBH. My current sound setup I have for my PC sounds hugely better than the £200 megaworks I used to use, but it cost far less (£50 for JBLs, £25 for t-amp, £20 for adaptor, £25 for stands). Of course it's not surround sound, but I'd choose sound quality over surround sound any day.

TooNice · 19 Apr 2006 at 13:49

Surround speakers + good headphones = best of both world

georges · 19 Apr 2006 at 22:37

fish99 said:
Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing the X-Fi and I'm thinking of getting one myself. I was looking at soundcards with better analogue output (M-Audio audiophile 24/96 for instance), but the cpu usage is so much higher on non-creative cards, and they can't do EAX 3-5. I'm just into games too much to use anything but creative.

I do think people should look beyond PC speakers though.

Things like that and the EMU 0404(I have) are more suited to basic music production than playback (although it does sound really really good).

SouthYorkieLad · 20 Apr 2006 at 17:53

I bought an XFI few weeks back along with the creative THX 7.1 surround sound speakers cost £250 and then £101 for card WELL worth it, sounds absolutly brill.... mp3's and dvd's never sounded so good.... battlefields is also brill!!!!!!!

Combat squirrel · 21 Apr 2006 at 14:14

SouthYorkieLad said:
I bought an XFI few weeks back along with the creative THX 7.1 surround sound speakers cost £250 and then £101 for card WELL worth it, sounds absolutly brill.... mp3's and dvd's never sounded so good.... battlefields is also brill!!!!!!!

that good eh ?

been thinking getting that setup myself, got the X-FI yesterday and it already soounds SO much better than my old audigy on same speakers, just got some videologic zxr-550's, thinking getting the 7.1, worth it then ?

nikebee · 23 Apr 2006 at 00:30

just popped the new X-Fi into the machine and really, really pleased with the sound response... the added features and the increase in performance of features that were already in the Audigy 2 series has come on leaps and bounds... well worth the money.

loving the Gaming/Creation/Entertainment modes... makes life much easier to get that sound you want when playing a game, or the nice sound you can get with listening to a certain type of music... and the Creation stuff will come in handy as i love to mix my own guitar tracks together.

all in all money well spent! well worth my £58