X-Fi and the Elite Pro: SoundBlaster's Return to Greatness
by Derek Wilson on August 30, 2005 11:59 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Mobile
Final Words
The final verdict is that the SoundBlaster X-Fi Elite Pro is an excellent audio solution. With plenty of analog and digital I/O, the potential for improving game performance, lots of features, and better sound quality than any other consumer sound solution on the market, the SB X-Fi Elite Pro is simply impressive. Topping the performance of the Audigy 4 Pro and the Echo Gina 3G at every bit depth and sample rate, we can't help but acknowledge the superiority of the newest top-of-the-line card from Creative.The X-Fi's SRC combined with its new Audio Ring architecture alleviate Creative's past problems with sample rate conversion and intermodulation distortion. All audio sources are played with the highest clarity and quality. Playback of 24-bit / 96kHz audio is pristine even from the back of the computer. When working with lower bitrate audio, X-Fi can apply certain filters (such as the 24-bit Crystallizer) that attempt to clean up and enhance the signal. More than twice the number of hardware voices are supported in games alongside the latest in EAX Advanced HD for 3D sound. Multi-channel works perfectly, and CMSS-3D adds some advanced algorithms for HRTF, spacialization, and multiple in, multiple out up and down mixing to support any source on any speaker configuration.
At the end of the day, we were very happy with the performance of the X-Fi Elite Pro as a sound card for gaming, as part of a pro audio chain, and as the center of an entertainment system. However, we did have some complaints. Our experience with this (and all other) hardware is that audio is best played on a speaker configuration that fits the source. Creative argues that their hardware is capable of dynamically "remastering" and "remixing" audio to best fit the system at hand. We would flat out deny this claim and are shocked that Creative would even pretend that they could provide quality on par with remastered audio. Having hardware approximated the job of an audio technician in training is something that we might be able to believe, but no amount of processing will make up for a lack of data from the source. Access to all the original tracks as they were recorded at full bitrate (or analog as the case may be) gives an audio engineer infinitely more control over the final product than Creative can have with any finalized audio. That's not to say that some assistance in fitting the source to a particular setup isn't helpful in some cases. Upmixing 5.1 audio to 7.1 comes to mind as an example of an application that makes sense.
Likewise, the 24-bit Crystallizer is not something that we would leave on (or even on one setting) all the time. It is possible for the Crystallizer to clean up, brighten up, and generally make some audio files sound "better". This is especially true in the case of over-compressed or understated audio: the Crystallizer adds a punchiness and depth to these. Of course, in cases where the transients are already fully in the foreground, enabling the Crystallizer can make already punchy audio overpowering. We understand that some dynamic range is lost on 16-bit audio, but it's not always the case that hardware can determine exactly what should fill the missing bits if the final target was 24-bit rather than 16.
We are interested in the performance advantages of the 64MB of onboard RAM. Unfortunately, we don't have many games that make use of this feature, so we aren't able to talk about the real advantages here. Creative has given us some indication that they expect some very significant quality gains in games that have very little impact on the CPU and enable developers to have more freedom in how they design audio.
The only thing that we would really like to see that we don't is Dolby Digital Live (realtime Dolby 5.1 encoding for output over SPDIF to a receiver). With all the processing power available, there is no excuse for not supporting this feature, yet we have seen no mention of it from Creative. Dolby Digital Live may not be as hot a topic as it was back when NVIDIA supported the feature in their onboard SoundStorm audio solution, but we would still like to see it added for completeness (especially when even Intel's onboard solution can handle it).
The last question that we have to address is the most important. Is the SoundBlaster X-Fi Elite Pro worth the $400 price tag? If the card is destined for a machine that will be multitasked as the centerpiece of an entertainment center, part of a gaming rig, and part of a small home studio for budding musicians, then the answer is "yes" (but only if high quality speakers and possibly a very high quality receiver and amp are to be used in conjunction with the product). The SoundBlaster X-Fi Elite Pro is not a sound card to be taken lightly, and it really deserves to be pushed to its limits.
We really can't recommend this part to the average user. Not only are the quality and feature set far beyond what a normal computer user will need, but the extremely high quality audio components used in the construction of the card are beyond what any, but audiophiles or musicians, will care about. This really is a semi-pro card packed with consumer level features and should be treated as such.
That being said, audiophiles and musicians (who don't use a balanced audio setup) will be very pleased with this card, especially if they enjoy gaming as well as just listening. We also can't wait to get our hands on other X-Fi cards. Ranging in price from $130 to $280, the rest of the new SoundBlaster line-up look to be very compelling offers. The differences between the Elite Pro and the rest of the pack include onboard RAM, the quality of the audio components used, and the I/O options included. Our guess is that most users will be quite satisfied with the SoundBlaster X-Fi XtremeMusic (the $130 card).
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.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
110 Comments
View All Comments
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.