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
Qualitative Analysis: Audio Listening
Over the short time that we've been able to spend with the Elite Pro, we have listened to way too many sounds to talk about every single piece by name. Instead, we will talk about the general experience that we had in a particular category of listening. This way, we will be able to mention the most important aspects of a particular function without getting bogged down in describing each sound that we heard.Compressed Audio Listening: This is one of the most important categories in today's listening experience. The SB X-Fi Elite Pro is very capable of reproducing MP3, Ogg, and other types of compressed audio streams. Of course, clearly hearing the cold, metallic, distorted sound of overly compressed audio isn't as rewarding an experience as it may sound. What else is all that processing power there for if not to clean up the sound on older files? We turned on the 24-bit Crystallizer and listened for a while. In some 128kbps MP3s, the Crystallizer helped to bring out the snap, crackle and pop, and generally gave life back to the audio (especially in compressed live recordings). In other cases, the experience was overtaken by the effect with already emphasized snare or bass hits becoming almost uncomfortable to listen to (like Massive Attack's Teardrop).
16bit / 44.1kHz Listening: The CD audio experience is much better under the X-Fi Elite Pro than on earlier SoundBlaster products. It used to be that without bypassing the kernel mixer, CD audio would sound a little washed out while playing on a Creative Labs product. The foreground could sometimes get smashed into the background. We had no such experience with the X-Fi. Even our live recordings sounded like they should. When we decided to try the Crystallizer here, our experience seemed less useful than our compressed audio experience. It generally just made music sound different. Poorly mastered audio could sometimes benefit, and in many cases, we didn't care if the Crystallizer was on or off, but there were times when we would have had a better time turning it off and cranking the volume.
DVD-Audio: Crystal clear and beautiful. No need for any filtering here. Unfortunately, try as we might, it is difficult for us to hear any difference in listening to DVD-Audio on an Audigy as opposed to the X-Fi. Each card sounds as good as the source as far as our ears can tell. For lack of a 7.1 speaker system, we were unable to attempt enabling CMSS-3D for upmixing the DVD-Audio beyond 5.1 surround.
Games: 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. We will be able to judge better the qualitative use of 127 hardware channels when more games come out built around using the resources that Creative has provided to the fullest. Our experience with the MacroFX feature was less than rewarding. The MacroFX feature of CMSS-3D is supposed to account for a realistic proximity effect for near-field sources. What it did was make our guns hurt our heads while already hard-to-hear friendlies become even less audible. Yes, the feature was effective in performing its task, but at the same time, we aren't quite sold on altering the game developers intended sound.
CMSS-3D and Headphone Listening: One of the heavily talked about features of the X-Fi is supposed to be enhanced headphone listening through positional audio techniques and CMSS-3D. Even with all the advanced algorithms for downmixing 5.1 sound to a spacialized headphone mix, audio played with CMSS-3D sounded rather muddied to this listener. Despite the addition of simulated environmental reflections, frontal sounds felt as if they were located near the sides of my head above my ears. Every listener is different, so your mileage may vary. Under games, CMSS-3D seemed to be more distracting than useful. It can be interesting for a change of pace, or to add a disturbing quality to games that makes you want to squint in anticipation of firing a weapon. Some people may like it, but we prefer gaming (and all other listening) without CMSS-3D enabled. Headphone listening on the X-Fi is excellent if only because of the high quality components used in its implementation. In our opinion, the sound quality enhancements that Creative promises headphone listeners through X-Fi are a hit or miss at best.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
110 Comments
View All Comments
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. ;-)