nmX.Memnoch Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 - re-encoding an existing MP3 files is useless, since MP3 is a lossy audio format, no matter at what bitrate you're encoding, the re-encoded MP3 file will always be of less quality!While it is a lossy format using a higher bitrate results in less loss (otherwise the file wouldn't be any larger). I can definitely tell the difference between a 128Kbps MP3 and a 256Kbps MP3 with my Audigy2 ZS and Klipsh ProMedia 2.1's.That's where you're wrong though. It doesn't matter if you can hear a difference or not, lossy will stay lossy and at such a point you can't create imaginary sound quality or something.Let's say a CD-track is at 100% sound quality. The first encoded MP3 file would then be at 50% for instance compared to the CD-track. If you're going to re-encode this MP3 file to another MP3 file at whatever bitrate, you will never have sound quality better than 50% in this case. Sad but true, that's what lossy audio formats are all about.You're misunderstanding what I'm saying..An MP3 encoded from the original CD at 192Kbps will sound better than an MP3 encoded from the original CD at 128Kbps. To use your example, the 192Kbps would be "60%" while the 128Kbps would be "50%". The key here is that both are encoded from the original CD, not one from the other. I know that you can't create a true 192Kbps MP3 from a 128Kbps MP3.That's why if you look at my suggestion I said re-rip...as in use the original CD to create new MP3s at 192Kbps.
Aegis Posted April 2, 2006 Author Posted April 2, 2006 Maybe I have the settings configured wrong. Is there a tweak guide for the X-Fi?
Reino Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 nmX.Memnoch, then we've got ourselves a misunderstanding here indead. Sorry.
HLDoom32768 Posted April 4, 2006 Posted April 4, 2006 What X-Fi card do you have? I wouldn’t think it would matter, but I agree with you. I have the X-Fi Xtreme Music card. It sounds great. Tons better then my old card, but any higher then 128kbps does not sound any better. I have also tried files that where 1400kbps, and they sound EXACTLY the same as the 128kbps ones. Some people say they can tell a difference, but I can’t. I have 4.1 surround sound, and nope, still sounds the same. Maybe you have to have a receiver and really nice speakers or something to tell a difference?
Aegis Posted April 4, 2006 Author Posted April 4, 2006 Same card here. Higher end models don't really have any additional benefits other than the XRAM and improved DAC's. After reading some reviews, I suppose that there's not much of a difference compared to a decent onboard sound solution. I feel like I made a bad decision for now, but once programs actually start taking advantage of the massive power offered by the X-Fi, then you can expect to see improvements over sound quality. And what are your system specces?
ripken204 Posted April 4, 2006 Posted April 4, 2006 hey, if your not happy with the sound then sell it to me! otherwise stop complaining about this sound card, and have u even tried a game with it?
HLDoom32768 Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 Same card here. Higher end models don't really have any additional benefits other than the XRAM and improved DAC's. After reading some reviews, I suppose that there's not much of a difference compared to a decent onboard sound solution. I feel like I made a bad decision for now, but once programs actually start taking advantage of the massive power offered by the X-Fi, then you can expect to see improvements over sound quality. And what are your system specces?yeah, our card still does have 2mb Xram. Well I don't know that forsure, but I am pretty sure it does. I didnt' want to spend the $300 to get the top one...Well about the onborad sound, well see, you will have lower FPS in your games. From what I have heard, the onboard sound takes more CPU, and therefor reduces your FPS in your games. So having a soundcard is a good idea. I am not saying I can't tell a difference after getting the X-Fi card, because I can. My old card was the Soundblaster 512 card. It was either a older Live! card, or a low end, because I believe it has the Live chip on it, but it only had 4.1 surround sound, and well, it only worked in Doom 3, and it took a bit to get working, so I am glad with my new X-Fi card...oh and yeah, in games sound is a ton better then my last card. Music is better, but games are a ton better. Painkiller sounds probably the best, then games such as Doom 3, Quake 4, HL2, and Fear.My system specs are as follows:Intel p4 2.2ghz ( OC 2.53ghz 460mhz FSB)ATI 9800 Pro 128mb4x256mb DDR Ram (Running in Dual Channel. Only Runs at 2700, but performas as well as 3100 single channel. 1 gig total ram)Asus p4p800seSoundblaster X-FiATA 160gig WD HDDATA 160gig WD HDDATA 120gig WD HDDATA 20gig WD HDDAcard PCI ATA Adapter (used for my 120 and 20 gig hdds)Kypermedia DVD Burnerummm not sure the brand of my CD burnerRaidmax 430W PSURaidmax Case (It is like... Scorpion or something? not sure what it is called)
ripken204 Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 well i told aegis the other day that it may have 4mb, but i wasnt sure if that was right, so it may be 2mb. but it does have a little bit.
Aegis Posted April 5, 2006 Author Posted April 5, 2006 It's 2MB, but it's not considered XRAM. And something I noticed about both of our systems is that they're kind of outdated. Once I have my new system up, I'll see if I notice a difference in sound quality.
nmX.Memnoch Posted April 5, 2006 Posted April 5, 2006 From what I have heard, the onboard sound takes more CPU, and therefor reduces your FPS in your games.This is true. Onboard sound uses software to process sounds, which means it uses the system CPU. Good quality addin cards use their own hardware to process sound so they use much less of the system CPU. You can still get cheap addin cards that are pretty much the same as the onboard sound...meaning they still use software to process sounds. So be careful of which cards you purchase (all Sound Blaster cards use hardware).This is why the newer Sound Blaster cards are better. The hardware has been improved so that it can process more sounds at once. I still wish NVIDIA would update SoundStorm and put it out in a PCI/PCIe form.My old card was the Soundblaster 512 card.The Sound Blaster 512 is basically a "low-end" Live!. It doesn't have all of the added features (or rather they removed some features since the 512 came out after the Live!), but it does use the same chip.
HLDoom32768 Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 It's 2MB, but it's not considered XRAM. And something I noticed about both of our systems is that they're kind of outdated. Once I have my new system up, I'll see if I notice a difference in sound quality.It isn't considered XRAM? What is it then? and yes, my system is a bit dated, but I don't want to spend the money to upgrade it yet. I hope I can hold out for a year or two yet, and go to AMD Dual core, a good PCI-e Mobo/vid card, and a new case/PSU...What are your system specs?From what I have heard, the onboard sound takes more CPU, and therefor reduces your FPS in your games.This is true. Onboard sound uses software to process sounds, which means it uses the system CPU. Good quality addin cards use their own hardware to process sound so they use much less of the system CPU. You can still get cheap addin cards that are pretty much the same as the onboard sound...meaning they still use software to process sounds. So be careful of which cards you purchase (all Sound Blaster cards use hardware).This is why the newer Sound Blaster cards are better. The hardware has been improved so that it can process more sounds at once. I still wish NVIDIA would update SoundStorm and put it out in a PCI/PCIe form.My old card was the Soundblaster 512 card.The Sound Blaster 512 is basically a "low-end" Live!. It doesn't have all of the added features (or rather they removed some features since the 512 came out after the Live!), but it does use the same chip.SoundStorm? what would that be? I don't think I have ever heard of that...
nmX.Memnoch Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 (edited) SoundStorm? what would that be? I don't think I have ever heard of that...SoundStorm was the onboard audio for nForce and nForce2 based motherboards. It's one of the few hardware based onboard audio solutions there was...and it had support for Dobly Digital encoding in hardware. They dropped it after the nForce2 though...http://www.nvidia.com/object/feature_soundstorm.html Edited April 6, 2006 by nmX.Memnoch
puntoMX Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 Some motherboards have the Creative Soundblaster 7.1 24bit onboard now. I must say that the new realtek sound chips are not that bad too. X-Fi in all cases is better exept the price .
ripken204 Posted April 6, 2006 Posted April 6, 2006 i have the realtek850 in my dfi ultra-dit does sound pretty good but once i save up enough money im going to get the xfi and a nice 5.1 system
nmX.Memnoch Posted April 7, 2006 Posted April 7, 2006 Some motherboards have the Creative Soundblaster 7.1 24bit onboard now.You'll pay a premium for those motherboards though...and rightly so.I must say that the new realtek sound chips are not that bad too.They use software. Given the choice I'd opt for an older Live! card just to offload sound processing from the CPU.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now