Confused about Creative X-FI Cards...

[Donnie27]

If your hearing is so bad that you can't tell a soundcard sounds amazing you should save your money for hearing aids and leave the sound cards for the people who appreciate sound quality I have heard all of CL line up, non compare to the XM for sheer quality. The E-Pro sound very nice but the ones I heard have been modded aswell so they sound better then stock cards. Perhaps I have been spoiled by the sound of the XM. X-Fi's are being modded all the time now aswell.

Then please take your own advice? Yes and I know about the modded X-Fi's and the difference is I'm not using any Dinky assed Computer Multimedia speakers..

Even my *junk* as you called it kicks the shit out of the best Logitech multimedia crap-o-la computer speakers.

 

[Audioguy]

I really don't understand how you bounce from a E-Pro conversation to speakers?
I am glad you like your speakers good for you
Can you find another to argue with please, you have too much trouble staying on topic for me. Or your doing it on purpose so the topic gets closed.

 

[Donnie27]

A good sound system is all good parts, not just one piece of it. Not an opinion but a fact. Great sound cards with low grade speakers will sound low grade. They still sound like shit! Any Logitech Computer Multimedia speaker made can't even match the dynamic range of the X-Fi LOL!

This is not a reply to Audioguy since I was asked to ignore him.

 

[phide]

Quite a few guys are adding these LM4562's to X-fi's now although they are surface mount chips it is being done.

I've looked and considered it, but I'm satisfied. Maybe next time.

If you use quantitative parameters to define "clean" and "accurate", the Elite Pro is ahead and the difference is not so small.

I do, and I believe that latter is fundamentally true.

Numbers for the most part do mean nothing, where and when do they define quality?

Almost always. The numbers allow us to examine the attributes of sound reproduction and interpret whether we'll like that or not. Some may like strong mid-high/high end (myself included), leading to a quality often described as "bright" or "airy". The numbers allow us to define many of these rough terms.

The X-Meridian can be described with vague terms like these, and we can correlate that against real measurements. The problem is that few understand what the numbers indicate, leading to the belief that there is rarely any strong correlation. In reality, the correlation is quite strong.

The immeasurable qualities are predominantly psychoacoustic, not preferential.

 

[Audioguy]

@Phide, As you know that subject is of much debate. Which numbers corralate to which qualities? -They are lots of devices that measure great but don't sound good at all. I have been alot of audio fourms and have read alot of documents about this very subject.
It is a widley debated subject and doubt it will be solved anytime soon.... The fact remains aswell that audio is subjective so this adds more error to the correlation. You hear something others do not. The measurment means nothing unless you can hear the sound quality. You can look at a frequency sweep of a card but this will only tell you so much. You can change one little component in the circuit and while the graph will remain very similar the audio has change considerably. As for the LM's they are great sounding chips but you would need a very steady hand to add them to a X-fi. I think for the most part these Mods are done to the lower quality X-fi's. Not really much reason to risk damage on a E-Pro, considering the sound quality of the card stock.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Careful. If you're looking to mod the X-Fi, the op amps on the XtremeGamer seem to use different IC packages than those on the XtremeMusic.
If someone could post a close up of them on the XG, I'll pay you in backrubs

 

[Donnie27]

Almost always. The numbers allow us to examine the attributes of sound reproduction and interpret whether we'll like that or not. Some may like strong mid-high/high end (myself included), leading to a quality often described as "bright" or "airy". The numbers allow us to define many of these rough terms.

The X-Meridian can be described with vague terms like these, and we can correlate that against real measurements. The problem is that few understand what the numbers indicate, leading to the belief that there is rarely any strong correlation. In reality, the correlation is quite strong.

The immeasurable qualities are predominantly psychoacoustic, not preferential.

But that's always the case when numbers don't agree with some folks views. So they simply dismiss certain results as irrelevant or unreliable. I brought up these tests months ago, also, remember the Elevation, Obstruction and Occlusion demos/tests?