Wow, apparently no one knows what surround sound, DTS, DD and EAX are. Let's clarify.

S-B

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
1,053
Edit: I've updated this post due to input from other forum members about its original tone and my own personal opinions being sprinkled in.

Going through that new Creative thread is incredibly baffling. How the heck people have become so confused about the various technologies (and their respective acronyms) behind computer audio amazes me.

Reading peoples' posts in which many reiterate the same misconceptions over and over is rather frustrating. So, once and for all, let's clarify this.

  • AC-3: Also known as AC3, Dolby Digital, DD5.1 and DD. This is an audio compression format, like MP3, WMA, etc. It is special in this regard because it is a popular format that supports multiple (surround) channels.
  • DTS: AKA Digital Theater System, by DTS, Inc. It is a competitor to AC3 / DD, but is superior to it in every possible way.
  • EAX: An acronym for Environmental Audio eXtensions. This is important, pay attention, EAX DOES NOT CREATE SURROUND SOUND OUT OF THIN AIR! It is MERELY an addition to the sound API that allows your PC to perform environmental audio effects. See below about game surround sound.
  • Why would you need or want DD / AC3 / DTS? Your fancy S/PDIF cable was originally designed to pass an uncompressed 2-channel audio stream. It lacks the bandwidth for anything else. Then came along the idea to encode audio streams enough to fit on that cable. That way, you could use the cable for 5.1 channels of audio.

    However, this presents a problem. Sure, you can pass film / TV audio right through, as those are already pre-compressed. But most of the sound on a PC is not already encoded as DTS or AC3. Thus came the need for...
  • Dolby Digital Live / DTS Interactive / DTS Connect: These are real-time encoders. Basically, they take all of the sound that was supposed to go the analog output of your sound card, encode it to DTS or AC3 in real-time, and then pass it through S/PDIF. You only need this if you have an external decoder (usually an A/V receiver with speakers hooked up).

    Note that these are software-based solutions, and as such use CPU cycles. The only home-user PC hardware ever created that does this in hardware was the nForce2, using NVIDIA's SoundStorm technology, created for the original Xbox. I consider that chipset to be one of the greatest advances in modern computer audio. Why NVIDIA stopped working on audio with later chipsets baffles me.

    While DTS is technologically superior, Moofasa~ pointed out that not everyone may hear a difference between DDL and DTS-I. Another concern was that DTS-I uses more CPU cycles than DDL.

    Neither of these features "create" surround sound -- they only encode a stream to AC3 or DTS.
  • So, how do we get surround sound from various programs, media or games?

    Simple. It must support the output of multi-channel audio. A game can have EAX but only be capable of outputting stereo audio. This is an example of what I mean when I say EAX does not create surround sound. It just simulates the environmental sounds in the game, so a bullet in a hallway sounds different from a bullet in the forest.

    Hop on over to your game's audio settings, see if you can enable 4.0 (quadraphonic), 5.1, 6.1 or 7.1 surround. Sometimes, a game will only use the settings from your control panel / sound settings, so make sure you have picked the appropriate speaker setup there (ie. 5.1).

    If you have a digital speaker set (ie. Z-5500) with digital inputs, a card with DTS Interactive / DTS Connect / Dolby Digital Live would be ideal, as you would be able to take your game's surround audio and compress it to pass through S/PDIF. The same applies if you have an external A/V receiver (or DTS / DD decoder) with S/PDIF input.

    Some new graphics cards support audio over HDMI. This should eventually replace S/PDIF, because it can handle LPCM streams, so in the (near?) future, your computer will be able to pass all audio as-is to your external receiver -- WITHOUT encoding it. I don't know why the PC world is so far behind in this regard.

    As for other media, such as films and HD TV shows, they will usually have surround sound encoded as AC3 or DTS, so your work here is pretty much done for you.

Miscellaneous stuff, just in case you were wondering:

  • DD-EX / DTS-ES: Respective additions to AC3 and DTS, they add a rear channel for 6.1 surround.
  • Dolby Digital Plus: AKA DD+ and E-AC3. It's better than DTS and AC3, but the increased bitrate means it's too heavy to pass over S/PDIF. You need to use HDMI for this, in which case you should use LPCM or one of the two below.

    It is only used on Blu-ray and HD DVD discs when either the video takes up too much space for better audio formats like TrueHD, or the people behind the disc(s) were too ignorant to know any better.
  • Dolby TrueHD / DTS HD Master Audio: Aka DTS-MA. These are both LOSSLESS audio compression formats, as such they are pretty much the same. They are only supported if you pass the audio over analog cables or HDMI (via something called LPCM, but not every A/V receiver supports it). Nothing else has enough bandwidth. Currently, only Blu-ray and HD DVD have this, but not every title.



Possible setups:
PC -> Analog 5.1 computer speaker set (card only needs 5.1 output; EAX support adds environmental effects, so that would be an ideal addition as well)

PC -> Digital 5.1 computer speaker set (same as above; most digital 5.1 sets also have analog input; I don't think they make digital 7.1 sets, so you're better off with setup #3)

PC -> Encode with DTS Interactive / Dolby Digital Live -> Digital 5.1 computer speaker set over S/PDIF (digital optical or coax; this compresses and then passes the stream to your speakers over a single cable, and then the decoder and DAC in your set will do the rest of the work; in this case, a $30 sound card with these features will perform about as well as a $130 card)

PC -> Analog output -> A/V receiver -> Speaker set (if your receiver can take analog inputs)

PC -> Encode with DTS Interactive / Dolby Digital Live -> A/V receiver / decoder -> Speaker set over S/PDIF (if your receiver can decode a DTS or AC3 stream over S/PDIF input)

PC -> HDMI (!!!) -> A/V receiver -> Speaker set (in an ideal situation, this is hands down the best solution, as we're sending the highest quality signal possible; you're passing uncompressed 7.1 straight to your receiver here; however, only newer receivers have this, you'll need to check for LPCM over HDMI support; the final output quality depends on your receiver and speakers)



Voila. That's the basic rundown of surround sound and those silly acronyms. Stop it with the nonsense now.
 
By the way, your post was quite informative and quite correct, but definitely could improve with less of an elitist attitude.

Going through that new Creative thread is incredibly baffling. How the heck people have become so confused about the various technologies (and their respective acronyms) behind computer audio amazes me.

I hate having to sift through wrong post after wrong post, with people reiterating the same thing over and over. So, once and for all, let's clarify this crap.

What an incredibly demeaning title: "Wow, apparently no one knows what surround sound, DTS, DD and EAX are. Let's clarify." You're not the only one that understands "audio stuff", us Neanderthals/luddites aren't all completely ignorant.

The fact that "Dolby Digital" is used ALL OVER the place with just different prefixes and suffixes (or substitute DTS for DD's competitive variant) to describe the encoders, decoders, extra processing, and format of the bitstream is the root of the problem. It's hard *not* to get confused... remember not everybody's a condescending super-genius like you.
Then Creative comes along and stamps EAX all over its sound cards and speaker systems to add more confusion into the mix. Add THX in there and whatever each hardware manufacturer wants to call *their* own DSP algorthms and we've got complete mayhem. It's frickin TLA (Three Letter Acronym) alphabet soup for just audio acronyms.

Actually, I wouldn't have normally mentioned it, but since you were so subtle by calling everybody on the [H]ardForum ignoramouses, I guess I'll mention it...

S-B said:
AC-3: Also known as AC3, Dolby Digital, DD5.1 and DD. This is an audio compression format, like MP3, WAV, etc.
.WAV is not a compression format. It's actually a container format that originally supported PCM audio, but can now contain MP3 lossy compressed audio and other formats. It's like the AVI container format, but just for audio. See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316992 about halfway down, where "Audio for Windows (.wav)" is described.

Also AC3 bitstreams can also contain only stereo information or even only one MONO channel... it was just designed to cram up to 5.1 channels into a 384kbps bitstream.

Just for reference here are explanations from each manufacturer's/licensor's own sites about their technologies:

Here's a link Creative's site describing EAX:
http://www.soundblaster.com/technology/welcome.asp?j1=eax
and for CMSS:
http://www.creative.com/products/speakers/tech/?id=62790

Here's a link to Dolby Lab's site with explanations of Dolby's Technologies:
http://www.dolby.com/professional/pro_audio_engineering/technologies.html

And just to be fair here's a link to DTS' site with an overview of their technologies:
http://dts.com/consumer/technology/at-a-glance.php
 
how about breaking down CMSS while you're at it?
Unless I'm mistaken, CMSS is just Creative's branding for their own channel upmixing technology.

By the way, your post was quite informative and quite correct, but definitely could improve with less of an elitist attitude.
I didn't mean to come off sounding elitist, I was aiming for irritated. I apologize. Edit: But don't think I'm making a broad generalization that I am better than everyone. It's like that "you people" response black guys always have in movies, they don't mean "you people" as in all black people. I'm just being dramatic.

.WAV is not a compression format. It's actually a container format that originally supported PCM audio, but can now contain MP3 lossy compressed audio and other formats. It's like the AVI container format, but just for audio. See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316992 about halfway down, where "Audio for Windows (.wav)" is described.
Sorry, that was a typo. Meant to type WMA. I'll fix that, bad typing habit.
 
Dolby Digital Plus: AKA DD+ and E-AC3. Pointless, really.

Pointless eh? So for my Transformers and Ocean's HD-DVD's (which only have DD+), what do you suggest? :rolleyes:

PC -> HDMI (!!!) -> A/V receiver -> Speaker set (hands down the best solution, the absolute highest quality)

Certain sound cards provide a better audio experience than certain receivers (thus analog in these situations would be "hands down the best solution").

I hope those are the only mistakes (I'm not confident) but I'm currently too tired to actually read your post.
 
[DTS] is superior to it in every possible way...Again, DTS is superior.
I can't find any results of any double-blind listening tests between Dolby Digital and DTS at common/typical bitrates. One might assume that DTS is better because it generally gets encoded at higher bitrates, but that isn't exactly conclusive of anything (compare Shine and LAME, for instance).

For real-time encoding, Dolby Digital Live has a lower processor footprint in comparison to DTS Connect/Interactive, which is one advantage.
 
Pointless eh? So for my Transformers and Ocean's HD-DVD's (which only have DD+), what do you suggest? :rolleyes:
I suggest you move away from a dead technology. There's more space available on Blu-ray for audio storage. I disagree with the way studios try to pack in more extra features at the cost of audio and video quality.

Certain sound cards provide a better audio experience than certain receivers (thus analog in these situations would be "hands down the best solution").
That is correct in a real-world situation, but my point still stands. I didn't say that the receiver would provide better DAC, or that the sound coming out the speakers would be better. I merely pointed out that the signal being passed on HDMI is best.

I can't find any results of any double-blind listening tests between Dolby Digital and DTS at common/typical bitrates. One might assume that DTS is better because it generally gets encoded at higher bitrates, but that isn't exactly conclusive of anything (compare Shine and LAME, for instance).

For real-time encoding, Dolby Digital Live has a lower processor footprint in comparison to DTS Connect/Interactive, which is one advantage.
Technologically, DTS is superior. It properly supports 96 KHz / 24-bit. DTS-ES has a "discrete" mode where a REAL 7th channel is there, whereas AC3 can only matrix it. It sports a higher bitrate with less compression.

Using DDL and DTS-I to my receiver, I've noticed a very minor difference that is not apparent most of the time. This is probably because of the increased compression of AC3. If I keep listening over an extended period of time, I would most likely notice it less. I don't claim to have a golden ear, so, you are right, a double-blind test might reveal that people cannot tell the difference in most situations. I haven't looked up footprint details, but I'll take your word for it.

Despite it being difficult to tell them apart, isn't it logically sound to choose the superior technology if you can?
 
Despite it being difficult to tell them apart, isn't it logically sound to choose the superior technology if you can?
Of course. I personally feel that there's a higher margin of "safety" with DTS's higher bitrates, so I'd be more inclined to use it than Dolby Digital.

Quite a helpful thread by the way :)
 
I can't find any results of any double-blind listening tests between Dolby Digital and DTS at common/typical bitrates.

Not to mention that DTS tracks from what I recall are typically LOUDER, which skews all A/B comparisons right off the bat.
 
I suggest you move away from a dead technology. There's more space available on Blu-ray for audio storage.

I have a PS3 and the Blu-ray version still only uses DD+. Want to try again? :rolleyes:

That is correct in a real-world situation, but my point still stands.

You realize that statement makes no sense. You acknowledge your information is wrong, but still claim your point stands? :confused:

isn't it logically sound to choose the superior technology if you can?

"Superior" is subjective. You state many opinions in this thread and try to pass them off as facts.
 
K, I have a few questions

I'm getting ready to build my dad a new computer. He wants a HTPC. I was thinking of building one around a 780G equipped board, specifically the GIGABYTE GA-MA78GM-S2H. This board has a HDMI connector and DTS Connect. I saw that you recommend pc to hdmi to the receiver.

He has two receivers. The one that is currently being used is a Sony STR-DE635 which is about ten years old and only has Dolby Digital. He also has a fairly recent Yamaha HTR 5830 that has DTS but no HDMI input. The TV he will hook it up to has HDMI inputs and audio outputs (for passthru I guess, I think they were two rca outs).

Which option would be the best (apart from the obvious buy a new receiver)?
 
Lol instead of nitpicking his post (though I do admit he could have worded it better), lets look at the positives.
 
I have a PS3 and the Blu-ray version still only uses DD+. Want to try again? :rolleyes:
Okay, I was wrong about that -- sorry. I still think it's a useless format, since discs SHOULD be using higher quality encoding.

You realize that statement makes no sense. You acknowledge your information is wrong, but still claim your point stands? :confused:
It makes perfect sense. Note that there are very few sound cards that have better analog audio than a receiver which supports LPCM. This would be limited to low-end models (like Sony's DG720) versus high-end and prosumer sound cards. With that said, I already explained my stance. I was referring to the quality of the audio being transmitted -- not the quality being output. That would make no sense, since every receiver and every sound card and every speaker has a different sound signature.

"Superior" is subjective. You state many opinions in this thread and try to pass them off as facts.
DTS is superior, that is a fact. I'm not talking about my personal opinions, I'm talking about technology and implementation. DTS is technologically better than AC3 in every way.


I'm getting ready to build my dad a new computer. He wants a HTPC. I was thinking of building one around a 780G equipped board, specifically the GIGABYTE GA-MA78GM-S2H. This board has a HDMI connector and DTS Connect. I saw that you recommend pc to hdmi to the receiver.

He has two receivers. The one that is currently being used is a Sony STR-DE635 which is about ten years old and only has Dolby Digital. He also has a fairly recent Yamaha HTR 5830 that has DTS but no HDMI input. The TV he will hook it up to has HDMI inputs and audio outputs (for passthru I guess, I think they were two rca outs).

Which option would be the best (apart from the obvious buy a new receiver)?
I recommend HDMI when it can output LPCM, otherwise it is useless. However, considering your current setup, it won't make a difference. I have heard a lot of bad things about that board, though. Check the negative reviews for it on Newegg or google it.

Assuming you get that board, you will have to use the HTR 5830, as the other one won't work (it can't decode the DTS stream encoded by DTS Connect). Here's what your setup will look like:
Code:
   optical -> HTR 5830
PC |
   HDMI -> TV

Don't use your TV's analog output, as it looks like you'd only be getting stereo sound from it based on the information you gave me.
 
I still think it's a useless format

But if you're making a FAQ, you should probably just stick to facts.

I already explained my stance

You don't in your original (first) post.

DTS is superior, that is a fact.

Debatable. If I encode an audio file with lame (.mp3) at 320k, it will certainly be technically superior than if I encoded that same audio file with lame at 256k. But will the difference between the two files be negligible (ie: could one ABX correctly between the two files)? Some would prefer the 256k file because the encode (and decode) time is lower (albeit slightly) and the file size will also be smaller (with no perceived audio quality loss vs. the 320k file). Since DTS Connect takes more CPU cycles than Dolby Digital Live, if one cannot perceive the audio quality difference between the two (even though technically DTS has a higher bit rate), clearly the "superior" choice would be Dobly Digital Live.
 
so when i go out via Fiber from a mobo to my receiver it is really only made for 2 channel? cause fiber doesnt have the bandwidth for full surround? i am lost on that part....
 
so when i go out via Fiber from a mobo to my receiver it is really only made for 2 channel? cause fiber doesnt have the bandwidth for full surround? i am lost on that part....

its because the pc gaming audio world is severely gimped and behind anything else in the industry...

you can pass 5.1 to your receiver if you play a DVD on your computer, or something with 5.1 already encoded.

unfortunately 99.99999% pc games to my knowledge have the sound encoded only in 5.1 analog, so theres no way for it to be passed via optical unless its converted to digital. From the OP i gather that the 5.1 analog is uncompressed, and the optical connection doesnt have the bandwidth for that, it DOES have the bandwidth for moving it as stereo though...

what needs to happen to get that 5.1 analog signal in games, to a 5.1 digital optical/coax is for it to be compressed using dolby digital live on the fly from analog and then passing it as a digital 5.1 signal.
 
so when i go out via Fiber from a mobo to my receiver it is really only made for 2 channel? cause fiber doesnt have the bandwidth for full surround? i am lost on that part....
Sort of. Essentially, a multichannel stream needs to be compressed down to a manageable bitrate to be able to be transmitted via S/PDIF. This is achievable with Dolby Digital Live or DTS Connect/Interactive. Two channel raw LPCM is supported by S/PDIF, with the maximum sampling rate often variable (48kHz is the standard; most devices support up to 96kHz). No encoding necessary.

unfortunately 99.99999% pc games to my knowledge have the sound encoded only in 5.1 analog
Couple corrections:
A) 100% of PC games do not and can not encode to AC3 or DTS. Dolby-branded games still need an encoder on the back end.
B) The signal is analog only after conversion. It's digital until it's passed to a DAC (which is bypassed when using S/PDIF or HDMI).
 
Nice post. Thanks for taking the time to explain things.

That being said, stereo ftw! I hate anything that intrudes on the sound.

That and I have no chance of setting up rear speakers or 5.1 b/c my wife is an un-comprehending cavewoman.

Lol serious. She does not know(or seem to want to know) how to turn on her laptop.

sigh.
 
THANK YOU FOR THIS! :)

There's a TON of misinformation out there, and it only gets worse everyday.
 
S-B,

Ok, I have my PC (along with the rest of my home theater) connected to my Integra DTC-9.8. Im using an optical S/PDIF cable directly from my Gigabyte GA-P35-DS3L. Playing back Blu-Ray and x264 .MKV's i can pass the DD and/or DTS perfectly fine through to the Integra. So is it a piece of hardware of software that will do the Dolby Digital Live encoding so that my games will play with discrete 7.1 channels over the same optical cable? As of right now, all i get is regular stereo when playing games, so i just use the Pro Logic IIx mode on the Integra to get simulated surround. I really want to stay away from these Creative soundcards as I would think my CPU should be able to the ENcoding, and my external preamp/processor should be able to do the DEcoding, without having to by any additional hardware.

I appreiciate the time you took to write you're original post, but if you could just clarify a little more for me, that would be great. Thanks.
 
Dolby Digital Live and DTS Connect are only capable of encoding a 5.1 stream, as the output streams are compliant with Dolby Digital and DTS, not Dolby Digital EX or DTS-ES. You can likely use your receiver to matrix back surrounds, so it'd still be an improvement over ProLogic.

You can actually use DDL on X-Fis via the danielK drivers in Vista, or on Auzentech's X-Fi Prelude or any C-Media "Oxygen HD" CMI8788-based card (BlueGears b-Enspirer, Sondigo Inferno 7.1, Auzentech X-Meridian, etc.)
 
So if I got a laptop that had S/PDIF out, and had a DAC/Amp combo (thinking headphones) that received by either an optical or coax connection, that would be all that was needed for music/movies/games, correct? Because S/PDIF is pretty common now on laptops, and that would probably provide me the best sound.
 
basically if you have a receiver with a 5.1 setup with acutal speakers instead of some 5.1 dinky computer setup then you should go with the new x-fi fatality creative card because it does dolby digital live encoding... the x-fi cards do it now but only with hacked drivers...

edit: this is in general not to the guy above me
 
^^ perfect, thats what i need then. I have my PC connected to a preamp/processor via S/PDIF, but i dont have anything that does the DDL encoding. So Creative X-Fi it is.
 
^^ perfect, thats what i need then. I have my PC connected to a preamp/processor via S/PDIF, but i dont have anything that does the DDL encoding. So Creative X-Fi it is.
You don't need the X-Fi. In fact, even the $25 Diamond XtremeSound 7.1 DDL does this. Hell, there's even this $15 card that does it. The quality of the DACs on a card with DDL makes NO difference whatsoever, so paying for a more expensive card is pointless if you will never use its analog outputs, that's why you can get away with such a cheap card.

Now, you don't get bitperfect output by using a card like that. Bitperfect is when the data passed over S/PDIF is not changed at all from the source material. I say get a cheap DDL or DTS-I card. To play movies without reencoding them with DDL (especially the MKVs you were talking about), use AC3Filter and enable the option "Use SPDIF" -- it will pass the audio straight through the S/PDIF line, IIRC. Then, DDL will only be used for audio that isn't encoded in DTS or AC3 (like games).

You could also step it up and get something with better analog output, like the HT Omega Striker 7.1 (they have great customer support, by the way). It outdoes the above card with DTS Interactive -- despite Moofasa's protest about its higher CPU usage, I think DTS-I is better. It has coax in/out, optical in, and optical out (though the input formats are stereo PCM only, only Creative cards can take DTS or AC3 input). Also only EAX 2.0 (few cards have the licensing from Creative for the newer versions).

The benefit of the X-Fi is that it has EAX 5.0 support and the digital inputs (on models with the external or front panel I/O) can take DTS or AC3 (which you don't need, since you're using an external receiver anyways).


So if I got a laptop that had S/PDIF out, and had a DAC/Amp combo (thinking headphones) that received by either an optical or coax connection, that would be all that was needed for music/movies/games, correct? Because S/PDIF is pretty common now on laptops, and that would probably provide me the best sound.
No, unless you want stereo sound. As I pointed out for the guy above you, AC3Filter can pass pre-encoded stuff through S/PDIF, so you will get surround from your movies. However, anything that is not encoded will be limited to stereo sound (like games). This is assuming your laptop's sound does not support DDL or DTS-I. You'd need to get a sound card for your laptop that does indeed support this. I think there may be a Creative card for you, but you need hacked drivers to enable DDL on it.
 
good read, thanks for clarification... but I agree with bbf, edit it to remove the elitist attitude. Otherwise you just look like a jerk.

My audiophile friend always said his digital speaker setup on his Nforce 2 setup was one of the best sounding setups hes ever used, now I know why. I knew soundstorm did something cool, but I never new exactly what.

this thread could use a sticky.
 
No, unless you want stereo sound. As I pointed out for the guy above you, AC3Filter can pass pre-encoded stuff through S/PDIF, so you will get surround from your movies. However, anything that is not encoded will be limited to stereo sound (like games). This is assuming your laptop's sound does not support DDL or DTS-I. You'd need to get a sound card for your laptop that does indeed support this. I think there may be a Creative card for you, but you need hacked drivers to enable DDL on it.

Well, my DAC/Amp will either be used with 2/2.1 speakers or most likely headphones.... so all that is really needed is stereo sound I would think... sorry I'm kind of a nub with this stuff.
 
OK, I know how DDLive encodes 5.1 sound in games (i.e. Crysis) so it can be transfered via SPDIF to a receiver for decoding and conversion to analog for discrete 5.1 to the speakers. How does DDLive handle MP3 music (2 channel)? Does it simply upmix the 2 channel to a synthetic/artificial sort of 5.1 sound much the same as DD Pro Logic does at the receiver level? Certainly it could not create a discrete 5.1 out of the original source 2 channel, could it? I never used to play MP3 music using 5.1 speakers because the DDPro Logic doesn't sound good to me; but since installing a card with DDLive, I rather like the way MP3 music sounds using it.
 
Thats great news S-B, the X-Fi seemed a little overkill anyway. I already use Media Player Classic w/ AC3Filter, CoreAVC, and Haali Media Splitter to play all my x264 MKV's, and it sends DD/DTS out via my mobo's optical jack perfectly fine. So i will just get the Diamond Xtreme card, and plug my preamp/processor into that. Thanks alot for clarifying all this for me. :)

On a side note, if you combined a cheap DDL enabled sound card with a year or two old DD/DTS 5.1 reciever, wouldnt that create a MUCH better audio solution then getting the stupid expensive top-of-the line Creative X-Fi + some dinky 5.1 "PC" speakers? For possibly cheaper? Well i guess thats not entirely true as you would need speakers to go with the receiver. I always though Creatives "gaming" soundcards and products like Logitechs Z-5500 where a real waste.
 
OK, I know how DDLive encodes 5.1 sound in games (i.e. Crysis) so it can be transfered via SPDIF to a receiver for decoding and conversion to analog for discrete 5.1 to the speakers. How does DDLive handle MP3 music (2 channel)? Does it simply upmix the 2 channel to a synthetic/artificial sort of 5.1 sound much the same as DD Pro Logic does at the receiver level? Certainly it could not create a discrete 5.1 out of the original source 2 channel, could it? I never used to play MP3 music using 5.1 speakers because the DDPro Logic doesn't sound good to me; but since installing a card with DDLive, I rather like the way MP3 music sounds using it.

It leaves it alone, as god intended. IMO doing anything with 2 channel other than leaving it as 2 channel is a bad idea. Listen to it as the audio engineers intended.
 
I agree about leaving it as 2 channel; but I was curious because my receiver indicates that it is DD (not DD Pro Logic) and the sound is from all 5.1 speakers, so the DDLive must have done something to the 2 channel music source.
 
Likely a straight mirror upmix. Just as bad as any other sort of upmixing if you ask me ;)
 
Edit:
PC -> HDMI (!!!) -> A/V receiver -> Speaker set (in an ideal situation, this is hands down the best solution, as we're sending the highest quality signal possible; you're passing uncompressed 7.1 straight to your receiver here; however, only newer receivers have this, you'll need to check for LPCM over HDMI support; the final output quality depends on your receiver and speakers)

your statement is somewhat inaccurate.

To date there is no HDMI 1.3 support on the PC, so you are pretty much limited to DD and DTS. Hopefully this will change soon.

AFAIK the Radeon HD series can output LPCM over HDMI1.0 (or is it 1.2?) but the nvidia cards are limited to SPDIF over HDMI.

You can pass up to 7.1 channels via HDMI 1.3, but only a few titles have 7.1 audio.
 
So let me get this straight. If i go with Vista, even if I use analog cables to my receiver playing games. I still need special danielk drivers (or are these for digital out only), or do creative labs new drivers work better? If audio is a big issue woth vista without using hack drivers, I am not sure I wnat to upgrade since 90% of my pc use is gaming and the rest is surfing net.

-rob
 
What is Q-Sound?

Wow I haven't heard about that in a while. I remember that logo on Street Fighter machines. Wikipedia says:

QSound is the original name for a positional three-dimensional (3D) sound processing algorithm from QSound Labs that creates 3D audio effects from multiple monophonic sources and sums the outputs to two channels for presentation over regular stereo speakers. QSound was eventually re-dubbed "Q1" after the introduction of "Q2," a positional 3D algorithm for headphones. As the company's spatial audio algorithm family grew, and multi-speaker surround system support was added to the positional 3D process, the QSound positional 3D audio process became known simply as "Q3D."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QSound
 
Back
Top