Building a new system ... quandry re soundcard?

[Enverex]

Originally posted by Agent
Google the spec's for each card.
Soundstorm can also do Dolby digital on the fly - Aug. can not.

As was said, this is Encoding, and is useless for 90% of people.

Russ: You need to download the Audigy 2 ZS hacked CD. You cant just install the drivers. Once you have done that you can install the generic Audigy EAX4 update.

Links for the Audigy 2 ZS Hacked CD -


http://club.hitel.net/Club/ClubUser/...152_a2zs-i.rar
http://club.hitel.net/Club/ClubUser/...054_a2zs-i.r00
http://club.hitel.net/Club/ClubUser/...743_a2zs-i.r01
http://club.hitel.net/Club/ClubUser/...968_a2zs-i.r02

400MB in total.

EX

[BlackSheep]

Originally posted by td5
1. Dolby digital on the fly is only useful if you HAVE a external decoder

2. The AD/DC units on the SoundStorm DO NOT approach Audigy levels. There is an noticeable difference.

3. SoundStorm is not avaliable on a card.

There are many more, too. nForcersHQ can list lots of driver issues. To get crystal clear sound you have to feed speakers via optical out, in which case your pricing for speakers starts at £150+

Having said that, the SoundStorm is good for free, although if you have an Audigy too, id choose that.

Please get your facts right

All good points ... in essence it depends on what you are going to be using to output to and what you are going to be using to generate the signal ...

If you are using digital out to a decent (digital inc. 5.1 DD/DTS decoder) over optical/coax then soundstorm is going to beat Audigy in most cases (I have tried both and the difference is noticeably better on SS over Audigy 1).

If you are using Analogue speakers only then you are not really making use of the full power of SS and would be better off using Audigy (but it's a close call).

If you have Audigy 2, then you are definitely better off using that over SS in almost all circumstances. However, I really don't like the fact that no Optical/Coax Out appears on the standard card (I think you have to get the extra outputs box/bay of the platinum - or mod the card). THX certification for the card is also testimony of the quality of its components.

Also if Dolby Digital 5.1 encoding in games is important to you (a la UT2003) then you might want to consider the SoundStorm. I definitely prefer the clarity of SS optical 5.1 (via external decoder) to Creative Labs EAX via analogue.

Head over here to have a look at a show down between the two:

Nvidia SoundStorm vs. Audigy 2

NF2/SS was one of the factors that lead me to make the switch over to (the darkside) AMD after a year and a bit back in the Intel camp, if they offered this sound chip on a dedicated card I would probably still be using an Intel Mobo.

I'm waiting for Creative to produce a card that fills these gaps (5.1 encoding on the fly and optical out as standard) at a reasonable price before buying another dedicated sound card ... until then SoundStorm all the way

[Enverex]

Unless you are using >£1000 worth of equipment then you are not going to notice the difference between the Analog an Digital output on the sound card.

And remember, Dolby Digital is a Lossy codec.

EX

[BlackSheep]

Originally posted by Enverex
Unless you are using >£1000 worth of equipment then you are not going to notice the difference between the Analog an Digital output on the sound card.

And remember, Dolby Digital is a Lossy codec.

EX

... read the article, try it for yourself, and yes you do notice the difference on <£1000 speaker setup and the difference is significant.

... DD is a lossy codec, but the quality>compression ratio is variable and it sounds very clear on UT2003 (far clearer than EAX especially heavy-bass effects such as shock-combo) - I haven't measured the bitrate, but it must be good - why wouldn't it be - bandwidth isn't an issue as it is with Pre-encoded DVDs (for e.g. where storage space is the limiting factor).

... unless, of course, your ears are painted on

[Enverex]

Originally posted by BlackSheep
... DD is a lossy codec, but the compression ratio is variable and it sounds very clear on UT2003 (far clearer than EAX especially heavy-bass effects such as shock-combo) - I haven't measured the bitrate, but it must be good - why wouldn't it be - bandwidth isn't an issue as it is with Pre-encoded DVDs (for e.g. where storage space is the limiting factor)

See, thats where I stop believing you.... EAX is active regardless as the SS supports EAX2. The sound has the EAX effects applied while being outputted to DirectSound, which is then forwarded to the nForces' MCP which encodes it and sends it out for the external decoder to deal with.

The only difference between Analog and Digital is whos DAC is dealing with it. EAX is active anyway. Using the DD encoder is just like sticking an encoder on the 6 analog outputs of a normal sound-card and passing it to the external decoder, EAX doesn't come into it. So if you bass sounds different then you have some issues with your sound setup.

EX

[BlackSheep]

Originally posted by Enverex


The only difference between Analog and Digital is whos DAC is dealing with it. EAX is active anyway. Using the DD encoder is just like sticking an encoder on the 6 analog outputs of a normal sound-card and passing it to the external decoder, EAX doesn't come into it. So if you bass sounds different then you have some issues with your sound setup.

EX

perhaps you are selecting "EAX" not "Hardware" in audio settings ... I have tried both on a few different setups (different digital and analogue setups - cheap decoder and a more expensive one) and countless other reviews on the subject confirm:

NF2 SS Digital Out DD encoding > Creative Audigy 1 Analog out via 6 Ch & EAX

FACT ... whether it sounds better to you is another matter and whether you believe my opinion is also irrelevant (it is subjective I will agree, some people like the taste of de-caf coffee ...)

[Enverex]

perhaps you are selecting "EAX" not "Hardware" in audio settings

Of course I selected EAX. You normally have 3 options, Software (Emulated), Hardware and EAX. EAX is simply Hardware with EAX features, and simply silly not to select it if your card supports it (which the SS does).

EX

[BlackSheep]

Originally posted by Enverex
Of course I selected EAX. You normally have 3 options, Software (Emulated), Hardware and EAX. EAX is simply Hardware with EAX features, and simply silly not to select it if your card supports it (which the SS does).

EX

well that's where you are getting confused then innit

if you have SS you need to select "Hardware" only i.e. NOT EAX and then you'll be using, you guessed it, Dolby Digital Encoding and not EAX.

[Enverex]

Originally posted by BlackSheep
well that's where you are getting confused then innit

if you have SS you need to select "Hardware" only i.e. NOT EAX and then you'll be using, you guessed it, Dolby Digital Encoding and not EAX.

Are you saying that the SS cannot use any EAX effects at all when using the DD encoder? If so then that really does suck as EAX pretty much a standard in gaming nowerdays. Especially when creators what to make an even remotely immersive environment...

EX

[BlackSheep]

Originally posted by Enverex
Are you saying that the SS cannot use any EAX effects at all when using the DD encoder? If so then that really does suck as EAX pretty much a standard in gaming nowerdays. Especially when creators what to make an even remotely immersive environment...

EX

It can use EAX (just not the latest version - 3) and is pretty nice with some games - there were quite a few gaming issues with EAX in the earlier Nforce drivers but the latest ones seem fine for most games that use it and it still goes out over digital.

I do prefer DD 5.1 in UT2003 though (haven't tried with Audigy2 though) and hope that some new games (Doom3, HL2) might support this too ... although because it's such a small segment of the gaming market, I doubt it's a priority. With XBox having DD encoding capabilities as well might prove useful towards its growth in future games.

[Enverex]

DD encoding is always a useful addition for people who dont have 6 analog inputs but do have digital inputs (my old theatre system to name one).

Still not sure why you dont like EAX on UT2003. I admit sometimes it goes wrong and adds effects when it shouldn't (normally a limitation of EAX2 adding an environmental mode to a sound affect because you are in the environment, even though they arent..). But other than that. Does it go way too loud or distort at all? As I remember that being a problem due to the echoing, which is why the volume is 30% quieter in EAX4...

[Agent]

UT2003 uses EAX 3.0 - no other version
There isn't a huge amount of cards which support it (due to them having to pay creative royalties). Soundstorm does not support EAX 3. However soundstorm is the only sound APU to support DD encoding in UT2003, so basically you cant have DD with EAX 3, because no APU's can do it.

Its not like it matters anyway. EAX wasn't added to the levels in UT2003, apart from 2 iirc. There is no real gain.

UT 2004 will support EAX 2 aswell, so many more cards will be able to use it.

[Enverex]

Thats quite silly, most games seem to support EAX1, 2 and 3. Wonder why they decided not to use anything other than 3?

That also explains why Sheep was using normal Hardware over EAX....

[Russ]

cheers nightsahde.

Agent, i went from nf7-s onboard to an audigy 1, and the difference is 1 million times greater imho

[Agent]

Originally posted by Enverex
Wonder why they decided not to use anything other than 3?

Its been said unofficaly that they made a deal with creative. Probably got EAX 3 at a discount if they dropped support for previous versions of EAX.

It doesnt sound like a lie either, as the unreal engine can support EAX 1 -> 3. Its just disabled in the build of UT2003.

But like i said, no real gain anyway, as almost no levels use it.

[Agent]

Originally posted by Russ
cheers nightsahde.

Agent, i went from nf7-s onboard to an audigy 1, and the difference is 1 million times greater imho

heh, i went from a Aud. 1 to SS and wouldnt ever go back.

Analogue is fine when i need it, but Digital is much much better.