[M0nk3m4n]

I have yet to upgrade from my Soundblaster Live! 5.1 because when
I paid $40.00 for a "24-bit Sound Blaster Audigy Gamer" I couldn't tell
the SLIGHTEST bit of difference, aside from the fact that I now had
far less satisfactory frequency ranges...like, no eardrum shattering
high frequencies & FAR LESS floor rumbling bass!That really sucked!
Couldn't even change settings!So back to the trusty SBLive! it was.

I've heard SO damn much about the X-Fi card...I dunno if I'd get the
same kinda experience if I was to get it...can somebody who has had
either just the X-Fi, or preferably someone who's had an SBLive! & an
X-Fi, & tell me if it's a good deal, cause last I saw, they're still pricey.

I mean, surely Creative hasn't screwed up and made all their newer
cards totally inferior to this good old SBLive...could they? O_o

[Liqourice]

I can't compare with a soundblaster live since I've never had one. I won't compare my X-Fi Xtreme Music with anything I've had before but it's good enough for me and I'm a musician with quite high demands on sound.

All I know is that if you want a gamers soundcard you should avoid the X-Fi Audio version because that doesn't have hardware sound processing and will use your CPU for those tasks and hence lower overall performance.

[kris23]

my cousin has a audigy live......

i got the X-fi XtremeMusic

mine sounds alot better.......


also, if you want to take X-fi a step further, get the Auzentech X-fi Prelude....

X-fi thats not made by creative

Newegg.com - AuzenTech Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1 7.1 Channels 24-bit 192KHz PCI Interface Sound Card - Sound Cards

and if you dont live in the US ill go find it in the country where ever you are

[M0nk3m4n]

Well thanks for the help you guys, haha that seems to solve my problem.

Liqourice:Thanks for that, I'd definitely want the best performance since
my current stuff struggles with my favorite FPSers...quite informative.

Kris23:Well, thanks a bunch, that helps, would you say the one you have
is good enough for gaming & music?I mean hell that AuzenTech thing is $175.00!
Lol I can't even pay that for a new video card...I think I'm a ghetto gamer.
I was kinda hoping for the price I saw of the X-Fi somewhere a while back.($70)
Well anyway yeah, I suppose you can lock this, I'll stick with the SBLive, I guess.

[blibbax]

Originally Posted by M0nk3m4n

Liqourice:Thanks for that, I'd definitely want the best performance since
my current stuff struggles with my favorite FPSers...quite informative.

I'd blame your video card for that, and a new hardware processing sound card won't reduce load on the GPU.

I used to use a heavily overclocked 8500GT 512mb on a 1440x900 monitor, and it really struggled with anything more demanding than source games. I even had to run cod4 on mimimum settings to push my maximum resolution. You're playing at 1600x1200, so...

[M0nk3m4n]

Ah, ok then...well I know this video card's a total piece of crap anyway.
So yeah it's probably caused by it & I'm not the overclocking type...so...
Alls I know for sure is, I'm about to buy an ATI Radeon HD 4850.That
should fix any lags I have for most things.

[kris23]

theres no X-fi for 70 bucks but theres X-fi for $90!

Newegg.com - Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeGamer 7.1 Channels 24-bit 96KHz PCI Interface Sound Card - Sound Cards

it seems to be the successor to the XtremeMusic

[M0nk3m4n]

It must've been an imitation...or cheap knockoff...but it said X-Fi on the box.
I think it was at Wal-Mart though, so no surprise, lmao

[kris23]

that would most likely be the Xtreme Audio and its just an SB live with a shiny new label.....

the infamous fake X-fi.....

[GigaWatt]

you can buy some pritty good external sound cards from Lexicon and Creative, and for a good price too, plus they are portable, and don't require anythig else than a USB 2.0 port , so the whole processing is done only by the sound card, the have good output amplifiers, so that means that they can feed the main amplifer (the one that is connected between the sound card and the speakers), with a pritty good amount of voltage and current, which is the main problem with all the other PCI and onboard cards, not enough otput power to drive the main amp . so here are some of them, i think these cards will meet your (financial) demands:

Manufacturer: Lexicon
Model: Alpha
Price: $89.95 + $5 shipping within 2 days



Lexicon Alpha Desktop Recording Studio from zZounds.com!


Manufacturer: Creative
Model: Sound Blaster Audigy 2 NX USB 24Bit External Sound Card
Price: $79.95 + shipping (i thik it's $2 or $3 for US teritory)



Creative Computers - Sound Blaster Audigy 2 NX USB 24Bit External Sound Card - 70SB030000000


Manufacurer: Creative
Model: EMU 0202 USB Audio Interface
Price: $93.99 + shipping (again, for US i think it's $2, or $3)



Creative Computers - EMU 0202 USB Audio Interface - 70EM874006000


they all have an extrenal power supply, so they drive the power amp pritty good, they make enough power load, so the amp doesn't has to "drag" power from the card, which is what happes with PCI and onboard cards: the power amplifiers consume a small amount of power form the input, whatever the input may be (a CD player, DVD player, etc.), but no matter how small that amount of power may be, the input (in this case, the audio card) still has to give it, and onboard and most of the PCI cards just can't do that, mostly because the motherboard can't give that kind of a power supply to the card, it reserves it's main power for itself, and it's most of the crutial devices the motherboard can't function without. the ouput OpAmp's (Operatinal Amplifiers) of the card go to their maximum level of power, and the output signal is distorted and clipped. besides, there are limits to the power the PCI slot can give to any kind of card that is inserted, which wasn't the case with the ISA/EISA slots (that's why the old SB 16 series of creative, which where mostly ISA/EISA, sounded so good, eventhough they where only 16 bit ).

i think only the Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 NX USB 24Bit sound card has a 5.1 speaker output (i'm not really into surround and all that stuff, i'm stuck to plain old stereo), so, as you said, if you want a 5.1 gaming card, which has an excelent otput response (15Hz-22KHz, but that is what the manufacturer says, which in most cases it's not actually true, but close enough ), i would recomend this one, it's got the best performance/price value.

if you want a professional/semiprofessional aduio card (stereo ofecourse), i would recommend the Lexicon Alpha, it's more reliable (it's got a tough cover, a friend of mine droppede it five times, and it still works ), plus the exteriror is pritty cool, the specs are beeter than the Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 NX USB 24Bit card (see Lexicon's homepage for detailed information), and it has 2 line in connectors with a analogue gain control, you could plug in to them just about anything, form mixers, players, mics, guitars... you name it, not to mention the +48V phatom supply that some mics requre.

anyway, the choice is yours, but i would definetly recomend an external card, i've had experience with internal cards, and they arent even nearly as good as the external ones .

PS: i have a Lexicon Omega in my studio, can't complain...

[M0nk3m4n]

Hmm, thanks for the help, but I just dished out $175 for video & $15 for 512mb of PC6400 (800mhz) ram.
I'll definitely keep 'em in mind though for when I've got the extra moolah, don't wanna spend too much now.
Regards -Monkeyman

[Liqourice]

Originally Posted by blibbax

I'd blame your video card for that, and a new hardware processing sound card won't reduce load on the GPU.

No it won't, but for those CPU intense games out there, and there is quite a few, a soundcard with hardware processing makes a HUGE difference.

[M0nk3m4n]

Originally Posted by Liqourice

No it won't, but for those CPU intense games out there, and there is quite a few, a soundcard with hardware processing makes a HUGE difference.

How exactly do I know if it has hardware processing?I mean does it tell me somewhere on the card or perhaps on the box?
Luckily I kept the box for just such occasions.But I mean, is hardware processing uncommon for them or what?

[M0nk3m4n]

Sorry for double post, but I decided to read up a bit about my soundcard...
I think I found all the info I need, looks like it does have hardware processing.
It has something they're mentioning called a DSP.It sounds like a hardware accelerator.
First, here's an image of my card: Image:Sblive!.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here's some information about it: Sound Blaster Live! - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia!
Seems I have what is called the "SBLive! Value" a 2003 model if I' not mistaken.
Anyway, it seems to be ideal for me even if it's not the best...price is a big factor there
I'm not a hardcore PC nut, haha I try to use as little cash as possible.This cost me $30.

[Judas]

just a fyi.


if your using vista.... it doesn't matter what hardware you have... the sound is all software managed, you can have any peice of sound hardware, the cpu is still going to do the work.

and with current tech.. specially with quad core... the situation is much better then when hardware was offloading the cpu. Software Sound is producing much much better results for developers and in that case, for the user as well now.

[M0nk3m4n]

Hmm, well I use XP Pro...I won't switch to Vista until I absolutely have no choice...
I tried it on this same PC, and it slowed it to a crawl...I hate Vista...

[Judas]

wow that's really odd vista would even be anything short of slightly faster then xp on that machine there m0nk

[Balthazor]

Originally Posted by Judas

just a fyi.

if your using vista.... it doesn't matter what hardware you have... the sound is all software managed, you can have any peice of sound hardware, the cpu is still going to do the work.

This is only partially true. Vista removed the hardware layer from DirectSound3D, preventing games that use Microsoft's DirectSound interface from having direct access to hardware. So all applications that use DirectSound or DirectSound3D are processed on your CPU, not by your sound card.

The real downside to this is that without direct access to hardware, games that relied on DirectSound3D for audio positioning will end up only emitting stereo audio instead of multi-channel audio, even if you have a multi-channel setup.

However Vista still allows third party APIs to have direct access to hardware, letting the hardware do the audio processing. Right now the only API I'm aware of that does is OpenAL. Games or apps that use OpenAL can be hardware-accelerated just as they were under XP, assuming you've got the hardware for it.

Games that use third-party software audio rendering (like the Miles Sound System) will be unaffected, and if these games are programmed to use multichannel audio you will still get it in Vista.

EAX is a set of extensions to either DirectSound3D or OpenAL, but is processed by your sound hardware. EAX will work fine over OpenAL on Vista, but since Vista prevents DirectSound3D apps from directly accessing your hardware, EAX is not usable with DirectSound3D games.

Creative's ALchemy or Asus's Xonar solution (the name escapes me) works around this by translating DirectSound3D calls into an alternative set of instructions that can be processed by the sound hardware. Creative uses OpenAL for this; I'm not certain how the Xonars get it to work. But without something like this you'll lose both EAX and multi-channel sound on games that use DirectSound3D on Vista.

[OldBuzzard]

I just replaced an Audugy 2 ZS Plat. with an X-FI Plat. Not the Fatality, but the one before it without the X-RAM. I got a refurbished one off of ebay for 111.00 with shipping, and I'm very happy with it.

Without going into all the why fors, and whereases, all I can say is that I like it a WHOLE lot better. I can't say that I see a noticable increase or decrease in performance, but the SOUND QUALITY is very noticable. The last time I saw as big a jump in sound quality was when I upgraded from an SB16 to the AWE64

Since you are on a budget, and if the Front Panel I/O isn't a consideration (it was for me), and you are in the states, then this could be an option for you:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Creative-SoundBl...d=p3286.c0.m14

Actually, the above seller DOES ship overseas, but the shipping may make it cost prohibitive.

This one, which is the same as what I got from a different seller has the I/O panel and remote which I like but is a bit higher in $$:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Creative-Sound-B...d=p3286.c0.m14


As for Vista:

I looked at your system specs, and the reason Vista 'sucked' for you is your lack of RAM. On my system with a 4800+/8GB RAM, as opposed to your system with a 5000+/2.5GB RAM, Vista 64 is, without a doubt, much better and faster than either Xp 32-bit or XP 64-Bit. I use HyperOS 2008 which allows me to have multiple OSs, and I have all three on my system. All it takes is a re-boot to go from one to another, so I'm not relying on what I 'remembered' as to how each OS worked on my system, I can see it after just a re-boot. The ONLY reason I have Vista 32, Xp 32 and XP 64 on here is because I also beta test for HyperOS, and I need all of them for proper testing. If it wasn't for that. I'd be Vista 64 exclusive...it's that good.

Put in a minimum of 4GB of RAM, and you WILL change your mind about Vista. While Vista will 'run' on 2.5GB, it only starts showing how good it is with 4GB, and when you go to 8GB, it turns on the afterburners

[M0nk3m4n]

Yeah, but having 4gig or more of ram just strikes me as retarded unless I need it for other stuff, haha
Hell, since I torrented Vista Ultimate...I forget if it's x32 or x64 version...anyway, I might try it when I get
more ram, I have a feeling I'll need it someday, but I still keep hearing nothing but bad news about Vista.

[OldBuzzard]

Originally Posted by M0nk3m4n

... but I still keep hearing nothing but bad news about Vista.

Then you have been listening to people that: A) Haven't tried it. B) Tried it on a system without the specs to run it properly. C) Journalists, who make their living bashing the latest OS, who just so happened to say the same things about XP when it was released.

Listen to those of us that use it everyday, on 1/2 way decent systems. There are lots of ACTUAL VISTA USERS here on DH that will tell you the same thing. Shucks, this old 4800+ isn't the fastest thing going, and it runs Vista great.

Actually, with Vista 64, having 4GB or more of RAM is just the opposite of 'retarded'. Unlike XP which just lets that 'extra' RAM just sit there doing nothing, Vista's Superfetch puts it to work. It keeps certain Programs/Application in that "extra" memory so that it's already loaded when you want to use ut. Makes Vista a lot more efficent and 'snappier' than XP.

[GigaWatt]

yeah, but you have to admit, Vista it's not completely backwards compatible, some of the prorgams that run just fine under XP, don't run at all under Vista, especially older versions of some audio production related sofwares, i've had some experience with some VST plugins under Vista, mosltly older versions or some that have stoped developing for about 2, 3 eyears now (like the Claw for example). most of them didn't even work under Vista, Cubase SX 3 detects them proparly, but when you load them, there is no sound comming out. this is not a problem with newer versions of VST plugins, but what if, for some reason, i want to run the old ones, under Vista i can't.

besides, maby somedy can't affort to buy an aditional 4GB of RAM (assuming they already have 4GB). even if Vista is more efficient at RAM usage, still, that doesn't justify the fact that it needs atleast 512MB of RAM just to install it.

in the future, when all applications are 64 bit and when the price of one DIMM of 8GB is lowerd down to $10, $15, then, the real advantige of Vista might come to light, but untill than, many users are still stuck with XP, or some other less demending OS.

[OldBuzzard]

I've run Vista 64 with 2, 4 and now 8GB of RAM.

2GB = OK, but nothing to write home about. Using a 4GB USB Flash Drive in READYBOOST made a lot of difference, and made it a lot better.
4GB = Ran quite well, and with the 4GB Flash drive, it was very good.
8GB = Let Vista 'stretch it's legs' and really show what it can do. 4GB flash drive made a wee bit of difference, but not enough in my opinion, to justify using a USB slot for.

Bottom line is that Vista 64 and 4GB Ram, especially with a 4GB Flash drive will work very well for probably 99% of the users. Going to 8GB is for getting the last bit of performance and, to be truthful, for a bit of e-penis value

[M0nk3m4n]

Hmm...I dunno, when I've got 4GB and can test it, I'll get back to ya, right now I can't really
do anything but talk about what I've seen with 2 Gig.
Now I've gotta whole new question...what's this about the 4GB flash drive?
You saying there's some way to use it as ram or u mean virtual-memoryish?

[kris23]

vista superfetch can use a flash drive when you set it on ReadyBoost and use it like a program cache or whatever windows needs to use it for really....

[blibbax]

Originally Posted by M0nk3m4n

Hmm...I dunno, when I've got 4GB and can test it, I'll get back to ya, right now I can't really
do anything but talk about what I've seen with 2 Gig.
Now I've gotta whole new question...what's this about the 4GB flash drive?
You saying there's some way to use it as ram or u mean virtual-memoryish?

It's nowhere near as fast as RAM, but like Chris said it's a sort of general purpose cache.

[PangingJr]

you probably won't need to use 8GB/16GB system and it's a waste of money if you don't need it.
however, computers that have large amounts of RAM, is usually has an ability to deal with very large files and documents, or can work with large files on multiple tasks.
and it's for people who needs it and use it.

how much RAM does your computer needs? you usually know when you need to add more RAM to it.

here's an example...
all 8GB RAM is gone when dealing with just one large document.

[GigaWatt]

this conversation has gone totaly off topic, [COLOR=White]M0nk3m4n was simply asking what card he should use, not a Vista vs. XP debate, hahahahaha .

anyway, i think some second hand Audigy card would be much nicer for you, it will cost you about the same price (probaly even less, if it's an older model), and you will get even better results than with your old card ([/COLOR]Soundblaster Live! 5.1)

[M0nk3m4n]

Lol ok...I think this sums it up...I'm clear now, enough with Vista cept a new thread right?
Dunno about that GigaWatt, I bought a new Audigy and got shittier sound than the Live!.
'Course it was another Wal-Mart make-shift audigy...but hell so was the SBLive!...meh.
I'll do with what I got, lol it sounds more than good anyway & I've half deafened myself so
I probly couldn't tell if I got a new one & it DID sound better, thanks dudes. -Monkey