• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Can someone explain 5.1 vs. EAX 3, 4, etc.

T

teiresias

Senior member
Ok, so I need a sound card. X-Fi, X-Plosion, Montego DDL, what to get? I'm a little confused over how positional audio works in EAX 3 and EAX 4. Does EAX actually include hardware positional audio encoding on X-Fi?

For instance, say I'm playing "Dreamfall." Currently on my SoundStorm system i have to choose "5.1 (Software)" which I take to mean the actual positional audio is done in software on the CPU but then the SoundStorm takes over and does the encoding of the signal into Dolby Digital in hardware.

I'm assuming this is how something like the X-Plosion or Montego DDL would handle things as well, where the positional audio would need to be calculated predominantly on the CPU. However, with an X-Fi, if a game supports EAX 3 or EAX 4, does the EAX system include hardware positional processing on the board, completely offloading this workload off the CPU? Obviously, the X-Fi doesn't have the Dolby Digital encoding though.

Now, for instance, how about Oblivion. Unless I'm missing something (and correct me if I'm wrong) the only sound options the game gives me are volume sliders, but playing it through soundstorm demonstrates positional audio, so I'm assuming the game is doing the positional audio in software since it doesn't seemingly support EAX of any kind. Since there's no EAX are the X-Plosion, Montego DDL, and X-Fi all in the same boat? That is, the positional audio is being processed by the CPU and basically just using the soundcard to get the audio processed and out to your speakers? In the case of the X-Plosion and Montego they'll be able to encode in dolby Digital whereas the X-Fi will just pass it out to the analog outputs.

Am I correct in any of my assumptions? I'm just trying to figure out if many of the games I play will actually benefit from the X-Fi by offloading positional audio calculations off of the CPU - even if they don't support EAX.

Thanks guys.
 
EAX is a way of generating the reverb, echo and other effects.

5.1 is the number of audio channels.

Let me find somebody and I'll get back to you.

EDIT: Talked to my associate.
Get the X-Fi.
 
Here's how I see it:

First of all, what PurdueRy was getting at with distance is that if its farther than probably 6 ft or so, you'll most likely be better off with the DDL capable cards, as you could just use a digital optical (or coaxial) cable to transfer the signal. With the Creative card you'd want to hook it up using the 5.1 analog in on your reciever (if you were to get an adapter and do optical or coaxial from the X-Fi, you'll lose all of its processing capabilities, it will just pass the signal to your reciever to handle), which will effectively just use your reciever as an amplifier to power the speakers. A long distance with analog could degrade the signal more, and just be more of a pain dealing with 6 wires instead of one.

While the X-Fi processing audio will offer better framerates than the other cards, I believe that using EAX effects uses some overhead on the CPU, and so you might need to see if they're about even. I think you have it wrong about the CPU doing all the Audio processing when not using Creative hardware. Seems to me that most games I remember there being an option for hardware support, and then a different option to enable the EAX stuff.

Also, some people aren't fans of the sound of the EAX effects. Dolby Digital Live does seem to be a very nice sounding thing, and I've seen some people say their games have never sounded better.

Keep in mind that, quite a bit of companies are actually into putting their own software audio processing into games (HL2/Source and Doom3 and its engine being two pretty popular ones) now. I don't know what's planned for Unreal Engine 3.0 or Crysis. Either way, DDL will probably always sound good, while EAX might not even be an option for the game. Just something to think about.

I'm sure PurdueRy will point out any stupid thoughts I had.
 
Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Also, some people aren't fans of the sound of the EAX effects. Dolby Digital Live does seem to be a very nice sounding thing, and I've seen some people say their games have never sounded better.
Click to expand...

I think your wording is adding more confusion to the mix here. Dolby Digital Live isn't gonna change the sound in the way EAX will--reverbs and EQing. DDL might change the sound from compression, but that's different from EQing and is not an *intended* change, though to some it might sound better than uncompressed.
 
Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Here's how I see it:

First of all, what PurdueRy was getting at with distance is that if its farther than probably 6 ft or so, you'll most likely be better off with the DDL capable cards, as you could just use a digital optical (or coaxial) cable to transfer the signal. With the Creative card you'd want to hook it up using the 5.1 analog in on your reciever (if you were to get an adapter and do optical or coaxial from the X-Fi, you'll lose all of its processing capabilities, it will just pass the signal to your reciever to handle), which will effectively just use your reciever as an amplifier to power the speakers. A long distance with analog could degrade the signal more, and just be more of a pain dealing with 6 wires instead of one.

While the X-Fi processing audio will offer better framerates than the other cards, I believe that using EAX effects uses some overhead on the CPU, and so you might need to see if they're about even. I think you have it wrong about the CPU doing all the Audio processing when not using Creative hardware. Seems to me that most games I remember there being an option for hardware support, and then a different option to enable the EAX stuff.

Also, some people aren't fans of the sound of the EAX effects. Dolby Digital Live does seem to be a very nice sounding thing, and I've seen some people say their games have never sounded better.

Keep in mind that, quite a bit of companies are actually into putting their own software audio processing into games (HL2/Source and Doom3 and its engine being two pretty popular ones) now. I don't know what's planned for Unreal Engine 3.0 or Crysis. Either way, DDL will probably always sound good, while EAX might not even be an option for the game. Just something to think about.

I'm sure PurdueRy will point out any stupid thoughts I had.
Click to expand...

Now why would I do that? 😛

You hit the nail on the head for where I was going with this. IMO if you have a receiver you definitely should take a look at DDL or DTS interactive cards. Its just so much simpler and a much nicer and less troublesome connection. Plus, as you said, many people say their system has never sounded better.

But ya, Darkswordsman pretty much covered everything I would have. So, based of this, decide what card is good for you.
 
Originally posted by: Astrallite
Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Also, some people aren't fans of the sound of the EAX effects. Dolby Digital Live does seem to be a very nice sounding thing, and I've seen some people say their games have never sounded better.
Click to expand...

I think your wording is adding more confusion to the mix here. Dolby Digital Live isn't gonna change the sound in the way EAX will--reverbs and EQing. DDL might change the sound from compression, but that's different from EQing and is not an *intended* change, though to some it might sound better than uncompressed.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's how it meant it to be taken. I think he meant that its just an easier connection that many people say sounds great on their receiver when in use.
 
Originally posted by: Astrallite
I really wish I had your ability to pull such specific meaning out of a nebulous statement =P
Click to expand...

::shrug:: its just how I read it, I could be wrong. I am sure he will clarify 😉
 
I'm actually not sure exactly how far the PC will end up being from the receiver, as the room is still being built and I'm not sure exactly which wall the equipment is all going to sit against.

In any case, I know the advantages/disadvantages concerning the analog or digital interfaces of both cards. I was mainly interested in whether any version of EAX actually supports the positional audio so that the seperation of sounds into the 5.1 discrete channels is done in hardware on an X-Fi or not? I'd imagine no one can really say for sure unless they're a developer with intimate and perhaps insider knowledge of the X-Fi's innards.

Per my example, Dreamfall has a "5.1 (Software)" option, but it also has "EAX 3" and "EAX 4" options. While the EAX options don't say it explicitly I'm sure setting the game to use either would still cause it to output in 5.1, I was just curious as to whether there would actually be any difference in how two cards handle that (is the positional portion of the sound production partitioned off and computed seperately prior to the calculation of EAX-based occlusion and reverb effects?) One would think they'd have to be done concurrently almost since you have to know where the sound is coming from to determine what occlusions and reverb apply to it, though perhaps knowing that information to do the EAX is handled seperately from knowing that information and using it to determine what gets played on which channel in a 5.1 system.

I guess my question is more technical rather than a "which sound card" should I buy kind of question.
 
Originally posted by: PurdueRy
Originally posted by: Astrallite
Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Also, some people aren't fans of the sound of the EAX effects. Dolby Digital Live does seem to be a very nice sounding thing, and I've seen some people say their games have never sounded better.
Click to expand...

I think your wording is adding more confusion to the mix here. Dolby Digital Live isn't gonna change the sound in the way EAX will--reverbs and EQing. DDL might change the sound from compression, but that's different from EQing and is not an *intended* change, though to some it might sound better than uncompressed.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's how it meant it to be taken. I think he meant that its just an easier connection that many people say sounds great on their receiver when in use.
Click to expand...

You're correct that I didn't mean for it to sound like they were the same thing. Glad you clarified that they weren't. I was just trying to compare them as far as what I've gathered people feeling about the sound quality. Some people say that turning EAX on causes things to sound funny (weird echoes and things that don't necessarily sound right based on what you're seeing onscreen). DDL and DTS Connect are wholly different, but by and large people are very happy with how it makes things sound.
 
Originally posted by: teiresias
I'm actually not sure exactly how far the PC will end up being from the receiver, as the room is still being built and I'm not sure exactly which wall the equipment is all going to sit against.

In any case, I know the advantages/disadvantages concerning the analog or digital interfaces of both cards. I was mainly interested in whether any version of EAX actually supports the positional audio so that the seperation of sounds into the 5.1 discrete channels is done in hardware on an X-Fi or not? I'd imagine no one can really say for sure unless they're a developer with intimate and perhaps insider knowledge of the X-Fi's innards.

Per my example, Dreamfall has a "5.1 (Software)" option, but it also has "EAX 3" and "EAX 4" options. While the EAX options don't say it explicitly I'm sure setting the game to use either would still cause it to output in 5.1, I was just curious as to whether there would actually be any difference in how two cards handle that (is the positional portion of the sound production partitioned off and computed seperately prior to the calculation of EAX-based occlusion and reverb effects?) One would think they'd have to be done concurrently almost since you have to know where the sound is coming from to determine what occlusions and reverb apply to it, though perhaps knowing that information to do the EAX is handled seperately from knowing that information and using it to determine what gets played on which channel in a 5.1 system.

I guess my question is more technical rather than a "which sound card" should I buy kind of question.
Click to expand...

Ok, I see what you're trying to find out.

I do believe that as far as sound effects, including the different channels, that the game would be giving both cards effectively the same data. If you turned EAX on, it would then take what the game starts out with and add the other effects, which in turn can also alter the sound after that (so echoes off of buildings or say when going through a tunnel), and thus the sounds will actually be different. It would then determine the positioning of the sounds and send them to the corresponding channels (so for instance the doppler affect, and whatnot).

So, basically, I think for baseline sound, they do effectively utilize the same data, as thats determined by the game (hence why you won't find a game that would require you to use EAX affects). The EAX are kinda after the fact, and so while they do add some, its not necessarily totally different from what the other card would be processing.

I think that EAX is actually mostly software, but because Creative knows how it works exactly, that they design their hardware to handle the sound properly. As far as I know, the only reason that sound chips/cards don't support the newer EAX stuff (most chips support up to EAX 2.0 I believe, but you'd be hard pressed to find any fairly recent game that used that) is because they would have to pay excessive royalties to Creative, and possibly be forced to sign some sort of a contract where Creative gets to dictate things that companies wouldn't be willing to allow. I can't say for sure as I don't work for Creative or know enough about their inner-workings to say.

One reason I say that it seems to be largely software, is that if you remember back when Doom 3 was coming out and there was a big thing about id and Creative, where the audio processing that Carmack had built into the game actually resembled things that Creative patented, and so they threatened to sue them, which would have caused the game to be delayed even further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top