Meadows wrote:Barely anything uses 24-bit audio. You don't need to accelerate what doesn't exist.
Sure it's rare, but it is something that the X-FI can do over the audigy, provided that developers support it.
I definitely can see audio moving towards 24-bit in the future, nothing wrong with supporting it now.
Meadows wrote:Nothing uses 128 channels, barely anything uses more than 64. You don't need to accelerate what doesn't exist.
More future proofing. I'm sure some games do use it though. Not 100% of the time, but peak effects could hit upper 90's, optimistically 100's.
Meadows wrote:No game uses X-RAM, and those sound cards even had some severe driver issues prohibiting normal usage in the past. You can't accelerate that which doesn't need to be.
Actually you couldn't be more wrong.
Every game using hardware acceleration automatically uses it.
If the game doesn't specify a use for it, the driver will automatically cache sound effects into ram.
Specifically coding for it supposedly offers a greater performance advantage over generically caching stuff.
UT3 was indeed notorious for sound problems, however it supposedly was also their fault.
The demo worked fine, but the retail version changed something and as a result, failed miserably.
A workaround was posted on the UT forums about swapping the UT dll for a dll from blacksite area 51, which I did and it worked.
I haven't checked, but the latest game patch and x-fi driver should have fixed it.
Why do you care so much about it anyway? You don't even own the card.
Meadows wrote:With the majority of users being content with onboard sound, good luck finding someone average who's genuinely bothered by sampling rate intricacies.
All differences can be described in software. You are ridiculous.
How about a crap load of audigy users.
A lot of them were
bothered by it.
Meadows wrote:That's the most boneheaded comment I've seen in my entire life. When faced with no odds, against millions of PC gamers who think onboard sound is most certainly good enough for games, you claim that a more expensive alternative is all but outright unacceptable. In my opinion, the Xonar is better for gaming than anything else you could get today or in the foreseeable future.
No, this is the most boneheaded, and paradoxical comment I've seen in my entire life.
You just get through saying how good onboard is, how useless 24 bit sound is, how pointless good sample rate conversion is, and turn right around and endorse the Xonar.
If you truly didn't care, you'd be endorsing onboard.
Obvious troll is obvious. (insert standard "Obvious troll is obvious" pic here)
The Xonar may be great for people boycotting creative, and casual audiophiles, but stubborn and loyal game players will still buy creative, as there currently is no worthy substitute.