SB Audigy2 ZS -VS- SB Audigy4

To simulate binaural sound on a sound card you need head-related transfer functions, which are standard fare on any modern soundcard (with all their normal limitations).
What you describe as 'standard fare' is either the crap positioning you could get from DS3D or third party middleware. HRTF have been anything but standard fare as far as soudcards go since Aureal went belly-up and Creative also bought the other game in town providing algorithms to its competitors (Sensaura). In that sense, the X-Fi actually moved things froward again, after CL having let their HRTF-tech rot in a basement over the past five years while milking the Audigy/2/4. Too bad for them that both the market and developers had grown tired with them being the only game in town over the interim and turned towards discrete multichannel for gaming. And as for 'normal limitations': Had there been competition, I'm convinced that '3D sound' would be far further along than it is.
 
I'm not convinced there's much of a market for sound cards, honestly. I think Creative has been struggling to survive (notice all of that diversification?) Aureal didn't die just because Creative sued them. Lots of sound card makers and chip developers have come and gone (died off or went to other markets). ESS chips, Philips cards/chips (Tbird), Hercules/Guillemot cards, VIA (Envy doesn't seem to be making them big bucks). Creative buys out struggling/failing competition just like any other company would. Like, say, NVIDIA did after they sued near-dead 3dfx. Heh.

All those Aureal cards had going for them was excellent 2D audio positioning and spatialization. And low host overhead, which actually mattered back then. Their MIDI quality sucked. They were absolutely not usable as any sort of pro-audio solution. Their analog output quality wasn't very good either. But they were fun for some games, but only a few really used A3D 2.0.
 
Back
Top