X-Fi Fatality Optical out/Surround

[Skrying]

s/good/accurate. One is a subjective quality, the other is not. It's the same reason many like Koss headphones. They think they sound good. On the other hand, they tend to 'colour' the sound, so they're not accurate.

Every headphone colors the music in some type. You'd have to search very far and wide to find a near flat headphone. Sennheiser has a veil at top with base emphasis, Beyerdynamic often lacks bass, Grado is very bright, many Sony's are bright, AKG is close to to neutral but lacks bass. Bose (yuck) has only one note of bass.

Koss is actually not a bad headphone manufacturer, their KSC 75 is often highly praised in audiophile circles, those same circles who argue over if EQ is right or wrong. Their A250 is a highly analytical can. Their Portapro is praised and many like the UR40.

Audio quality is subjective, but there are certain things I believe all headphones or sources should have. Detail, impact, sound stage, and clearity. The X-Fi lacks detail and sounds a bit muddy.

But, audio is audio, and opinions will always vary.

 

[Zaphod]

Every headphone colors the music in some type. You'd have to search very far and wide to find a near flat headphone.

Sure, but that's exactly my point. A high quality DAC and playback equipment with an even frequency response will give an accurate representation of what was recorded. However, many people like their music distorted to hell and back with various DSP tricks so [edit: for them] it doesn't matter much then if the DAC is accurate. Good is subjective. I didn't mention Koss because they're bad, rather because 'audiophiles' have argued ferociously for over 20 years whether the PortaPros are 'good' or not.

 

[willardjuice]

So I wrote this whole long post out and then I hit "control-R" instread of "shift-R" by mistake and my page got reloaded.

Basically most of what Skrying is incorrect (save the Crystalizer, but that whole reply to Guden Oden was disgusting); I'll explain tomorrow since I don't have the time right now.

And Zaphod please don't argue that DSP tricks are better than better DAC's; that is hardly true. Don't worry though, there are other reasons why X-Fi's still have decent audio playback.

 

[Skrying]

Looking forward to it.

 

[Zaphod]

And Zaphod please don't argue that DSP tricks are better than better DAC's.

Did I? Damn, I could have fooled me, as I was pretty sure that I didn't. Thanks for pointing that out!

 

[Guden Oden]

And Zaphod please don't argue that DSP tricks are better than better DAC's; that is hardly true.

Neither is the opposite, I'd say. 'DSP tricks' are better than DACs if it leads to sound that I enjoy more than the other alternative.

So you ask yourself, better, as defined how? There's no one definitive rule here, just as there's no way you could say 'don't argue that green is better than yellow; that's hardly true'.

One may easily argue that the X-Fi for example - being a very DSP-centric product - does not sound as good as card X, due to the DACs or such, but will I really notice the difference on my not particulary impressive audio system (a Logitech Z680)? Will I still notice the difference and enjoy it in ordinary day-to-day useage, weeks or months after the switch without having the previous sound card to compare with? Seriously, I don't think so.

I just don't believe in audio quality being that tangible.