Hello, just a question about the new Creative Audigy cards... are they able to playback the 24-bit audio that MAD produces. I think I'd be be willing to pick one up (the Value OEM is only 110 Canadian $$s) if it could pass the MAD plug-in for WinAMP output out it's SPDIF at 24-bit.
thanks, MAtt
Problem is, although the card accepts 24-bit in and out it's processed at 16bit. AFAIK there's no way to bypass this since you're just passing through data (no need to convert to analogue). Also, you may not be able to get 24-bit working if you use NT (NT4/2000/XP).
Otherwise the Audigy is a good buy, particularly as it doesn't have the same problems with VIA motherboards as the Live does.
Geoff
----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Makauskas" mattmak@home.com To: mad-user@lists.mars.org Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2001 2:33 PM Subject: [mad-user] Audigy
Hello, just a question about the new Creative Audigy cards... are they able to
playback the 24-bit audio that MAD produces. I think I'd be be willing to pick one up (the Value OEM is only 110 Canadian $$s) if it could pass the MAD plug-in for WinAMP output out it's SPDIF at 24-bit.
thanks, MAtt
The Audigy is NOT a 24/96 bit card. Neither does it sport the promised 100db SNR Creative labs is touting (85db with a stiff tailwind is more like it). It's basically a Live! on steroids. In short, save your money.
Roj
----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Makauskas" mattmak@home.com To: mad-user@lists.mars.org Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 10:33 PM Subject: [mad-user] Audigy
Hello, just a question about the new Creative Audigy cards... are they able to
playback the 24-bit audio that MAD produces. I think I'd be be willing to pick one up (the Value OEM is only 110 Canadian $$s) if it could pass the MAD plug-in for WinAMP output out it's SPDIF at 24-bit.
thanks, MAtt
Not only that, but of course you get Creative's LOVELY driver support. They've been stringing along around us musicians for YEARS with false promises. No thanks. I am very happy with my Terratec EWX 24/96 (www.terratec.net). Also I've heard the M-Audio Audiophile 24/96 (www.m-audio.com) is an excellent card as well. I still have my Live! in my system, but only use it for Windows sounds, and some games. I will never buy another Creative soundcard again, I'm done with them.
George Pantazopoulos
The Audigy is NOT a 24/96 bit card. Neither does it sport the promised 100db SNR Creative labs is touting (85db with a stiff tailwind is more like it). It's basically a Live! on steroids. In short, save your money.
Roj
I agree with George, and the sound quality on the more expensive sound cards is well worth the additional investment. I have a 24/96 Echo Mia, and it just humbles my Sound Blaster in the sound quality department.
The SB Live is nice for games though :)
John
----- Original Message ----- From: "George Pantazopoulos" themaxx@mediaone.net To: mad-user@lists.mars.org Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2001 9:51 AM Subject: Re: [mad-user] Audigy
Not only that, but of course you get Creative's LOVELY driversupport. They've been stringing along around us musicians for YEARS with false promises. No thanks. I am very happy with my Terratec EWX 24/96 (www.terratec.net). Also I've heard the M-Audio Audiophile 24/96 (www.m-audio.com) is an excellent card as well. I still have my Live! in
my
system, but only use it for Windows sounds, and some games. I will never buy another Creative soundcard again, I'm done with them.
George Pantazopoulos
The Audigy is NOT a 24/96 bit card. Neither does it sport the promised 100db SNR Creative labs is touting (85db with a stiff tailwind is more
like
it). It's basically a Live! on steroids. In short, save your money.
Roj
Hi, I've been normalising every track I've encoded to 93% to prevent the clipping messages in MAD. Now I know that some albums even clip at this setting, but 95% don't. However, I was encoding an album today "Yoshinori Sunahara - PAM AM Sound Of 70's" which I had to take right down to 78% before the latest MAD plug-in would count zero clipped samples. Can this really be right? Can someone explain how the filtering process can make such a large difference? Cheers.
Mark Powell - UNIX System Administrator - The University of Salford Academic Information Services, Clifford Whitworth Building, Salford University, Manchester, M5 4WT, UK. Tel: +44 161 295 5936 Fax: +44 161 295 5888 www.pgp.com for PGP key
--- Mark Powell M.S.Powell@salford.ac.uk wrote:
... However, I was encoding an album today "Yoshinori Sunahara
- PAM AM Sound Of 70's" which I had to take right down to 78%
before the latest MAD plug-in would count zero clipped samples.
Having to throw away 20% of the original resolution before you start is indeed not good... :-(
Its really an encoder problem though rather than a decoder issue though - MAD simply highlights the issue.
Which encoder are you using ??
Andre --
____________________________________________________________ Nokia Game is on again. Go to http://uk.yahoo.com/nokiagame/ and join the new all media adventure before November 3rd.
On Tue, 30 Oct 2001, Andre wrote:
Having to throw away 20% of the original resolution before you start is indeed not good... :-(
Its really an encoder problem though rather than a decoder issue though - MAD simply highlights the issue.
Yeah, I know it's not MAD's problem, but I thought this was rather a lot of the original resolution to be losing.
Which encoder are you using ??
Lame v3.90 alpha 7 with options "--r3mix --scale 1" (the latter to turn off the usual r3mix --scale 0.98). Cheers.
Mark Powell - UNIX System Administrator - The University of Salford Academic Information Services, Clifford Whitworth Building, Salford University, Manchester, M5 4WT, UK. Tel: +44 161 295 5936 Fax: +44 161 295 5888 www.pgp.com for PGP key
Mark Powell wrote:
I've been normalising every track I've encoded to 93% to prevent the clipping messages in MAD. Now I know that some albums even clip at this setting, but 95% don't. However, I was encoding an album today "Yoshinori Sunahara - PAM AM Sound Of 70's" which I had to take right down to 78% before the latest MAD plug-in would count zero clipped samples. Can this really be right? Can someone explain how the filtering process can make such a large difference?
You've probably been on this list long enough to recall the clipping thread, but in case not, start here:
http://www.mars.org/mailman/public/mad-user/2001-February/000111.html
There's also some good info here:
A reduction of overall amplitude to 78% works out to be only about -2.2 dB, which really isn't an excessive amount of attenuation. In fact it's probably about par to avoid clipping in a lot of heavily compressed music these days.
Cheers,
-
Andre -
Geoff -
George Pantazopoulos -
John van Ommen -
Mark Powell -
Matt Makauskas -
Rob Leslie -
Roj