-BirdiE-

3 hours ago, benjaminr said:

WHAT IS YOUR OPINION FOR DT990 Pro? is it worth to buy for gaming and music?

someone told me The dt880 premium, in particular, clamps less and is more comfortable has less bass and less treble and is thus more balanced sounding as opposed to being a harsh V shape like dt990 pro

do you agree or disagree?

SOMEONE TOLD ME THAT DT880 It's more balanced sounding, and doesn't have treble that hurts your ears like dt990?>

WHY MOST PEOPLE HATE THE DT990 PRO FOR THE treble ??

why most people say that the dt880 pro are better from dt990 pro?

 

what rate you would put for the music which i hear? trance, house, psy trance, techno, deep house, chill out,, drumerbase,, uplifting trance?.. techno trance, electro,dubstep, trap,hardstyle?

what rate you would put for 0 to 10?

HOW MUCH YOU WOULD RATE THE DT990 PRO FOR gaming ?_ 

Check out AKG K612 on Amazon UK. Can get it for just over $100 USD all-in, and is every bit as good as the DT 880 IMO (I own both, and I like K612 slightly better).

3 hours ago, benjaminr said:

i dont  agree   a lot of people  are  using  tt990 pro  for  gaming and electronic music  my  friend

Lots of people using Beats for electronic music.

Confirmed good.

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Sorry - why would you need a headphone amp? If his headphones work fine on, say, onboard audio (which the vast majority doesn't have a headphone amp), it should work fine here as well.

I remember when I knew nothing about audio....

Go try plugging 103 dB/V headphones into the RCA outs of a DAC. Let me know how that goes for you.

35 minutes ago, RobbinM said:

The rating means the amplifier is set up to work the best with headphones of 24 ohm (1st amp) or 470 ohm (2nd amp).

The first amp will not see a lot of load with your headphones so it will have to up the voltage a lot to make current flow (which it doesn't want to do).

The second amp will see about half of the load (resisance) it is capable of at max output.

 

To show the difference of how the difference in output load setup translates to actual loudness:

The first amp can handle more than 10 of your headphones at the same time in parallel,

the second can handle two of your headphones in parallel.

If both amps output the exact same power, the one that is set up to handle two headphones at the same time only will have the higher voltage on the line, so that will be louder.

 

But because the power spec is not given in watts, but in volts, it makes a difficult read.

The second amp will have more control over the headphones because of the impedance matching more.

Yeah... None of this is accurate...

2 hours ago, kelvinhall05 said:

Because $60 for PART of a 20+-year-old headset is too much for me (yes, I know, I'm cheap).

HD 580 is going to be better than anything you'll get for $50-100

On 6/23/2018 at 9:02 AM, kelvinhall05 said:

I'd like to spend under $50, but if I have to spend a hundred to get a good, budget set of headphones I may consider it.

On 6/24/2018 at 8:32 AM, xtroria said:

I would just contact sennheiser and see if they sell replacement for one driver

On 6/24/2018 at 8:34 AM, kelvinhall05 said:

I read on some forums and whatnot that they do...for $60 A POP. That's way too much for me, IMO.

I don't get it... If you're willing to spend up to $100 to get a good budget set of headphones, why wouldn't you be willing to spend $60 to get your HD 580 working again?

On 5/22/2018 at 12:19 PM, dalekphalm said:

Plus, many investments, even in companies, don't give any shares or ownership. Many investments in companies are cash only injections. Granted, they still typically make a percentage return (hopefully) on their investment.

 

That's why I said Kickstarter is a bad investment, because you don't get a percentage return. You get (at best), the product you helped fund, plus some extra thing as a bonus.

Again, an investment is where you put in money in hopes to receive a gain in monetary value. This does not describe kickstarter.

38 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Kickstarter is an investment. It's a bad investment, but it's still an investment. You're not pre-ordering a product, because in most cases, there is no product yet. You're pre-ordering the idea of a product.

I mean, if we want to play it that way technically everything you spend money or time on is an investment. Buying a banana is an investment. Going to the gym is an investment.

But in normal financial terms, an investment is something that you purchase in hopes that it appreciates in monetary value. If you invest in a start-up company you take the risk that you lose money in hopes that the company, and thus your share in the company, appreciates in value and you net a return on your money. Purchasing a product, or even pre-ordering a product, would not be considered an investment in financial terms.

2 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

3 hours ago, Technicolors said:

no refund is unacceptable 

I don't think so, kickstarter is clearly a funding mechanism to gain money to finish developing and to release a product. but like any start up their is a high risk of failure. The people that pay should of know this, they should of been ok with the idea of losing the money and not getting anything out of it, other wise don't fund this kickstarter. If you really wanted to product then wait for it to release and buy it then, it you don't want the risk of losing money.

The problem with looking at it as an investment is that when people invest in risky start ups, it's for a percentage ownership in the company. You're assuming risk, but you also have the potential for reward beyond your initial investment. Also, if the company later on realizes their business model is not feasible, all remaining assets are split by the investors. In this case it looks like they took the unspent money, took the assets, and ran. Pre-purchasing with only the potential for loss is not the same thing as investing.

With that being said, I agree that people paying for things like this on Kickstarter are silly if they get upset. It's a broken platform. There are little to no controls to hold the start up accountable, so you should very much consider it lost money if you buy in.

6 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

And my first pick of course depends on your budget.

What would you recommend for something like HD 650s without it being overkill? I'm not overly price sensitive, but I'd like to avoid spending unnecessarily.

12 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

Nope wouldn’t be my first pick.

So it wouldn't be your first pick, or it won't be powerful enough?

I mean, I'm all for getting a new DAC and AMP if I need to, but is it really going to be worth spending $200 to switch when this one was already more expensive to begin with?

2 minutes ago, Max_Settings said:

Nope wouldn’t be my first pick. What’s your budget for a DAC/Amp?

Don't have a set budget. What should I be looking for?

I originally picked this one because I didn't have super high end headphones, and it supported me wiring my speakers to them, so I could use it for my non-headphone audio as well.

Hey Audiophiles,

I've been itching to hop on the 6XX drop for a while now, and finally did this time around. Previously I had bought the TEAC AI-101d to go along with my current headphones, but now that I'm looking at the specs it's showing "100mW + 100mW (with 32 ohms load, 1kHz)" while the impedance of the 6XXs is 300 ohms. Do you think my DAC/AMP is going to be powerful enough to drive these well?

1 hour ago, Captain Chaos said:

Nah, Nvidia rigs just don't run that hot.  Mine are both in cases and I'm seeing temps in the high 50s and low 60s during mining. 

  Reveal hidden contents

Main rig, mining on both cards during normal use, only mining on the 1070 when I'm gaming on the 1080Ti..
Built inside a Define R5.  Dual 140mm intakes in the front, 140mm intake in the side, 140mm exhaust in the rear and 140mm exhaust in the top (rear-most moduvent removed).  There's 1.5 slots between the cards (the 1080Ti is a 2.5 slot card), the 1070 is mounted right above the PSU so it doesn't get as much air as I would like.

 

 


My old rig, mining 24/7 on all 3 cards
Built inside a HAF X, using only the 200mm intake fan on the side panel.  The rest of the fans are disconnected because they didn't affect the temps in any way.
The 1070s are plugged straight into the MoBo with 1 slot between them, the 1060 is hanging inside the 5.25" bays and connected via a riser card.

All fans on both rigs are either at 5V or coupled to the CPU temp, in which case they're at idle until the CPU hits 50°C

 

Pretty sure I could drop the temps by several °C if I were to put the cards in an open rack with a couple of 200mm fans blowing cold air onto them

No point man. He's either a troll or a fanboy. Either way, reasoning won't help.

17 minutes ago, SC2Mitch said:

Can't wait for these GPU's to replace Nvidia's furnaces  

You know AMD cards have higher TDP than their Nvidia competitors, right?

I'm not "for" either company, but specifically calling out Nvidia makes you look like a monster fanboy.

Plus... Intel is no better than Nvidia. If anything, they're worse. Look at Intel when AMD wasn't competitive. like... 3% performance increase per generation, and stuck on 4 cores with their consumer chips for almost 10 years

21 minutes ago, leadeater said:

There are games that use UE4 and TressFX, most of these are just libraries that you can choose to include that supplements existing tools. That's all GameWorks is, a bunch of libraries that includes code for different effects which makes it easier for developers to implement those effects without having to worry too deeply about the underlying code.

If that's the case, I understand the frustration... As long as it's aimed at the developers for taking the "easy route" and not at Nvidia for simply making a tool available for people to use.

15 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Because it's not hard, it's basically changing a default parameter. Not that there is evidence but if it was true that Nvidia has crafted GameWorks to hinder AMD then that is anti-competitive and could illegal, so I think it's more a case of not giving a damn.

Do you have any evidence to suggest it's not hard? (seriously asking). If I'm Nvidia, I can't think of a single reason I'd put forth any effort whatsoever to make it run well on AMD cards.

Even if Nvidia were to artificially hinder AMD cards with their tools, that wouldn't be illegal. Now, if Nvidia was artificially hindering AMD cards in GameWorks and ALSO paying developers to use it, that could be anti-competitive and illegal... But I don't feel like going down that speculative rabbit hole right now.

Plus, you never know... You'd expect paying developers to not develop their games for other platforms would be illegal... But it's apparently not.

18 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Edit:

I think you are still ignoring the point the GameWorks doesn't have to negatively impact AMD hardware as much as it does, Option C is fix GameWorks which is NOT hard for Nvidia but impossible for AMD

I'm just not sure why it would make any sense for Nvidia to spend resources optimizing their software for their competition...

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It's much more likely that if no GameWorks was used similar effects would be implemented by the game developer so GameWorks off would look worse in this hypothetical example. 

I don't know that that's true. The average developer using UE4, or Frostbite 2 is not going to alter the engine to render things differently... Unless they also created the engine... But then it would be built right into the engine, and not managed on a game-by-game basis.

At least those are my suspicions. But then again, I'm not super familiar with game development so there's always the possibility that I have no idea what I'm talking about.

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It doesn't, that's the issue. You can have it on and get the visual improvement at the performance cost which is vastly greater on AMD hardware or you can turn it off and get a visual reduction. You can't have both like you are saying.

 

You can say it's not worth the performance loss but the settings on and off produce different output on to the screen.

You're comparing the wrong things. Obviously by turning it off you get a reduction in graphical fidelity, but it's not a reduction compared to the developer not including game works at all.

Let's use numerical values as representations...

Option A)

The developer doesn't incorporate GameWorks into their game. Their game has a graphics value of 8, and a performance value of 10.

Option B)

The developer incorporates GameWorks into their game. With GW turned on the graphics value is 10, but the performance for new Nvidia cards is 8, and AMD cards it's 5. By turning off GameWorks, it's the same as not incorporating it at all with a graphics value of 8, and a performance value of 10.

By including game works you simply give people the OPTION to make the tradeoff. If they decide the tradeoff is not worth it, then they're no worse off than they would have been if GameWorks was not incorporated.

It would be illogical to say that consumers are BETTER off with GameWorks not included.

18 minutes ago, Derangel said:

Why do you assume its either or? What I'd rather they do is actually address the problems so it makes Gameworks more viable.

I mean, ideally that would be great...

I think we all realize that in every situation it would be ideal for companies to make their products better...

But clearly right now Nvidia doesn't have the capability, or doesn't feel it would be worth the investment. As a consumer, it is your right to express your displeasure, but as a company it's their right to produce whatever product they want. 

Personally, I'd argue that you don't have much ground to stand on seeing as there's no other companies offering a better solution, and it's affecting you in no way... But that's merely my opinion, and you have just as much right to yours as I do to mine.

Additionally, I was more addressing the people that were upset it was included at all because it didn't run well on their AMD card... and would rather see it cut out because they can't take advantage of it.

9 minutes ago, Derangel said:

No, turning them off IGNORES the problem. It doesn't solve jack shit. I brought up exactly why Gameworks is problematic. Its not my fault if you refuse to actually pay attention.

So you'd rather them just not include anything? Why? What difference does it make?

If turning off GameWorks grants me the same performance and graphical fidelity that not including at all does, then the presence of GameWorks in a game has no affect on my experience... That's not ignoring a problem, that's identifying that it's not a problem.

You seem to be implying that there's some bigger problem, but have yet to state what this problem is.

1 minute ago, Derangel said:

So you'd rather stuff your head in the sand and pretend its not a problem?

If turning off the GameWorks features solves the problems.... I'm just not sure why Nvidia adding in optional features that affect you in no way is a problem.

Maybe I'm missing something, but you certainly haven't brought it up yet.

6 minutes ago, Derangel said:

The biggest problems with Gameworks are two fold:

 

1. AMD is not allowed to look at code for it so they cannot assist in optimization, leaving everything up to the developer. This is a bad approach. Game code is a mess as is, developers are not good at optimization. AMD and Nvidia drivers are so insanely complex and big these days due to trying to fix the already messy code involved with video games and without AMD being able to look at Gameworks code they cannot create drivers to fix performance problems.

 

2. Gameworks features sometimes get implement in ways that serve no purpose other than killing performance. 16x tessellation is useless. 6x or 8x would have the same visual effect for much less cost. Rendering Gameworks effects on elements the player cannot see is also a pointless waste of resources (not a problem unique to this benchmark). Gameworks is implemented so poorly a lot of times that even on Nvidia hardware its not even remotely worth the performance cost.

Does turning off GameWorks features not solve this?

I really don't understand what the issue with GameWorks is....

Does GameWorks run poorly on your hardware? Cool. Turn it off. Problem solved.

I don't see why someone else having something you don't have is an issue if it doesn't affect your own experience in any way.

For example: If they didn't include HairWorks, the game would still look exactly the same as if you just turned it off.

This Post: "Someone said something mildly rude on twitter and I don't like it!"

OMG! WHO CARES?