Search the Community

I use a logitech 5.1 speaker system paired with another logitech 2.1 speaker system to achieve 7.1 audio on my z77a-g45 motherboard. With both speaker systems there are 4 plugs total. Would I be able to use my current setup to achieve 7.1 with this sound card?

Hello, im wondering about buying the Asus Xonar U7, but a lack of skills tp finding specs lead to me ask here about them. Does anyone know the output impedance, mA output and mW output of it?

Hi, I'm looking into getting an amp/dac for a pair of headphones that are around 300 Ohms but unsure which amp/dac to get. I've seen a lot of people on various forums mention Asus Xonar... so I had a look. Now I see there are PCI-E cards and there are ones that are outside the case like https://www.amazon.ca/ASUS-Xonar-U7-Sound-Card/dp/B00E7QA9E0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1478563765&sr=8-1&keywords=asus+xonar . I think the ones outside the PC would be better right because of interference issues? The only thing is, what else should I be looking for when choosing an amp/dac? Why Asus Xonar over something else like the FiiO or Objective2?

Hello everyone, I ran into small problem with my onboard soundcard and now I'm considering external usb soundcard, but have no experience with them. I use Hyper X cloud 2 headset which has its own soundcard but Mic on it isn't very good. So I tried my old Zalman Mic1 and it turns out that it records way worse than on my laptop and gives of lots of static noise. I used front panel since at the back panel is hooked logitech z506 5.1 speakers that takes all 3 jacks. Thus I started to wonder, if onboard soundcard messes up such simple mic, does my motherboard affect speakers as well? So now I'm considering buying soundcard. I have very large MSI r9 390 graphics card and so internal card is not an option. Soundcards that I'm considering are: Creative Sound Blaster Omni Surround 5.1 ASUS Xonar U7 MKII 7.1 Omni is way cheaper but people tend to prise xonar name more. I could hook up my speakers to both of them and maybe even use Hyper X with them instead of a dongle. If anyone who has some experience with soundcards could put me on the right track I would really appreciate that. Thanks

After upgrading to my Ryzen build and leaving my PCI based ASUS Xonar Essense ST in my other build, I am not going to lie, I really miss the controls and sound it provided me. While the Supreme FX on the board I have is decent, I can notice the overall drop in audio quality in comparison. I am tempted to get the STX II, drop it into one of my free PCI-E 16X slots (or migrate my Elgato HD60Pro into one of them) and call it a day. Should I even care about the 8X PCI-E bandwidth to my graphics card slot? Should I look at the Schitt stack instead? I run AKG 7XXs currently, and may even treat myself to a different pair depending on what I want to listen to. However, gaming wise, the Supreme FX is pretty solid with these headphones for sure. What do you guys think? Thanks!

What is the sound card with the lowest objective latency over DirectSound? For reference, Realtek onboard audio and HDMI passthrough (on my hardware, at least) have around 30ms of latency, the Audigy Rx has around 45ms latency, and the STX II has 70ms latency. This low latency sound card I am looking for doesn't have to have any impressive specs like high SNR, EMI shielding, 600Ω headphone amp, 7.1 surround sound, ASIO, or 192/24 audio, but those things would be nice to have. All I want it to have is lower than 30ms of latency; the closer to 10ms latency, the better. Mind you, I am only looking for impressive numbers over DirectSound, not ASIO or WASAPI. Most, if not all, sound cards can achieve ultralow latency over ASIO, but there are no [rhythm] games that use ASIO that I know of. *cough* osu! *cough* This unicorn sound card or audio interface can be PCIe or USB, but not PCI, as modern motherboards don't have support for the antiquated PCI slot. Time to go from X99 to X79, amirite? Though, if you do find a low latency solution that is only available on PCI, I'll take it. Just say it won't work on my computer so I won't get too excited. TL;DR: Lowest latency sound card over DirectSound, less than 30ms.

Is it worth the change from Asus Xonar DGX to Asus Xonar Essence STX? Xonar DGX is bang for the buck card, and i see STX being high end card but is it worth to buy it? or will i be dissapointed with the purchase?

Hi, I'm using Ubuntu 16.04 and last couple of hours looks like my Xonar D1 can get the input microphone but doesn't send output audio to my headphones. I'm currently using them on the mobo audio connectors and work ok; is there a way I can be sure that the card is "partially dead"? I have had it for 6+ years now... Thanks!

I’m a recent fan of Linus Tech Tips. I stumbled across LTT while researching sound cards a few months ago, and I’ve since watched much of the back catalogue of entertaining and informative videos. I’m especially fond of the videos that investigate the real-world impact of theoretical features like memory speed and many CPU cores. Unfortunately, my main question has not been answered in any LTT video, or anywhere else that I could find: is there an integrated or USB sound device that has good headphone virtual surround, that works well in games. I have seen the LTT/Techquicky video entitled Virtual Surround as Fast As Possible, but the focus is on home theatre equipment, and headphone virtual surround is not mentioned. By headphone virtual surround, I mean accurate simulation of positional surround sound on headphones. I wish to make a clear distinction between accurate virtual surround and accurate audio reproduction. I don’t advocate the use of virtual surround when listening to music. Virtual surround is a trade-off between sound quality and immersion, best suited for gaming. It may also suit movies with surround sound tracks but I have not investigated this. Despite many hours of searching I haven’t found a reputable source of substantive information about virtual surround functionality in audio hardware. I found discussions on forums, but opinions tend towards the consensus that virtual surround has little or no value. Opinions on virtual surround seem to be supported by anecdotal evidence alone. In this absence of evidence, I’ve done own experimentation, including purchasing more sound hardware for comparison. My main motivation for posting this is to stimulate constructive discussion about virtual surround for gaming, and maybe even encourage the creation of expert and professional produced information. At the very least, my research and experimental results may help others. Virtual Surround Works Firstly, proof that headphone virtual surround is real and works. With the assistance of a friend I conducted a blind trial and can provide the following results. The test protocol and configuration is detailed later in this post. Hardware Positional Accuracy1 Avg. Angle Error2 Front/Rear Confusions3 Via HD Audio (control) 50% 45 degrees 4 Sound Blaster X-Fi 81% 25 degrees 2 Sound BlasterX G1 USB 75% 11 degrees 0 ASUS Xonar DGX 81% 8 degrees 0 Positional Accuracy measures how well I could identify the direction of a test sound without seeing the screen. Avg. Angle Error is an average of the angle of difference between my perception and where the sound actually was. Front/Rear Confusion count is the number of times I thought a sound originated from the front when it originated from behind, and vice versa. All the non-control results are better than chance, with only 2 cases where I was not able to correctly identify the front/rear origin. Although there are caveats, which I will get into after detailing the testing protocol, I believe this conclusively proves that I can better perceive the direction of a sound with virtual surround. The X-Fi average angle error was inflated by the two 180-degree front/rear confusions. The Via HD Audio had fewer front/rear confusions than would be expected for pure chance (six expected) due to my guessing strategy. Test Protocol Testing virtual surround is difficult because it’s a subjective experience that’s significantly influenced by visual cues. The goal is to measure the sound hardware’s ability to generate sounds from arbitrary directions that can be accurately perceived. The test protocol should not focus on front/rear position, as virtual surround improves localisation around the sides as well. A test needs to be blind and easily repeatable. While experimenting, I found that it’s important that the environment have only a single sound source, or you will inadvertently train yourself to use other sound sources to “triangulate” the testing source. Other ambient noises and environmental effects must be minimised. After trying several options, I picked the game TOXIKK because it’s free, first person, uses the well-established Unreal Engine with the XAudio2 sound API, and quickly loads into a suitable environment where the player can me moved to a predetermined position. The sound source selected was a waterfall in the Ganesha map. For each test run I stood facing away from the screen with my headphones off. My assistant then oriented the view so that test sound lay in one of eight predetermined directions: front, front right, right, rear right, rear, rear left, left and front left. Once the test source was positioned, I put my headphones on and immediately called out the direction I thought the test sound originates, which was recorded by my assistant. We did this 16 times, twice for each direction. The sequence was randomised so that I had no idea of the test order. I used a pair of Audio Technica ATH-AD700 headphones. After all the results were recorded, the number of correct guesses divided by the total guesses gives the positional accuracy. As there is equal chance a test will be front or rear, anything higher than 50% is better than pure chance. Acclimatisation Period Because of my self-experimentation, I was surprised that my assistant could not localise sounds in virtual surround very accurately, even though her ability to localise real-world sound is easily demonstrable. This suggests the modelling is not accurate enough to simulate reality, or that the experience is unnatural enough to interfere with natural ability. My leading theory is that listening to virtual surround on the X-Fi for the last 9 years has trained me to hear its method of positional audio. I don’t know how long it would take for a listener to acclimatise to virtual surround, and how transferrable the training is to other hardware or software approaches. Final Results My original intention was not to review sound hardware, but in the course of my research I formed some views, which may be useful to others. Subject Sound Blaster X-Fi ASUS Xonar DGX Sound BlasterX G1 USB Via HD Audio (control) Configuration Tricky, but OK once you’re used to it. Initially confusing, but notably flexible. Confusing, with numerous worthless modes. Easy Simulation Immersion focused 7.1 simulation focused Immersion focused None Speaker Model 135-degree side speakers 135-degree side speakers 135-degree side speakers Stereo Accuracy 81% 8% front/rear errors 81% 75% 50% 25% front/rear errors Reverb Low Uncomfortably high at the lowest setting. Medium at the best Surround setting. None Comments Weak in direct front/direct rear positioning, but very clear at the sides. The 7.1 Virtual Speaker option surprisingly useful. Shame about the reverb. Strong front/rear positioning, but somewhat weak around the sides. Very pure sound. No front rear positioning, and weak around the sides. Preference Best Second Equal Second Equal Worst Improving This Protocol Because I could not find a way to precisely orient the view, I decided to use the eight predetermined directions in an attempt to limit the inaccuracy of manually orienting the sound source. This means that exaggerates accuracy when correct, and exaggerates error when wrong. It also makes it possible to use a guessing strategy. Finding a suitably quiet environment and stable loud sound source was also challenging. I chose a 16 sample-count because it meant that each direction could be tested twice. A higher sample count resulted in sound-fatigue where I started to concentrate too hard. This is counterproductive, when localising sound sources should be subconscious. Chosen at random, 16 is an insufficient number of samples to ensure each direction is tested at least once, so a randomised list of two times eight directions was used. Any type of randomisation will occasionally choose sequential tests from the same direction, which was corrected by switching one test with another. Knowing that there was a fixed distribution and that no two tests in order could be the same, I was compelled to make the occasional logical guess, defeating the purpose of the testing. This most benefited the Via HD Audio, since even though all sound seemed like it originated from in front, and it was very hard to distinguish sound sources within 45 degrees of right of left, I used a guessing strategy that artificially inflated the result. The average angle of error would be informative, but the test protocol did not produce meaningful data. Given the fixed orientation of tests, a correct guess is considered 0 degrees of error, which artificially inflates accuracy. Each error is in units of 45 degrees, which will exaggerate error. My ideal solution is a simple custom map for a game that uses a popular engine and sound API. The inner space of the map is large cylinder with a centre mark to stand on and a single clear looping sound source. The wall texture marks 360 degrees anti-clockwise around the inner wall of the cylinder, with the sound positioned at zero. Orienting the test sound at a random angle could then be achieved by moving the crosshair to the correct mark on the wall. The test subject can then indicate the direction with a protractor wheel. This way test angles could be properly randomised, and angle of error measured. Testing multiple engines, sound APIs, different frequencies of sound would provide a more conclusive analysis. I discovered in testing that Unreal Engine and ID Tech 6 use different speaker models, which I have detailed further on in this post. Configuration and Product Details With virtual surround you need time experimenting with settings to get it working properly. Typically it’s about finding the options in the vendor-specific configuration applet that will set Windows Speaker Setup to 5.1/7.1, with the device output to stereo/headphones, and enable positional audio rather than simple down-mixing. The options and behaviour of the configuration program can be confusing and challenging. These are the settings I used in my testing. I’ve included extended notes on each product below. Sound Blaster X-Fi ASUS Xonar DGX Sound BlasterX G1 USB Config Applet Creative Console Audio Center BlasterX Acoustic Engine Pro Speaker Setting in Config Program Headphones Analog Out set to Headphone, Audio Channel set to 8 Channels Headphone (Virtual 7.1 Surround) Virtual Surround Mode X-Fi CMSS-3D Dolby Headphone, DH-1 reference room BlatserX Acoustic Engine Surround on 75 Windows Speaker Setup After choosing Headphones in Creative Console, Windows needs to be set to 7.1 Correctly synchronises with Audio Channel option. Correctly synchronises with Speakers / Headphones Configuration profiles. Setting the Windows Speaker Setup to 7.1 or 5.1 is important because TOXIKK, like most modern games, uses it to set the mixing mode. This can be an issue, which I have detailed further on. Sound Blaster X-Fi I’ve had the Creative Sound Blaster X-Fi ExtremeGamer for nearly 10 years and have been very happy with it. The Creative Console configuration software is a bit silly with its mode switcher but I’m used to it now. The Virtual Surround feature is called CMSS-3D. The only nuisance is that choosing Headphones in Creative Console also sets the Windows Speaker Setup to stereo, which has to be changed back to 7.1 for virtual surround to work. There are some extra options under the Headphone… button, but I have not been able to verify they do anything, so I have left MacroFX and ElevationFilter on Auto. Creative Sound BlasterX Pro-Gaming G1 The Speakers / Headphones options in the configuration applet for the G1 are confusing. There is “Virtual 7.1 Surround Sound”, and “Headphone (Virtual 7.1 Surround)”. Through experimentation I discovered these do quite different things. When selected, Headphone (Virtual 7.1 Surround) will set Windows Speaker Setup to 7.1 and enable a simple down-mixer until you enable Surround in the BlasterX Acoustic Engine. The Surround option can be set from zero which does nothing, to 100 which does a bit too much. Around 20 there’s a noticeable difference between front and rear, but not much side spatialisation. It seems to perform best between 50 and 75, offering good positioning without too much reverb. Over 75 I found the reverb overwhelming. All other Acoustic Engine features were disabled. The similarly named but remarkably different “Virtual 7.1 Surround Sound” mode is not suitable for gaming. This mode seems to map front left and right channels directly into the headphone stereo channels, while adding specialisation effects to the other five channels. This does preserve stereo sources which is an area of weakness for virtual surround, but at the expense of positional accuracy. I do not believe the diagram of the speaker positions in the Speakers/Headphones section of the config applet is accurate. This is part of a wider issue I have discussed further on. ASUS Xonar DGX The Xonar’s Audio Center is something out of the early noughties. The cramped controls are not ordered or labelled very sensibly, but once you figure out its counterintuitive logic it’s easy enough to use. “Audio Channel” is the Windows Speaker Setup, Analog Out is the sound card output, and Dolby Headphone is the Virtual Surround option. There are three room settings that just seem to apply different levels of aggressive reverb. I found HD-1 to be the least offensive. The Audio Center also has a “7.1 Virtual Speaker” option to change the orientation. You must enable Dolby Headphone first, which I found confusing since the checkboxes are in reverse order and have an inconsistent indenting behaviour. This option lets you move virtual speakers around to change the way the virtual surround mix is created. Moving a speaker further away will make sounds from that direction seem quieter. Change the angle of the speaker will change the direction you perceive sounds originate. I found rear sounds a little loud, so I moved the rear speakers further away. I also found that ID Tech 6 engine games use a different speaker model and could correct for that using this option. I believe the GX mode enables an Creative ALchemy-like EAX wrapper, so I left this off. I’m not entirely sure what the HF/Hi-Fi mode does apart from turn off Dobly Headphone. The default positions of the speakers in the 7.1 Virtual Speaker diagram initially look incorrect, but this is one of the rarely found accurate representations of the virtual speakers modelling that is used. Game Configuration Like most modern games, TOXIKK detects the Windows Speaker Setup during launch to set the mixing mode. This can be confirmed in the launch log. Following is Stereo set in Windows Speaker Setup: [0001.12] Init: XAudio2 using 'Speakers (2- Creative SB X-Fi)' : 2 channels at 48 kHz using 32 bits per sample (channel mask 0x3) This is with 7.1 Surround Windows Speaker Setup: [0001.10] Init: XAudio2 using 'Speakers (2- Creative SB X-Fi)' : 8 channels at 48 kHz using 32 bits per sample (channel mask 0x63f) Some games, especially older games, allow you to choose your speaker layout. I have not done any conclusive testing on how this interacts with virtual surround. As long as the game is mixing in more than 2 channels, and the sound card is producing a virtual surround stereo mix, you should see benefits. I found positional accuracy of virtual surround in TOXIKK to be best in 7.1. 5.1 surround/6 channel mode was notably less accurate. Current State Headphone virtual surround suffers from the following problems: It’s hard to configure, and hard to test The terms and concepts are not clearly defined with an overuse of complicated scientific-sounding technical explanations in place of intuitive concepts It’s easily confused with up-mixing and stereo expansion which offer nothing in terms of positional accuracy Some implementations sound unpleasant There hasn’t been any significant innovation in 20 years There are no commonly agreed methods to objectively measure virtual surround accuracy Linus’ previous advice has been buy the most expensive sound card you can afford, or just use on-board because it’s good enough. There isn’t much information to qualify this. Do you Need a Sound Card? Mostly discusses marketing concepts pitting sound cards against external DACs, with no mention of virtual surround features. As previously mentioned, the Techquicky video entitled Virtual Surround as Fast As Possible focuses on 2.1 home theatre equipment, and the idea that virtual surround works by bouncing sound off walls. I admit I didn’t even know this was a thing. I want to stress this isn’t an LTT problem, it’s apparently an industry problem. It reminds me of the old days of graphics cards reviews exclusively concentrating on average FPS for real world games with rarely any measurement of minimums, and no mention of frame pacing. To supplement this you’d get entire articles dedicates to analysing texture filtering boundaries. It seems a bit ridiculous looking back, but the parallels are clear. Dmitry Novoselov of HardwareCanuckes recently posted several videos covering the Sennheiser GSX 1000. The fact sheet on Sennheiser’s website seem to state it supports eight channel mixing; a necessity for accurate virtual surround. However, this comparison using in-game footage of The Witcher III sounds like nothing more than stereo expansion. Virtual surround may be working correctly and accurately, but the testing method doesn’t prove it, and details of the system configuration are not disclosed. This HardwareCanucks video briefly discusses virtual surround in gaming headsets, but the explanation of how it works is simplified to such a degree that it is effectively incorrect. Dmitry then goes on to suggest open backed headphones. Then there are videos like Gaming Audio Myths: Avoid The BS & Save Your Audio Life which are filled with jargon and pseudo-science, contain very little genuine truth, and miss the entire point of “gaming audio”. You only have two ears You only have two ears, and yet you can generally tell where a sound is coming from with astonishing accuracy even with your eyes closed. There are many theories and factors that contribute to this. The Virtual Barber Shop created by QSound Labs is an often cited proof that you don’t need a discrete satellite speaker sound system to have an immersive experience. The virtual barbershop is a binaural recording. As explained by QSound, this is achieved by recording with a pair of microphones placed approximately where your ears are, and to get this level of quality, presumably attached to a model of head and shoulders with realistic ears. This is an entirely fixed perspective experience. You can’t move your head and nothing new can ever happen. Comparing any kind of surround sound to a binaural recording to is like comparing real-time in-game graphics to a pre-rendered Pixar movie. Virtual surround is something different. True Surround A game knows the exact point of origin of any sound. With a true surround sound system (i.e., at least four satellite speakers disturbed around you) and the right software architecture the angle of origin of each sound can be calculated, with respect to your head, and interpolated across the fixed angles of your satellite speakers to achieve positional audio with nothing more than simple panning. The sounds can be attenuated for distance or occlusion, and additional effects such as reverb can be added on top like post processing effects in graphics. This is all relatively straight forward and takes advantage of the two ears, head, shoulders, and brain that you have. Virtual 7.1 Surround The concept of virtual 7.1 surround might initially sound like nonsense. By definition, 7.1 surround means having 7 physical satellite speakers (plus a sub) that should be placed in the prescribed optimal angles so that the position of a sound can be easily produced through panning. What is a “virtual speaker”? Virtual 7.1 is a bit of a misnomer, but essentially it means taking the eight discrete channels mixed by the game, and using signal processing algorithms to create a two-channel mix that that is suitable for your two ears (see “you only have two ears” above). Detail on how this is achieved is easy to find. A graphics analogy is ambient occlusion, which works by analysing the scene and adding additional detail by making an educated guess. The above diagram omits the sub/LFE channel. It’s also worth considering that even if the virtual surround is not very accurate, you could learn to localise sounds using it, like learning to read another language. Up-mixing and Expansion Stereo can be up-mixed to 7.1 or virtual 7.1, but there won’t be any front/rear positional effects because that information is missing from the source. Stereo can be expanded with additional signal processing to give a sense of physical depth, but it does nothing for positional accuracy. If you’re using headphones, up-mixing a source that has been carefully mastered and mixed for stereo, such as music, will decrease its accuracy. Obviously, up-mixing a binaural source to virtual 7.1 would ruin it. Using a graphics analogy, music is comparable to pre-computed light maps; offline lighting calculations using a more sophisticated model than is practical in real-time. Applying ambient occlusion on top would be an unnecessary waste of time and will just make everything darker. Native Virtual Surround Occasionally a game has built-in native virtual surround, implemented by the game developer through a middleware API. In theory, Native Virtual Surround could be a lot better because positional algorithms can be applied to each sound before mixing to the target output channels. If the output is headphones, virtual surround would not need to go via a 7.1 mix because the positional information would already be mixed into the output. If Virtual 7.1 is like ambient occlusion, native virtual surround would be like global illumination; a more accurate simulation with fewer restrictions and shortcuts. I haven’t had many good experiences with this, and I think it probably comes down to the cost-benefit-analysis on licensing, development, and system resource utilisation budget. Marketing Marketing for gaming products can be hyperbolic and misleading. The box for the Creative Sound BlasterX Pro-Gaming G1 is confusing and misleading at best, nonsense at worst. On the back it advertises “True 7.1 HD Surround Sound” which is a liberal use of the word “True” since there is only a single audio jack. It then goes on to state that it has “Native 7.1 Channel input signals for realistic virtualization of gaming effects and audio cues with perfect accuracy and position”, which in my results-backed opinion is an exaggeration. In the GSX 1000 product details, Sennheiser repeatedly misuses the term “binaural”, probably to make an association with the popular virtual barber shop. 3D Positional Audio Virtual surround is not inherently 3D sound. Information about the height of the sound that is included in the 7.1 channel model. 3D sound is theoretically possible, and could even be achieved with virtual surround if the elevation was already mixed into the 7.1 source, but I do not know of any implementations. Fake 7.1 Surround Virtual surround is not “fake” surround. As the creators of the virtual barber shop experience, QSound puts it: “Stereo or surround audio reproduction relies on illusion to create a believable acoustic image or sound stage, in which instruments, voices and sound effects appear to originate from physical locations other than the actual speakers or headphones.” You can take this to mean it’s all fake, or fake is not a subtle enough concept in this case. Hardware vs Software I don’t know how much hardware contributes to virtual surround these days. I imagine that a convincing simulation would involve complex signal processing, however the accuracy of the devices I tested does not imply the calculations are very sophisticated. Before Windows Vista the windows sound stack supported hardware acceleration, A3D and EAX were hardware based. Even if the hardware is irrelevant, the software that comes with the hardware seems to make all the difference. Decent Headphones and a Decent DAC Using a decent pair of well-regarded fit for purpose headphones is always a good idea. No matter how sophisticated the virtual surround algorithms are, if your headphones cannot accurately reproduce the signal, it won’t sound right. The difference between cheap and reputable sound products is instantly noticeable and testable. Regardless of the quality of the headphones, and the price and reputation of the DAC, if virtual surround is not being mixed, you will not be able to tell if a sound originates from in front or behind, under controlled testing conditions. The setup may sound lively, and have a very wide and open sound stage, but the positional information needed for sound localisation simply isn’t there. Problems with Virtual Surround There are problems with virtual surround, most of which stem from the fact that it’s basically a hack. Simulating 7.1 Some virtual surround solutions are putting too much emphasis on simulating 7.1, and room simulation. This approach is neglecting the fact that surround sound with seven physical satellite speakers and a sub is a simulation to begin with and has its own significant constraints, one of which being that the room dimensions interfere with the accuracy of sound reproduction. Clarity Sound clarity is often negatively affected by virtual surround processing, especially sound that is pre-mixed with stereo separation such as music, voice, menu sound effects. The game will typically map stereo sounds to the front left and front right channels, which virtual surround naively interprets as originating somewhere ahead and approximately 90 degrees apart. This effective doubling up of conflicting the signal processing negatively affects clarity and can sound undesirable. Windows After a lot of experimentation, I believe that Windows Sound Speaker Setup is not independent, but closely tied to the sound driver. An example is the optional speakers step after choosing 5.1 Surround or higher. In true surround output mode, this mixes the non-present speakers into the other channels. In virtual surround mode this does nothing. None of the devices I tested have matching functionality in their configuration applets. However, when forced in Speaker Setup, the Creative Console does indicate the speakers are missing. I confirmed that in this mode does reproduce virtual surround. The missing four channels are simply downmixed to the remaining two. Conflicting Speaker Models Through experimentation, I found that contrary to nearly every diagram of 7.1 speaker placement, the actual model used by the Sound Blaster X-Fi, Sound BlasterX G1, and Xonar DGX position the side speakers at 135 degrees; approximately opposite to the front. The rear speakers are then evenly distributed between the side speakers. Only the ASUS Xonar DXG 7.1 Virtual Speaker diagram displays this accurately. Games vary significantly in how they model surround sound. If the speaker layout assumed by the game’s surround mix does not match the virtual speaker layout of the sound driver, positional accuracy is compromised. TOXIKK, which is based on the Unreal Engine and XAudio2 API uses the same 135-degree as the sound drivers. I found that Doom 2016 and Dishonored 2, both of which are based on ID Tech 6 and the WWise API, use a conventional 7.1 layout with side speakers positioned at 90 degrees. In both ID Tech 6 games sounds to the left side are perceived as oriented towards the rear left, while sounds directly I confirmed this by using the Xonar and the 7.1 Virtual Speaker option, by placing the left side satellite speaker directly in front, and moving the others as far away as possible. After loading up a game and finding a suitable sound source, I rotated the view so the sound was loudest, and observed the orientation of the sound. In Doom and Dishonored 2 the sound was loudest when oriented directly to my left. In TOXIKK the sound was oriented approximately at approximately 135-degrees. My assistant was able to easily verify my findings. This means that without correction, virtual surround in ID Tech 6 games is inaccurate on my tested hardware. I assume that this issue affects true surround setups as well. Conclusion I think LTT could help here by including some extra content on sound hardware videos. There is even an opportunity for LTT to make a video explaining what headphone virtual surround is, and dispel some of the myths and misconceptions, while providing some unbiased product reviews. Maybe, like when AMD started putting serious effort into rectifying their frame pacing issues because reputable sites were reporting the problem, this may even lead to better quality products. The relationship between innovation and consumer demand can be complicated. The maximum refresh rate for LCD monitors was 75 Hz for a decade, until manufacturers started pushing 3D. Consumers were not interested in 3D, but the 120 Hz refresh rates that came with it proved popular with gamers. Now high refresh rates are a selling point. The fact that the devices I tested range from less than a year old to 11 years old is evidence of a lack of innovation, and in my opinion is the reason consumers largely lost interest. To put this in context, Intel’s 7th generation Core CPU is a 5-10% performance improvement but discussion centres around Intel’s stagnation. I would love to see a virtual surround reviews of devices like Sennheiser GSX 1000, The Creative Sound BlasterX G5, the choice gaming headsets, even how they compare to Razer Surround. I can’t afford to buy all of these products to test them, but I would buy one of them if I knew it worked. Besides, at this moment I have entirely too many sound devices.

As mentioned in the title, I just bought a pair of HIFIMAN HE-400i headphones, and I would like help maximizing their sound quality when paired with ASUS Xonar Essence STX sound card. I did some research on this subject, but would like opinions from aficionados to make sure that I understand this stuff correctly. My settings at the moment are as follows: *2 channels *PCM 44.1 KHz sample rate - I read that most music uses this sample rate and that a mismatch between audio sample rate and sound card sample rate will result in a decrease in audio quality,. *"Headphone" *"Normal gain for <64ohms headsets" - I picked this option in the headphone advanced settings menu because on HIFIMAN's website, the HE-400i is listed as having an impedance of 35ohms, which is less than 64. Truth be told, I have no idea what these options do. *Hi-Fi - I picked this as the DSP mode because based on what I have read, selecting this prevents audio from being altered by unintended effects. I would like confirmation that the settings above are the best possible for general purpose usage, but I do have some additional questions. 1. During my research, I saw some people recommending that the audio channel setting be set to "8 channels" when gaming. Is that applicable even to regular, non-surround sound headphones like mine? As I understand it, my headphones only have two channels / drivers, so is it really possible for the 8 channels setting to affect anything? 2. What exactly are the options under the "SPDIF Out" text for? I'm referring to the checkbox with "PCM" in it, the "Dolby Headphone" option, "Dolby Pro Logic IIX", "7.1 Virtual Speaker", etc.

I had a system on an Asrock A770DE+ motherboard that used a VIA VT1708 audio solution and I added a Xonar DG. The Xonar DG sounded better with the Creative Fatal1ty HS-800 headset. The Logitech S-220 speakers worked well with the onboard. Then I upgraded the system, an Asus M5A97 R2.0 Evo board with Realtek ALC892 and continued using the Xonar DG for the headphones and the onboard for speakers. Later I upgraded my headphones to the HyperX Cloud (64-Ohm, basically Takstar Pro80). The Xonar was great for that. And the onboard was OK for the upgraded Genius HF-1250B speakers. In the meant time I got a good microphone, the BM-700 and a 48V Behringer Phantom Power + a cheap eBay USB soundcard to test something out. A month ago I switched to Ryzen, the new Gigabyte X470 Aorus Ultra Gaming board has a decent onboard (ALC1220 with better amps), but I can no longer use the Xonar DG because the board has no PCI slots. I have to use the speakers connected to the front audio jack and the headphones at the rear. Looks messy and the switching (in Windows) is not to my liking. Also, Realtek messed their driver download page. Bad drivers. I need to add a better sound solution (for the headphones and/or the microphone) and I miss the sound of the Xonar DG. Cheaper AMP/DAC units aren't available here and I can't spend some 100€+ on such a device at the moment. That makes me consider some PCI-E and USB soundcards. PCI-E wouldn't be that aesthetically pleasing (inside the case) while it would allow for a Xonar DGX which is the same as a DG + a 6ms delay from PCI to PCI-E conversion. USB would be something like the HyperX Cloud soundcard, the Creative X-Fi Go or a Xonar U5 (the priciest). As for my hearing and future sound upgrades - my hearing got damaged in the 2000Hz range and I need a 20-30dBA boost there (loud sound related accident) but I can still hear it and the higher frequencies. Future upgrades - some better headphones, open style, some like Sennheiser HD 559, nothing expensive. One day, maybe, a better AMP/DAC, in a few years. What audio solution would you recommend (in the $30-$70 range)? A Xonar DGX? Xonar U5? Something different? Please don't mention the Fiio X3, X6, the O2 dac or the Siba, such cheaper DAC-s aren't available to me without ordering from China and paying for the import duties, taxes, fees etc.

After using Corsair stuff for over a decade, i can only conclude that Corsair's software support is not just rubbish, its abysmal. Which is why I've started to avoid buying some of Corsairs peripherals recently, *incoming rant* Creating and assigning macro's in the Link or iCUE software is not that user friendly, most other companies had creating macro's nailed down over a decade ago, (this also applies to lighting profiles) It makes me want to swap back to my old Microsoft keyboards just for the nicer macro software. The iCUE software is not compatible with any older Corsair hardware, even if its only 3-4 years old, meaning you still need the older Corsair Link software as well. That is unless you buy the new hardware, so the 3 year old perfectly functional hardware becomes e-waste. In my system i've got a Corsair Commander mini and a Corsair RM1000 PSU, the iCUE software does not control them. Not only that, iCUE just errors out if you happen to have an ASUS Xonar sound card, and Corsair appears to have no intent on fixing the memory error their software causes. This isn't a new thing, and affects anyone with this series of sound card, (links to Corsairs forum, 1, 2, 3 etc.) I value having nice audio more than some terrible LED controlling software. If you use Win 7 and get random bluescreens, its likely because of using older Corsair USB2 devices in a USB3 port, as the constant data flow will just cause a driver error making the system Bluescreen. I had this issue in the past, just swapping the K95 RGB keyboard to a USB2 port solved my issues. And that the older Corsair Link software also has memory leaks in some versions. Enough so that i had to make a script to launch Corsair Link, wait till its told the Corsair Commander Mini what the fan profiles are, then force the processes to close so the PC wont have any issues. *end rant* What software is out there that will control Corsairs devices in place of their bloatware? And what companies actually support their peripherals for a long time?

I'm trying to find a way to use command line arguments to switch from the headphone port to the front speakers on my Xonar AE card. The reason being is that I'd like to assign a macro key to switch my audio out from my headphones to my speakers without opening the Sonic Studio software for ASUS sound cards. Right now I'm using "nircmd" to switch between the two, but this requires that the devices be plugged into different sound cards in order for them to show up in the Windows audio manager. The issue with the ASUS one is that one won't appear as plugged in until it is switched in the ASUS software first. Images are for reference. I have both the speakers and headphones plugged into the sound card but I cannot figure out how to swap between them without entering the ASUS software.

Afternoon people, I'm in desperate need of help right now - my Xonar Phoebus has started acting up by "playing sounds in a lower pitch and also somewhat slower". This was not happening to me 2 days ago and I'm not sure if it's because of me installing a new PSU would've screwed it up (however highly unlikely). My current setup: i7 4790k 4.7Ghz 16GB DDR3 z97 Krait edition mobo 1080ti GPU 2x SSD 1x NVMe ssd and 1 HDD 3 monitors Asus Xonar Phoebus 7.1 What do I do to fix this problem? Do I need to buy a new soundcard or should I buy something different that will give me better audio quality for my DT990 Pro 250Ohms Please help, Digition Flux

Hey! I currently use an Asus xonar D2/PM in my PC. I'm thinking about upgrading this set up in the near future but I'm unsure what to get instead. I've been looking at USB DAC/Amp combos but I know too little about audio equipment to draw any meaningful conclusions from a spec sheet. My current audio equpiment is the Philips Fidelio x1 and Antlion ModMic 4. I've ordered the HIFIMAN HE4xx and I'm expecting them shortly. I'm simply looking for a way to get more out of this set up, in the 300 dollar /250 euro range. At the same time I'm looking to maintain the simplicity somewhat of having the ability to plug in my mic aswell as the headphones https://www.asus.com/Sound-Cards/Xonar_D2PM/ https://www.usa.philips.com/c-p/X1_28/fidelio-hifi-stereo-headphones https://www.massdrop.com/buy/massdrop-x-hifiman-he4xx-planar-magnetic-headphones https://antlionaudio.com/products/modmic-4

Planning to buy a ASUS Xonar HDAV1.3 Deluxe, but i cant seem to find the windows 10 drivers, would the widows 8 drivers work on windows 10?

I bought a Xonar Essence ST about 2 years ago and it's worked great until tonight. For some reason I now have a quiet hiss/crackling in my left-ear channel. And I can't figure it out. I've updated my drivers, tried routing my front panel audio through the sound card for the same results. Adjusting impedance, volume, sample rate, and channels yields the no change in the hiss. My headphones aren't the issue since the work flawlessly with my laptop and phone. I've done my best to reduce the chance of interference but none of it has changed a thing. Halp.

I have a question regarding audio cards. I currently have a ASUS ROG Xonar Phoebus 7.1 sound card and I am using a Razer Tiamat 7.1 headset. They both work great, but the sound card picks up a lot of electrical noise from other components. One example that I can mention; While in the CS GO menu I bring up the console and change max fps from 150 to 0(no cap) and I will instantly start to hear squeelz and buzzing in the headset.(not noticeable while playing so I havent cared too much). Also while playing some other games the sound can sometimes start to distort and "jitter" as if the sound files are corrupted and sometimes cause crackle noises while playing sounds in game. I dont know if this is a sound card problem or game problem. It happens alot while playing Kerbal Space Program and Planet Coaster. Is this the sound card failing? I have all the newest drivers. Question I have is, will my onboard sound from the motherboard be just as good(or better) or should I keep the sound card and just "overlook" these noises and bugs from it? Motherboard is a MSI Z97 Gaming 5.

I was looking at reviews of both cards online to see which would be best suited for my needs but I am getting a lot of mixed results. I am looking for a sound card to improve the audio quality for my DT990s as well as improve the mic quality for my ModMic. I am currently using the onboard Realtek ALC1150 which has okay sound and a preatty bad mic input. My ModMic is very quiet at 100% volume and +30db boost and has tons of background noise. What are some of the pros and cons of each card? As I see online they are fairly similar expect that the Xonar has no amp and uses Dolby whereas the Sound Blaster Z has an amp and uses SBX. I already have an O2 amplifier that does an excellent job so I am not interested in any amps on these sound cards, just sound quality, features, driver support, etc. Overall, which card would you recommend since they are roughly the same price.

I'm a total noob when it comes to audio and i have been having issues with the onboard audio on my Sabertooth X79. I recently got some spare cash and i bought an Asus Xonar U7 external audio card. I read good reviews about it, and i got a good price for it. I proceeded to install it on my PC, but i ran into a problem - i don't know how to connect my speakers. I have a 2.1 speaker set from 6-7 years ago from Genius (Wooden speakers, i love them - superb audio quality)(i don't remember the model and i can't check it due to where they are mounted). The problem is how the speakers connect with each other. The stereo speakers connect to the sub-woofer with RCA plugs, and then the sub-woofer connects to the PC with a 2xRCA to 3,5mm jack cable. So the question is, how do i connect them all to work. If i connect the stereo speakers directly to the 2 RCA plugs on the Xonar, where do i plug the sub-woofer with its 3,5mm jack? Excuse me for being a noob; Internet didn't help me much either.

hello, i found an asus xonar hdav 1.3 not the slim model for around $35 USD i live in argentina so i made the convertion, i think the guy who sold it to me didnt know the real price cause after talking to him through a web page like ebay here in argentina, he actually down price (i think thats how its said i dont speak english to often) the card a bit more, so i bought it and im waiting for it to arrive, i play video games mostly fps some rpg, simulators etc. in the multimedia side i like to watch movies a lot and watch tv shows also i like to hear music most of the time with headphones. i have my pc conected to a sony grx80 through rca. the sound quality its pretty good, the thing is, time to time i watch some tv shows (downloaded) and the volume its TOO low, so i have to turn the volume up in the sony device, so i thought on buying a small amp between the pc and the sony device, but i also want it to my headphones so i started looking for a soundcard with headphone amp, and for the price and availability, the best i could find was some xonar dg (aprox $ 126 USD) or some soundblaster audigy for around $60 usd I KNOW its ridiculus but its argentina and we r fucked up and those even dont have amps, and for some reason i found that asus xonar hdav, (if the card have a problem i can have a refound so no problem there ). ok so thats my situation any opinion if this was a good purchase? im using win 10 and i know there is no driver for it on w10 so i will have to downgrade to w8.1 and im ok with it cause honestly i dont like w10 hehe. and its a good card for what i want? also my music files are flac :), how deep in all this things u need to be for be avaible to call you an audiophile ? Thanks and sorry for the bad english

So i bought an ASUS XONAR DG 5.1 about a month ago, it works great with headphones and any devices that are plugged into it. But recently i have been wanting to output audio through my graphics card to my TV for more casual games. I am using a Display Port to HDMI cable, and before you tell me that display port doesn't output audio, this does, i used it before and it worked perfectly, and it will still play the test chime when i test it in the audio panel. I want to be able to switch to my graphics card audio output without physically removing my sound card. Things i have tried: - Changing the default audio device to my TV - Changing the default communications device to my TV - Disabling my Sound card in the Audio panel - Unplugging my headphones from the sound card Notible hardware: ASUS XONAR DG 5.1 GTX 970 ASUS Strix edition Gigabyte H97 Gaming-3 Windows 7 Thank you in advance for any replies.

Hey LTT, I'm looking to replace my Creative X-Fi Titanium for a new card since I have so many driver issues with the card, and now with Windows 10 it won't work at all. Just downloaded the lastest drivers from the Creative site (With Win 10 support I might add), the card works now, but the config center still doesn't. I'm looking at cards under $100,-, I have some Logitech X540 5.1 speakers and a pair of Sennheiser headphones that cost about $50, so nothing crazy. I'm ok with something like a Xonar DG or DGX which I can pickup for around $30-$40, but I'm wondering if it would be any use buying anything more expensive than that. Also I need to know that the cards fully support Win 10, I checked the Asus Support page for Win 10 drivers, but most of them only support 8.1. But I see a lot of reports that the 8.1 drivers work just fine, also I am aware that UNI Xonar drivers exist which do support Win 10, but I don't know that the software controle center works or not. Anyone got some helpful advice? Thnx in advance. Vashan

hey all I have a problem with asus xonar dsx sound card. i have logitech z506 5.1 surround sound system. I have enabled surround sound in the asus drivers but my center speaker wont output any sound. I dont know whats going on. All other 4 speakers including sub is fine. ALso when I test it using windows and asus software, center speaker works but when im actually in a movie or watching a youtube video, it doesnt work, its just like 2.1 channel sound. Also When I test back left and right speakers, sound comes from front speakers too, maybe I messed the settings up but i cant figure it out. What can i do? someone please help Any Help is greatly appreciated.