New Sound Blaster AE-9 and AE-7 audiophile sound cards coming soon

[vogelspinnen]

Got my paws on the AE-9 early! Posted a thread with some photos here if you guys are interested.

[RejZoR]

10 minutes ago, vogelspinnen said:

Got my paws on the AE-9 early! Posted a thread with some photos here if you guys are interested.

Awww you lucky bastard. I'll have to wait till around mid August for them to come to retails in Europe as Idon't want to order it from Creative directly (annoying customs fiddling).

[vogelspinnen]

 

42 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Awww you lucky bastard. I'll have to wait till around mid August for them to come to retails in Europe as Idon't want to order it from Creative directly (annoying customs fiddling).

Yes I got really lucky, and the guys at Creative were pretty swell too!

 

This is my first time actually receiving anything pre-release, which is why I am posting up photos and stuff. It's a torture though, cos I am just dying to install it. Which is what I am going to do now!

[alicskysareblue]

Had my sond blaster z for years until it finally bit the dust. The only issue was driver support was terrible.

 

The ae 5 looks good but honestly Im thinking a dac and amp 

[pas008]

On 7/19/2019 at 12:56 PM, AnonymousGuy said:

At home it's the JDS Labs Atom.  It's pretty much the standard now for what you can achieve at a low(ish) price.  At work it's the Element (more expensive mainly because metal case and it has a DAC in it).  Because I use a condenser mic in both places I have to use a separate DAC / preamp that then drives line outs to the Atom or Element.

 

Creative is marketing the AE-9 towards IEM use because the manual says that's what the lowest position of one of the switches is for.  But I don't understand why they wouldn't get serious and get deep sub-1ohm when even $70 amps manage that (O2 amp).  Even the Apple headphone adapter is 1 ohm.

 

I'm also not even getting into how totally dog shit Soundblaster software is.  SBZ Switcher shouldn't need to exist to support basic shit than Creative should have supported from the beginning (like syncing master volume and spdif volume).  (And SBZ Switcher has stopped development and only works on SB Zx cards).  Every new product though Creative just reskins the same shitty software.  No one (HT Omega included) makes good soundcard software that isn't 10+ years old.

Sbz switcher is for sbz cards hence the name lol

1 ohm is still keeping the so called 1/8 rule for majority of shit out there

And its about the power its putting out at all the variables

And their software isnt badb new features its not just different ui

You are complaining about small shit

You act like everyone gets everything right lol  especially in software

 

Fyi i have had many dac amps headphones amd sounds cards

Still have few around should try to sell them lol

O2 in my bed room for my he400 and 770pros

Id take x7 over anything right now because its great for gaming and connecting my phone

[Ravendarat]

On 7/10/2019 at 11:52 AM, RejZoR said:

 

@campy

The reality is, most "audiophile" purists are just bunch of arrogant pricks who live in its own world of gold plated connectors, pure copper wires and their THD this and SNR that.

Oh man did this make me laugh. Ive been dealing in Car Audio for almost 20 years and the amount of "audiophile" customers I get that fit this description is far more than I care to admit. The real kicker is most of them have shite ears, but they THINK they know what they are talking about.

[mr moose]

4 hours ago, Ravendarat said:

. The real kicker is most of them have shite ears, but they THINK they know what they are talking about.

This is actually majority of the population.  As a sound tech I get my hearing tested properly every few years, at 43 I still have perfect hearing upto 16Khz. Which is more than adequate.  Yet the number of ill informed people I meet who try to tell me I am too old to hear the difference between brand A and brand B then go on to talk about woo science in audio is amazing. 

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

As a sound tech I get my hearing tested properly every few years, at 43

I was under the impression that you were at least 65.

[vogelspinnen]

12 hours ago, Ravendarat said:

Oh man did this make me laugh. Ive been dealing in Car Audio for almost 20 years and the amount of "audiophile" customers I get that fit this description is far more than I care to admit. The real kicker is most of them have shite ears, but they THINK they know what they are talking about.

That's the power of placebo though. If you had just spent a fortune on your spanking new quantum-shielded, tesseract-powered infinity Monster cables, people WANT to believe there is a difference. Even before the music comes on they are anticipating a difference, and when it actually comes on they will definitely hear a difference whether there is one or not. If a friend doesn't hear a difference he doesn't have "audiophile ears". If that friend hears a difference then their belief is further cemented. That's confirmation bias at work right there.

 

I must admit I was very guilty of that, and probably still am, but I try to be as neutral as I can when testing difference, and try to blind test where possible. But at the end of the day, I'm still human, and it's hard to fight human nature sometimes.

[RejZoR]

47 minutes ago, vogelspinnen said:

That's the power of placebo though. If you had just spent a fortune on your spanking new quantum-shielded, tesseract-powered infinity Monster cables, people WANT to believe there is a difference. Even before the music comes on they are anticipating a difference, and when it actually comes on they will definitely hear a difference whether there is one or not. If a friend doesn't hear a difference he doesn't have "audiophile ears". If that friend hears a difference then their belief is further cemented. That's confirmation bias at work right there.

 

I must admit I was very guilty of that, and probably still am, but I try to be as neutral as I can when testing difference, and try to blind test where possible. But at the end of the day, I'm still human, and it's hard to fight human nature sometimes.

Though that's not entirely true. Us audio fruitcakes know what you're looking for in sound in terms of details, highs/mids/lows, how the bass should work, the temperature/color of audio and ultimately, in gaming, 3D positioning and HRTF based algorithms that are entirely alien concept to so called "audiophiles" every time you start talking about "gaming audio". Which is the rant I always make when talking about gaming audio to audiophiles who always turn the debate into hertz this, SNR that...

 

The casuals have no perception of what's good and what's mediocre or bad. Take graphics for example. Show a game at low details barely running at 30fps and for most people it'll be like "ok, that's perfectly fine". Where if you show me that I'll be struggling to play it well because all the framerate fluctuation, stuttering and blurry textures would annoy the hell out of me. Audio is no different. Most people don't even know know what they are hearing, it's just sort of there and they just don't care. The sound may be really bad and they'll still be like "that's perfectly fine, I can hear things".

 

I like good sound and I'm willing to pay some extra for it. AE-9 price, yes, still. 500€, probably not unless it was really something incredibly innovative and I'd have it for longer time.

 

The difference with graphics is that you have a lot of very measurable parameters there. Sharpness and details can easily be seen, especially if you make an image comparison of Low and Ultra High details. Same with framerate. With audio, you have things like SNR and stuff, but you can't even describe what that is, let alone make it understandable to a casual. The richness, temperature of sound and details is what each individual prefers. I like cold digital precision except for bass, where most audiophiles prefer softer sound that's warmer in temperature. Again, saying this makes sense for ppl fiddling with audio a bit, for casuals it would be like "how the fuck can sound be warm"...

[vogelspinnen]

10 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Though that's not entirely true. Us audio fruitcakes know what you're looking for in sound in terms of details, highs/mids/lows, how the bass should work, the temperature/color of audio and ultimately, in gaming, 3D positioning and HRTF based algorithms that are entirely alien concept to so called "audiophiles" every time you start talking about "gaming audio". Which is the rant I always make when talking about gaming audio to audiophiles who always turn the debate into hertz this, SNR that...

 

The casuals have no perception of what's good and what's mediocre or bad. Take graphics for example. Show a game at low details barely running at 30fps and for most people it'll be like "ok, that's perfectly fine". Where if you show me that I'll be struggling to play it well because all the framerate fluctuation, stuttering and blurry textures would annoy the hell out of me. Audio is no different. Most people don't even know know what they are hearing, it's just sort of there and they just don't care. The sound may be really bad and they'll still be like "that's perfectly fine, I can hear things".

 

I like good sound and I'm willing to pay some extra for it. AE-9 price, yes, still. 500€, probably not unless it was really something incredibly innovative and I'd have it for longer time.

 

The difference with graphics is that you have a lot of very measurable parameters there. Sharpness and details can easily be seen, especially if you make an image comparison of Low and Ultra High details. Same with framerate. With audio, you have things like SNR and stuff, but you can't even describe what that is, let alone make it understandable to a casual. The richness, temperature of sound and details is what each individual prefers. I like cold digital precision except for bass, where most audiophiles prefer softer sound that's warmer in temperature. Again, saying this makes sense for ppl fiddling with audio a bit, for casuals it would be like "how the fuck can sound be warm"...

Yep that's the world of audio for you. Like you said, unlike graphics it is a very intangible parameter as to what constitutes "good audio". My wife is the complete opposite of me. Throw in lots of reverb and a V-shaped equalizer and even the crappiest speakers sound awesome to her. At the end of the day, everyone has different tastes, and I think people should really know what they are looking for and do some research instead of throwing money at an invisble unicorn just because "it is more expensive so it must be better".

 

And I lol'ed at "how the fuck can sound be warm" cos that was me once . Until I heard a tube amp setup one day and went "OH. So THIS is warm!".

[RejZoR]

Or me describing pretty much every single onboard audio as "dull and flat". Even those "high end" ones. I have far from basic onboard audio though not high end compared to AE-5 or AE-9. It has decent audio chip, high SNR, Nichicon capacitors, even has a separate "clean" power delivery connector and isolated PCB segment, but it just sounds "dull and flat". And where changing EQ parameters on AE-5 dramatically changes the audio, on onboard, it was still dull and flat and sounded like it has no width (imagine placing stereo speakers almost next to each other).

 

For me that's the only reason I'm never using onboard audio. It's fine as backup if my stand alone soundcard dies or something, but that's it. I just can't stand the type of sound they output and they seem to be the same across the board which makes me suspect it's a Realtek thing given they all have one or another version of Realtek audio chip (usually ALC1150 or ALC1220).

[mr moose]

9 hours ago, Drak3 said:

I was under the impression that you were at least 65.

That's just because the average forum poster here is early 20's if not late teens, it makes anyone over 30 sound old becasue we have a little bit more life experience.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

That's just because the average forum poster here is early 20's if not late teens, it makes anyone over 30 sound old becasue we have a little bit more life experience.

Get off my lawn you damn kids!

[RejZoR]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Get off my lawn you damn kids!

With age, we just get more grumpy. XD

[HanZie82]

8 hours ago, RejZoR said:

With age, we just get more grumpy. XD

I have to disagree.
Im still the same happy go lucky fucker i was.

Just ignorance and stupidity becomes more annoying somehow.

[The King of the Undead]

29 minutes ago, HanZie82 said:

I have to disagree.
Im still the same happy go lucky fucker i was.

Just ignorance and stupidity becomes more annoying somehow.

only cause you wiser!

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, will4623 said:

only cause you wiser!

 

Either wiser or it is simply because with experience you learn that you we were no different at the age and it's very frustrating not being able to save people fro themselves,  hence the grump.

[Mira Yurizaki]

23 hours ago, mr moose said:

This is actually majority of the population.  As a sound tech I get my hearing tested properly every few years, at 43 I still have perfect hearing upto 16Khz. Which is more than adequate.  Yet the number of ill informed people I meet who try to tell me I am too old to hear the difference between brand A and brand B then go on to talk about woo science in audio is amazing. 

Wait, you can't hear above 20 KHz?

 

Spoiler

I swear there should be a law that states anyone who claims that needs to have a doctor signing off on it. Preferably one who specializes in ears.

 

[mr moose]

Just now, Mira Yurizaki said:

Wait, you can't hear above 20 KHz?

 

  Hide contents

I swear there should be a law that states anyone who claims that needs to have a doctor signing off on it. Preferably one who specializes in ears.

 

I wish I kept all my test.  I swear in my much younger days I could hear just above 20Khz (most audiologists don't test above 20K so it won't show up that often even if it were possible/more common), Anyhow, it's a totally useless skill given nearly all musical content and harmonics are under 16Khz, but hey, numbers a gold to some people. 

[RejZoR]

Though frequency range does affect how audio is reproduced on the speakers even if we can't actually hear those frequencies. If speaker is capable of 20Hz to 32kHz which is insane high compared to most that go to around 18kHz to 22kHz, it'll sound different. It may also fall down to other driver properties, but this is one of them still.

[AnonymousGuy]

21 hours ago, mr moose said:

I wish I kept all my test.  I swear in my much younger days I could hear just above 20Khz (most audiologists don't test above 20K so it won't show up that often even if it were possible/more common), Anyhow, it's a totally useless skill given nearly all musical content and harmonics are under 16Khz, but hey, numbers a gold to some people. 

For mastering audio, artists may just cut off <20Hz and >18Khz to increase the dynamic range available where you actually hear it.  MP3's are doing these cutoffs anyways.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, AnonymousGuy said:

For mastering audio, artists may just cut off <20Hz and >18Khz to increase the dynamic range available where you actually hear it.  MP3's are doing these cutoffs anyways.

 

Yep, for a very long time engineers have applied brick wall low pass filters at 18-20Khz in mastering (especially vinyl and in situations with horrid high frequency issues).  Also you will find a lot just ignore content above 16Khz because it is so often missed with mid and upper mid range being so dominant.   

 

An awful lot of audio equipment has 20Khz low pass filters in them to prevent interference from radio, microwave and other electrical sources (and oscillation in in earlier equipment).  CD's have a hard limit of 22Khz (you just won't get any signal above that from a CD unless you have a broken system).  I find it amusing that people talk about wide band speakers and amplifiers when a lot of the source material is limited (most listeners don't even know). 

 

Even PSaudiio (known to play devils advocate for audio woo) claim that the only science in it is that some people claim a higher bit rate audio sounds better, of which there are multiple explanations beyond the "we can experience more than 20Khz" one.  The best argument as to why no filters on higher bit rate sounds better is the fact filters can introduce s phase issues in the lower frequencies. Which is a more observable, plausible explanation that  hearing things we know we can't or experiencing frequencies that are largely non existent in the mix.

 

 

 

 

[jasonvp]

On 7/22/2019 at 5:16 PM, mr moose said:

I wish I kept all my test.  I swear in my much younger days I could hear just above 20Khz (most audiologists don't test above 20K so it won't show up that often even if it were possible/more common), Anyhow, it's a totally useless skill given nearly all musical content and harmonics are under 16Khz, but hey, numbers a gold to some people. 

I'm actually surprised you've found audiologists that even test that high.  I'm trying to find a place that can accurately generate >20KHz tones so I can see what my high limit is.  As far as I can tell, 20KHz is child's play for me but I'd rather that be verified professionally.  I just don't know where to go; most of the places around here are set up to push hearing aids, so they're not testing at those higher frequencies.  They're just testing in human conversation ranges.

 

As a gag, I went to one tester just to see what they'd try to do.  He put me in an "isolation" booth that I could clearly hear what was going on outside of it.  With the headphones on.  I mentioned that to the guy and he said, "Oh that doesn't matter."  Uh.  Right.

 

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, jasonvp said:

I'm actually surprised you've found audiologists that even test that high.  I'm trying to find a place that can accurately generate >20KHz tones so I can see what my high limit is.  As far as I can tell, 20KHz is child's play for me but I'd rather that be verified professionally.  I just don't know where to go; most of the places around here are set up to push hearing aids, so they're not testing at those higher frequencies.  They're just testing in human conversation ranges.

 

As a gag, I went to one tester just to see what they'd try to do.  He put me in an "isolation" booth that I could clearly hear what was going on outside of it.  With the headphones on.  I mentioned that to the guy and he said, "Oh that doesn't matter."  Uh.  Right.

 

I don't know what it's like where you are, but those guys are around here too,  some audiologists are just cashing in on the workplace fear mongering, they drive a van or motor home into the factory and charge a small fee to test everyone (gives the owner a tick to say he's actively doing shit about noise), They don;t care about accurate results.  The rest are only concerned with day to day functioning, they are bulk billers and often work within hospitals (slightly better equipment).     The one I saw was literally decades ago (back in the early 90's) and I haven't found one since, hence why I said earlier that most audiologists don't test above 20K.