Replacing my Creative X-Fi Titanium

[Vashan]

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

[NeatSquidYT]

Your mobo has a 5.1 surround sound output. Use that.

[Vashan]

Yes it does, but the quality vs a sound card is very noticeable. The newer generation motherboards have great audio chips, but this one is about 6 years old... When i just got this system I ran without a sound card for about a day. I sold my X-Fi Xtreme Music with my old system, but after a day with the realtek chip I ran back to the store to get a new one and the difference is huge, even with my "crappy" speakers.

[Guest]

I'm sure the basic Asus sound-cards would sound fine, the question is if you want more features than are available.

[Stagea]

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.

 

I think the Xonar DX is worth the extra cost if you plan on upgrading in the future. It has a more capable chipset and DAC.

 

I'm not so sure about the software control center, but audio drivers have not changed much between Win 8.1 and Win 10 (unlike graphics drivers).

[Guest]

I think the Xonar DX is worth the extra cost if you plan on upgrading in the future. It has a more capable chipset and DAC.

 

I'm not so sure about the software control center, but audio drivers have not changed much between Win 8.1 and Win 10 (unlike graphics drivers).

 

What are the capabilities?

[Stagea]

What are the capabilities?

 

Significantly cleaner output. The THD+N variance gets to over 20dB at certain frequencies.The DGX measures closer to integrated audio in this case, while the DX is clearly a cut above (measures akin to a more expensive outboard DAC, while retaining multichannel capability). When fed with a decent power supply, the Xonar DX outperforms a lot of popular external DACs.

http://techreport.com/review/23358/asus-budget-xonar-dgx-and-dsx-sound-cards-reviewed/9

 

THD+N:

 

DR:

 

Performance is very similar to Schiit's Bifrost.... priced at $349 (and no surround).

 

The best HiFi DACs measure a fairly consistent -160dB in noise (these cost thousands of dollars). This is beyond reach for PC sound cards and smaller DACs, but this level of performance may not be that important for typical multimedia use.

 

 

Dolby Digital Live encoding (for output through the optical out) is another useful feature on the said sound card (and maybe 192kHz capability, if that matters to the owner). I really think the Xonar DX is a hidden gem at $85.

[Guest]

Significantly cleaner output. The THD+N variance gets to over 20dB at certain frequencies.The DGX measures closer to integrated audio in this case, while the DX is clearly a cut above (measures akin to a more expensive outboard DAC, while retaining multichannel capability). When fed with a decent power supply, the Xonar DX outperforms a lot of popular external DACs.

http://techreport.com/review/23358/asus-budget-xonar-dgx-and-dsx-sound-cards-reviewed/9

 

Performance is very similar to Schiit's Bifrost.... priced at $349 (and no surround).

 

The best HiFi DACs measure a fairly consistent -160dB in noise (these cost thousands of dollars). This is beyond reach for PC sound cards and smaller DACs, but this level of performance may not be that important for typical multimedia use.

 

Dolby Digital Live encoding (for output through the optical out) is another useful feature on the said sound card (and maybe 192kHz capability, if that matters to the owner). I really think the Xonar DX is a hidden gem at $85.

 

Impressive, though the Bifrost is obviously overpriced gimcrackery considering that the ODAC (Rev B.)has better performance at half the price.

 

Note that the measurements that you posted above for the Bifrost are over SPDIF; over USB it is around -150dB, as is the ODAC. Granted, the Bifrost costs even more with USB :rolleyes:

 

The point is probably moot as I believe 110 dB dynamic range is sufficient to avoid degradation when using software volume control.

[Stagea]

Impressive, though the Bifrost is obviously overpriced gimcrackery considering that the ODAC (Rev B.)has better performance at half the price.

 

Note that the measurements that you posted above for the Bifrost are over SPDIF; over USB it is around -150dB, as is the ODAC. Granted, the Bifrost costs even more with USB :rolleyes:

 

The point is probably moot as I believe 110 dB dynamic range is sufficient to avoid degradation when using software volume control.

 

It is a very good sound card that should be able to meet the needs of most users. 

 

As for the peformance delta, it's really up for debate. 110dB is more than enough for most applications (the AES accepted spec for clean recording gear is 118dB). Though not typically reproduced to the same level at home, live music performances can have a dynamic range as high as 124 dB or more (most recordings have some compression and most systems cannot play loud enough to audibly reveal that much contrast).

 

Typical responses:

Round earthers: Everything is measurable but not everything is audible. 

Flat earthers: Current methods cannot measure all that is audible.

[Guest]

As for the peformance delta, it's really up for debate. 110dB is more than enough for most applications (the AES accepted spec for clean recording gear is 118dB). Though not typically reproduced to the same level at home, live music performances can have a dynamic range as high as 124 dB or more (most recordings have some compression and most systems cannot play loud enough to audibly reveal that much contrast).

 

I'm not sure 124dB is an accurate number for the full dynamic range, mainly because no concert hall has a noise floor below 20-30dB. And that's without the annoying susurrus of an actual audience. I expect a realistic dynamic range for a full orchestra would be on the order of -60dB at most, less for smaller ensembles and rock.

 

No doubt many systems and recordings fall short when it comes to reproducing live levels, though.

[Stagea]

I'm not sure 124dB is an accurate number for the full dynamic range, mainly because no concert hall has a noise floor below 20-30dB. And that's without the annoying susurrus of an actual audience. I expect a realistic dynamic range for a full orchestra would be on the order of -60dB at most, less for smaller ensembles and rock.

 

No doubt many systems and recordings fall short when it comes to reproducing live levels, though.

 

For an up-close performance, there is a potential for this. Drums can reach 138dB from 1m away, for example (and good recording mics can resolve around 140dB of dynamic range). 

[Guest]

For an up-close performance, there is a potential for this. Drums can reach 138dB from 1m away, for example (and good recording mics can resolve around 140dB of dynamic range). 

 

Right. But you don't actually need 140dB of dynamic range to accurately capture or reproduce such a level, as the noise floor in the recording environment itself is not 0. Not only that, but the the drum can't play anywhere near as softly as the noise floor, and thus there is no need to capture such a large dynamic range. I guess you could argue that "microdynamics" are theoretically improved with a greater bit depth, but even then a healthy 16-bits should be plenty for high fidelity reproduction (not editing of course).

[Stagea]

Right. But you don't actually need 140dB of dynamic range to accurately capture or reproduce such a level, as the noise floor in the recording environment itself is not 0. Not only that, but the the drum can't play anywhere near as softly as the noise floor, and thus there is no need to capture such a large dynamic range. I guess you could argue that "microdynamics" are theoretically improved with a greater bit depth, but even then a healthy 16-bits should be plenty for high fidelity reproduction (not editing of course).

Though the drum may not play close to the noise floor (most good studios have a noise floor below 20dB(A)), it does not mean that a recording may not have detail close to it. It may be the decay of the instrument, the breathing of the performer, a sound from an adjacent room, etc. Detail from resolution does not automatically equate to enjoyment or realism, but it is part of fidelity.

Just because ambient lighting is never pitch dark and that most movies are not shot to resolve that much contrast doesn't mean that we should not prefer OLED screens over LCD screens.

[Guest]

Though the drum may not play close to the noise floor (most good studios have a noise floor below 20dB(A)), it does not mean that a recording may not have detail close to it. It may be the decay of the instrument, the breathing of the performer, a sound from an adjacent room, etc. Detail from resolution does not automatically equate to enjoyment or realism, but it is part of fidelity.

 

True, although everything is a compromise. You could position your ear 1 inch away from the drum head in order to hear the softest possible part of the decay, but that probably wouldn't work out well during those 130dB+ peaks. Plus, the noise floor in the listening environment is probably going to be much worse than the pristine studio, even with headphones.

[Stagea]

True, although everything is a compromise. You could position your ear 1 inch away from the drum head in order to hear the softest possible part of the decay, but that probably wouldn't work out well during those 130dB+ peaks. Plus, the noise floor in the listening environment is probably going to be much worse than the pristine studio, even with headphones.

I would rather recreate the entire range if it's possible without a big impact on distortion. The very reason why current recordings are so compressed in dynamic range (peak compression and loudness equalization) is because the producers are socializing the content for the least common denominator (high listening noise floors, low quality playback systems, poor rooms, broadcast quality, etc.). A Veyron is only as good as a Camry on a 15 mph school zone.

I would rather let the listener decide if he/she is willing to spend on a system and a room that will help him/her resolve what is in the recording. There are few recordings that are done without deliberate compression, and they can sound magnificent in great systems. Of course this will result in recordings that will not be enjoyable in less capable systems (as the nominal level will be set far lower to not clip the peaks).

[Guest]

I would rather recreate the entire range if it's possible without a big impact on distortion. The very reason why current recordings are so compressed in dynamic range (peak compression and loudness equalization) is because the producers are socializing the content for the least common denominator (high listening noise floors, low quality playback systems, poor rooms, broadcast quality, etc.). A Veyron is only as good as a Camry on a 15 mph school zone.

I would rather let the listener decide if he/she is willing to spend on a system and a room that will help him/her resolve what is in the recording. There are few recordings that are done without deliberate compression, and they can sound magnificent in great systems. Of course this will result in recordings that will not be enjoyable in less capable systems (as the nominal level will be set far lower to not clip the peaks).

 

I can appreciate that. The reality is that most people aren't able to reach that level of reproduction, even if they wanted to. My point is that, fortunately, they aren't missing much.

[Vashan]

Thank you all very much for you replies. I'm gonna go with the Xonar DX since its only € 60,- where I live. Thanks again!