3D sound is a JOKE!
ZACHARY R. TOMCICH
It is physically IMPOSSIBLE to create three dimensional sound from stereo speakers.
As an audio engineer, i'm horrified by the fraud of sound card manufactorers by
calling 3d soundcards something they are clearly not. All these psuado 3-D cards
do is spacial enchancement. This merely delays certain frequencies between stereo
speakers. This is not 3D sound. True 3d sound can only be generated using a
minimum of 3 speakers, but preferably the standard 5.1 speaker arrangement. This
is the only way of creating directional sound in three dimensions.
I feel that any company that calls a stereo sound card "3D" should be put out of
business for consumer fraud and immediately liquidated. Marketing officials have
done a thorough job in confusing most consumers. Just look at all the posts by
confused consumers on here, which talk about hooking up a DVD drive through their
"3D sound card" to their pro-logic system through a pair of stereo speaker wires,
and wondering why they're not getting 3D sound.
Don't believe the marketing crap in ads telling you that 3D sound can come from
stereo speakers. They're just trying to sell you their product to make money, at
the expense of the truth. True 3D sound physically cannot be created from stereo
speakers. Anybody that says anything else is lying.
--
Ziggy
Audio Engineer
George Mason University
Center for the Arts
Brett Paterson
dont have 3..
yes speakers are troublesome, as pointed out by durard b degault's book
about 3d sound (but headphones are
fine. (good ones).
you might be thinking of a crowd situation where 2 speakers would not be
adequate at all becuase you cant produce a set
of HRTF's for every person in the room (thats why cinemas etc have
shitloads of speakers), but if 1 person is sitting exactly in the sweet
spot (which they probably wont be) then you can reproduce very good 3d
sound through spatialization and head related filtering etc.
yeah you may be an engineer of sound but coming from the center of the arts
i bet all you do is sit in front of a mixer board or hold microphones for
people.
Brett.
ZACHARY R. TOMCICH <ztom...@mason2.gmu.edu> wrote in article
<6outah$u...@portal.gmu.edu>...
Frostorm Lee
>
>
>
>It is physically IMPOSSIBLE to create three dimensional sound from stereo speakers.
>As an audio engineer, i'm horrified by the fraud of sound card manufactorers by
>calling 3d soundcards something they are clearly not. All these psuado 3-D cards
>do is spacial enchancement. This merely delays certain frequencies between stereo
>speakers. This is not 3D sound. True 3d sound can only be generated using a
>minimum of 3 speakers, but preferably the standard 5.1 speaker arrangement. This
>is the only way of creating directional sound in three dimensions.
>
>I feel that any company that calls a stereo sound card "3D" should be put out of
>business for consumer fraud and immediately liquidated. Marketing officials have
>done a thorough job in confusing most consumers. Just look at all the posts by
>confused consumers on here, which talk about hooking up a DVD drive through their
>"3D sound card" to their pro-logic system through a pair of stereo speaker wires,
>and wondering why they're not getting 3D sound.
>
>Don't believe the marketing crap in ads telling you that 3D sound can come from
>stereo speakers. They're just trying to sell you their product to make money, at
>the expense of the truth. True 3D sound physically cannot be created from stereo
>speakers. Anybody that says anything else is lying.
>
>--
>Ziggy
>Audio Engineer
>George Mason University
>Center for the Arts
True. true 3D sounds is immpossible via 2 speakers. but then what
customers care is the effect. Long as they are happy with the effect,
i think it's perfectly ok. personally, i have heard those '3D' sounds,
from my pov, i think it's fairly good in fooling my ears, so i don't
care. and i think many others don't. Thanks for your advice tho.
Frostorm
Jeff Gentry
: It is physically IMPOSSIBLE to create three dimensional sound from stereo speakers.
: As an audio engineer, i'm horrified by the fraud of sound card manufactorers by
Ummm, okay. Yes, you're technically correct - hell, the A3D white papers
even mention that. The problem with the "5.1" surround sound sort of
setup is that they're not very good at provoding dynamic sound in a "moving
environment". The example I read the other day, for instance was this ->
watching a movie, using surround sound you get a nice 3D sound effect.
If a bottle breaks on your right, you hear it to your right. However,
you're playing a 1st person shooter - and hear a bottle break to your
right, and spin immediately to see it. Current "real 3d sound" technologies
for consumers would have a lot of problem dynamically keeping up w/ this
sound.
The A3D 3D sound is merely a way to simulate a 3D sound effect w/ 2 speakers.
--
Jeff Gentry jes...@rpi.edu RPI CompSci Senior
SEX DRUGS UNIX
Christopher Friesen
: I agree 100%
: you just can't get two speakers in front of you to
: make sound behind you.
Theoretically, you can. You can do even better with a pair of
headphones--earbuds should be the best, since they bypass the outer ear
alltogether.
Consider the following scenario. You put tiny microphones in your
middle ears. Somebody plays a sound behind your head, and the two
microphones record the sound. You put on a pair of earbud headphones
and the sound is played back to you. Would you be able to locate it in
space? If not, why not?
Scenario 2. You put the microphones back into your middle ears.
Somebody plays the same sound at various positions in the
room. A mathmatical function is developed describing the relationship
between the original sound and the recorded set of sounds from your two
microphones. That mathmatical function is used to pinpoint an imaginary
sound in space and is played back to you with earbud headphones
positioned at exactly the same spot in your ear as the microphones were.
Would this give a strong impression of 3-d positioning? If not, why not?
This is exactly what QMDX, A3D, and DS3D are doing, with varying degrees
of success.
Chris
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Friesen "The opinions stated are my own and
Nortel are not related to company policy."
Ottawa, ON
"That is the top of the calibration target, that is _not_ in fact a monolith."
--NASA TV commentator, 7/5/97, discussing an image of a black
rectangle silhouetted against the Martian landscape
Trond Egil Gran
Eric Griffin
Trond Egil Gran wrote in message <35b3b...@d2o206.telia.com>...
>I agree 100%
>you just can't get two speakers in front of you to
>make sound behind you.
>
What you and the original poster forget is that A3D et al merely attempt to
fool you into thinking there is sound coming from behind you. Also,
remember that simply putting "two speakers in front of you" isn't what
two-speaker 3d calls for, optimally.
I wonder if anyone has done any blind listening tests? I have a hunch that
the folks who are so unconvinced by 2-speaker 3d sound are unconvinced
because they KNOW there are only 2 speakers. Either that, or they don't have
things set up properly.
Read up on head-related transfer functions.
--Eric
Fewtch
<bpat...@tantalus.com.au> wrote:
>why cant you use 2 speakers to simulate 3d sound? you only have 2 ears you
>dont have 3..
Do you know what 3-D means? It means three dimensions. Three
dimensions are on an X-Y-Z plane, which means that the sound could be
coming from in front of you, from behind you, from your left or right,
from above you, or from below you. Do you really think two speakers
could manage that?
"Ziggy" is entirely correct - calling spacial enhancement technology
"3-D Sound" is downright fraud.
-----
|No spam protection here, I have a "trash" button on my mailreader (and
|I don't post to the "trash" newsgroups). If you want to Email me, just
|reply normally. My website is at http://www.serv.net/~fewtch/index.html -
|something for everyone there, take a look if you have the time. Ooga booga.
Arny Krüger
ZACHARY R. TOMCICH wrote in message <6outah$u...@portal.gmu.edu>...
>
>
>
>It is physically IMPOSSIBLE to create three dimensional sound from stereo
speakers.
In some sense you are right, but really, its not physical 3D sound that we
want, but perceptual 3D sound. I suggest that you check out
http://www.users.dircon.co.uk/~wareing/3daudio.htm for links to technical
information about how 3D sound is supposed to work.
>As an audio engineer, i'm horrified by the fraud of sound card
manufactorers by
>calling 3d soundcards something they are clearly not.
The key technology for 2-speaker (or headphone) 3D sound is called the HRTF
or Head Response Transfer Function. This is scientifically recognized and
proven to be reasonably reliable. The basic idea is the fact that the shape
of our heads and ear structures make our ears have direction-dependent
directional response. When we listen to sound from a source that is in
motion, the timbre of the sound changes as it moves around our heads. Our
brains use these timbre changes to reliably perceive the direction sound is
coming from. We need this because our ears can't use phase variations to
determine directionality above the low frequency range. Furthermore, phase
changes only locate sound sources in planes, not locations in space. HRTF's
can do both, and work at middle and higher frequencies where many sound
sources work.
>All these psuado 3-D cards do is spacial enchancement.
YMMV, but there are definately cards that will handle program material with
multiple independent and discrete channels and apply approximate timbre
changes to provide a reliable and convincing effect. Both vertical and
horizontal motion can be reliably perceived, if this is done right.
>This merely delays certain frequencies between stereo
>speakers. This is not 3D sound. True 3d sound can only be generated using
a
>minimum of 3 speakers, but preferably the standard 5.1 speaker arrangement.
This
>is the only way of creating directional sound in three dimensions.
Just not true, IME. A number of sound cards, including the Ensoniq Audio PCI
and the Monster M80-M200 come with software that is capable of providing
reliable perception of motion around your head on the order of 330 degrees,
or more, of rotation.
>I feel that any company that calls a stereo sound card "3D" should be put
out of
>business for consumer fraud and immediately liquidated.
If this one went to court with the evidence you've provided so far, the
sound card folks would bring in expert witnesses who would gore your ox
quite quickly.
Eric Griffin
Fewtch wrote in message <35c24b2b...@news.serv.net>...
>On 20 Jul 1998 08:39:02 GMT, "Brett Paterson"
><bpat...@tantalus.com.au> wrote:
>
>>why cant you use 2 speakers to simulate 3d sound? you only have 2 ears you
>>dont have 3..
>
>Do you know what 3-D means? It means three dimensions. Three
>dimensions are on an X-Y-Z plane, which means that the sound could be
>coming from in front of you, from behind you, from your left or right,
>from above you, or from below you. Do you really think two speakers
>could manage that?
Before you get too condescending, try this exercise:
1. Visualize your head floating in space.
2. Visualize a line from the center of your imaginary head's left ear canal
to the center of its right ear canal.
3. Ask, "How many dimensions are occupied by that line?"
Here's a hint: it ain't three.
Unless you look really funny, you don't have ears on the top, back, front,
or bottom of your head. That's not how human hearing localizes sound,
anyway. Therefore, you don't need speakers coming from all directions to
experience 3d sound.
Still not convinced? Okay. Say you're just walking down the sidewalk, and
then >BOOM<, two cars collide behind you. Fender bender. Somehow, you
"knew" that the sound of the crash, the preceding tire screeches, and the
following cussing by the drivers was all behind you. HOW did you know,
without having ears on the back of your head?
In brief, here's how. You heard TWO similar versions--one for the left ear,
one for the right--of all those sounds, at almost exactly the same time.
>Almost< the same time. The tiny little timing differences in timing
between the sound reaching your left ear and the sound reaching your right
ear tip you off. Also, the fact that the event is behind you will
>perceptually< boost or cut frequencies at specific bands--you get two
slightly different versions of this too, to each ear. Your brain interprets
all that info concerning phase difference, frequency variation, Doppler
effect and about a gazillion other little phenomena and says "Oh. That was
behind me."
Now the BIG QUESTION. How many versions of that sound event did your brain
need to draw that conclusion?
TWO!!!
Therefore, how many speakers do you need to supply similar information to
your brain, thus tricking it into thinking that sound was behind (or above,
below, left, right, in front, or any combination) you?
Yuppers. Two. Takes a lot of work and analysis, and even the very best
algorithms aren't perfect yet, but ya don't need more than two speakers,
unless you also want to simulate the other kinds of stuff people debate
about (like sound perception based on senses other than hearing--feeling
bass in yer chest and the like). It may be easier to create localized sound
with 3, 4, 6, or 345,985 speakers, but it's possible with two.
Think about stuff like this before proposing or agreeing that companies like
Aureal, presumably, should be shut down for claiming to do stuff that is
entirely possible, and pretty cool at that.
--Eric
Mark P
that 3D graphics is also a fraud...
Isn't it impossible to have 3D vision with both eyes looking at the exact
same image... on a flat screen!!!
How come everything is in focus anyway?
This scam has gone on long enough!!!
Everyone!! sell your Voodo II's!!!
~Mark
David Gasior
>Think about stuff like this before proposing or agreeing that companies like
>Aureal, presumably, should be shut down for claiming to do stuff that is
>entirely possible, and pretty cool at that.
I know. Next thing you know we'll need to shut down 3Dfx because their
graphics are not really 3D ... nothing ever jumps out at me or comes out of my
monitor. :)
--------------------------------
David A Gasior
dga...@home.com
/
Fight spam - remove the word
"nospam" from my email address
David Gasior
>Well... I'm no sort of visual engineer... but I guess YOU should also argue
>that 3D graphics is also a fraud...
>Isn't it impossible to have 3D vision with both eyes looking at the exact
>same image... on a flat screen!!!
>Everyone!! sell your Voodo II's!!!
How funny ... I just mentioned that as well! :)
Fewtch
Nice spiel, but I don't think there's any way in hell that sound
coming from two speakers in front of me are going to convince my ears
that the sound came from BEHIND me, let alone above or below me. The
speakers are in front of me, the sound is gonna sound like it's in
front of me, period. Sorry, I'd have to hear it to believe it, then
I'd go nominate the engineer that designed the algorithm to do it for
the Nobel prize.
On Tue, 21 Jul 1998 17:01:24 GMT, "Eric Griffin" <e-tg...@kc.net>
wrote:
>Unless you look really funny, you don't have ears on the top, back, front,
>or bottom of your head. That's not how human hearing localizes sound,
>anyway. Therefore, you don't need speakers coming from all directions to
>experience 3d sound.
Carsten Mueller
>I agree 100%
>you just can't get two speakers in front of you to
>make sound behind you.
You are wrong ..
Why can you hear Sounds behind you in real life ?
Because of the form of your Ears and Head and the experience of your
Brain.
You have to generate a Signal an such a way that the sound that reaches
your ear is near to the original sound in real life.
The Problem is that you have to fix you Head at a exact position in front
of the speakers. Then you can hear Sound from behind even with Speakers
in front of you. All in all not a practical way.
--
greetings from Marburg
Carsten
George Belle
: Nice spiel, but I don't think there's any way in hell that sound
: coming from two speakers in front of me are going to convince my ears
: that the sound came from BEHIND me, let alone above or below me. The
: speakers are in front of me, the sound is gonna sound like it's in
: front of me, period. Sorry, I'd have to hear it to believe it, then
: I'd go nominate the engineer that designed the algorithm to do it for
: the Nobel prize.
Have you tried it? Having just heard a Diamond Monster Mx200, it's
amazingly effective. I'd suggest going to http://www.a3d.com and
getting their demo CD (which is free). You can then try it
for yourself. I sure hope you aren't so convinced without even
trying it.
Aureal has spent a lot of time and money researching
HRTFs and how to simulate sounds coming from all directions with
only two speakers. It only takes a slight phase difference between
two channels to change the perceived location of an object. So don't
knock it till you've heard it. I doubt Aureal would still be around
if their products didn't perform as specified.
George
David Gasior
>Nice spiel, but I don't think there's any way in hell that sound
>coming from two speakers in front of me are going to convince my ears
>that the sound came from BEHIND me, let alone above or below me.
Who said the speakers had to be in front of you? Headphones are two speakers,
and are what give A3D the realism it has.
David Gasior
>You mean you haven't heard it? That sheds some light on the subject.
He has an ESS Maestro-based sound card. He's stuck with QSound. :)
Hal
fighter pilots "hear" where the threats where. I sure hope our fighter
pilots don't know this stuff doesn't work :-).
As an owner of a TB A3D card, it works, and I love it. Is it better than 4
speakers or any other system? I don't know, I only have 2 speakers.
--hms
Eric Griffin wrote in message ...
>
>Fewtch wrote in message <35c24b2b...@news.serv.net>...
>>On 20 Jul 1998 08:39:02 GMT, "Brett Paterson"
>><bpat...@tantalus.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>why cant you use 2 speakers to simulate 3d sound? you only have 2 ears
you
>>>dont have 3..
>>
>>Do you know what 3-D means? It means three dimensions. Three
>>dimensions are on an X-Y-Z plane, which means that the sound could be
>>coming from in front of you, from behind you, from your left or right,
>>from above you, or from below you. Do you really think two speakers
>>could manage that?
>
>
>
Eric Griffin
Fewtch wrote in message <35b4dee0...@news.serv.net>...
>
>Nice spiel, but I don't think there's any way in hell that sound
>coming from two speakers in front of me are going to convince my ears
>speakers are in front of me, the sound is gonna sound like it's in
>front of me, period.
"There's no way you'll convince me the earth is round. The ground right in
front of me is flat, the earth is flat, period."
Maybe if you convinced yourself that the sound >can't< be behind you because
you <know> the speakers are in front of you. That's only an attempt to
circumvent the psychology of the whole thing.
>Sorry, I'd have to hear it to believe it, then
>I'd go nominate the engineer that designed the algorithm to do it for
>the Nobel prize.
You mean you haven't heard it? That sheds some light on the subject.
--Eric
Chris Owens (Creative Labs)
concerns at our R&D facility at E-Mu.
Playing a sound and processing it in real time to approximate the
transforms that your ear performs on a real sound in 3D space around
you is possible even with only 2 speakers or headphones.
The problem with using 2 speakers is that poor speakers setup, having
your head outside the "sweet spot", or even having your ears built
different than most people can harm the illusion. Most people I know
move around a lot while playing first-person shooters.
Headphones are good, and most of the top gamers use them. They still
have the problem, however, that to really do a good job of localizing
a sound, we usually have to turn our heads a little and get more than
one data point. This is almost a reflex action in a lot of people.
If a sound is supposed to be behind you and you turn your head while
wearing headphones, it actually appears to move.
Home theater systems are popular, and there's a market for the level
of quality and immersiveness that you get from having actual speakers
behind you. Poor speaker setup can still cause problems, and having
more speakers is more expensive and connecting them can be a hassle.
Is 3D sound in a stereo card possible? Yep, almost always. Is more
speakers better? Probably for some people. Which setup is right for
you? It probably depends on what you're doing on your computer.
I didn't mean for this to be a product plug when I started it, but
interestingly, the Sound Blaster Live! will support all three
possibilities.
Chris Owens
Creative Labs, Inc.
On 20 Jul 1998 22:47:34 GMT, cfri...@bnr.ca (Christopher Friesen)
wrote:
>Trond Egil Gran (t...@st.telia.no) wrote:
>: I agree 100%
>: you just can't get two speakers in front of you to
>: make sound behind you.
>
Daron Myrick
There is no delay in today's 3D audio, instead two channels are passed through a middle/side matrix.
Side channel information is equalized to match the response of audio entering human ears from
the side of the human head, while middle information is equalized to match the response of audio entering human
ears from forward and center of the human head.
After equalization, middle/side information is re-encoded back into the traditional 2 channel/stereo format.
This is not pseudo 3D but is quite accurate in reproducing an exact 3D duplicate of live recordings.
This is the exact process of reproducing the binaural experience through a full stereo system instead of using headphones
where there is no room or cranial wrap around reflections and attenuations to take into account.
You are correct in saying that older technologies did delay.
Both Carver and Omnisonics LTD from the 1970's simply delayed each channel by 10us, attenuated by 4db, inverted and then cross
fed this signal into their alternate channel but the object of this old technology was to simulate the cancellation of alternate channels
at each ear instead of matching middle and side frequency responses to the response of human ears hearing audio coming from different
directions.
The object of all of this is to position audio into a virtual 3D space around a listener.
Though you might think it impossible, I can easily position the perceived location of my wavetable instruments, anywhere in a virtual
3D space around me.
I can tape zylophones to my right front skull, while sending strings down the block, while putting trumpets in my pockets
and drums in my chest.
You might doubt this technology, but hey, I have heard it for myself.
>It is physically IMPOSSIBLE to create three dimensional sound from stereo speakers.
>As an audio engineer, i'm horrified by the fraud of sound card manufactorers by
>calling 3d soundcards something they are clearly not. All these psuado 3-D cards
>do is spacial enchancement. This merely delays certain frequencies between stereo
Daron Myrick
Do you really think sound can be reflected?
Do you really think sound can be cancelled in mid air by counter-acting
with a wave of 180 degrees difference?
If you are skeptical of any of these things then you are uninformed.
Sound can be beamed, yes.
On the other hand, what these two morons are trying to say is that audio cannot
be called 3D if it only eminates from two sources, since in their definition, 3D audio would
be emitted in a linear form, from 3D space itself, which of course makes no sense at all and that is
why they twist the 3D definition, in order to troll.
Daron Myrick
Hook this puppy up to a good amp driving a couple of electrostatic speakers and
you will swear it was the 60's, you were on LSD and you could reach out and put each instrument
in your pockets. <grin>
>Nice spiel, but I don't think there's any way in hell that sound
>coming from two speakers in front of me are going to convince my ears
>that the sound came from BEHIND me, let alone above or below me. The
>speakers are in front of me, the sound is gonna sound like it's in
>front of me, period. Sorry, I'd have to hear it to believe it, then
Dan Mckinnon
> Fewtch wrote in message <35c24b2b...@news.serv.net>...
> Still not convinced? Okay. Say you're just walking down the sidewalk, and
> then >BOOM<, two cars collide behind you. Fender bender. Somehow, you
> "knew" that the sound of the crash, the preceding tire screeches, and the
> following cussing by the drivers was all behind you. HOW did you know,
> without having ears on the back of your head?
Because you could not SEE the crash in front of you, and you knew from
the loudness of the sound that it was close? <G>
I'm not claiming it as the total explanantion, but it is important to
point out that often our senses work together.
Dan
> --Eric
--
"Mrs. Peel, we're needed."
Skid
believe it. Until then you might as well stop trying to convince people who HAVE
heard it that it couldn't possibly work. I don't know about the Nobel Prize for
the engineer who developed A3D, but I'd sure buy that guy a beer if I ever meet
him.
Fewtch wrote in message <35b4dee0...@news.serv.net>...
>
>Nice spiel, but I don't think there's any way in hell that sound
>coming from two speakers in front of me are going to convince my ears
>that the sound came from BEHIND me, let alone above or below me. The
>speakers are in front of me, the sound is gonna sound like it's in
>front of me, period. Sorry, I'd have to hear it to believe it, then
>I'd go nominate the engineer that designed the algorithm to do it for
>the Nobel prize.
>
ICE
All i can say to that is, You mustn't have a A3d card!
ICE <bassles>
Ronald Stoehr
>
> Well... I'm no sort of visual engineer... but I guess YOU should also argue
> that 3D graphics is also a fraud...
>
> Isn't it impossible to have 3D vision with both eyes looking at the exact
> same image... on a flat screen!!!
Then buy a pair of H3D glasses! It's still a flat screen, but your
eyes/brain
REALLY believe it's real 3D.... 8^P
l8er
ronny
--
Toys'R'Us '99: "So, would you like a hand gun with that action figure,
kiddo?"
|\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!
Will.T
>He has an ESS Maestro-based sound card. He's stuck with QSound. :)
I've been reading a few of your posts lately and im starting to think
you are just plain speading FUD. Don't get me wrong I'm sure the
Aureal cards sound great. But the thing you fail to seem to understand
is that the ESS Maestro cards DO support A3D AND QSOUND AND CRL3D AND
AC-3 2 Speaker virtualisation (at least the Maestro-2 does).Along with
supporting 32 hardware accelarated DS3D channels. I run Unreal on my
machine and I hear the A3D support loud and clear also the drivers I
use which I got straight from ftp.esstech.com.tw have like A3D.DLL as
one of the files. I play Unreal I hear the echos and the like, it's
all there working and sounds great. For the price its a great card for
games. The drivers are perfectly stable. The only thing that sucks
about it is the MIDI. In my opinion the 2MB and the 4MB AND the
realtime effects are absolutely shocking but I have high standards
having owned a alot of cards. It doesnt hold a candle to the Yamaha
DB50XG or the 10MB GS Hoontech set for the Soundtrack series but for
the price who cares im sure the Aureal card's midi isn't one bit
better. Maestro based cards like the Diamond Sonic Impact S70 in my
opinion are great cards for playing games and are very competitively
priced.
Cheers.
David Gasior
>I've been reading a few of your posts lately and im starting to think
>you are just plain speading FUD
What is FUD?
>Aureal cards sound great. But the thing you fail to seem to understand
>is that the ESS Maestro cards DO support A3D AND QSOUND AND CRL3D AND
>AC-3 2 Speaker virtualisation (at least the Maestro-2 does).Along with
>supporting 32 hardware accelarated DS3D channels. I run Unreal on my
>machine and I hear the A3D support loud and clear also the drivers I
>use which I got straight from ftp.esstech.com.tw have like A3D.DLL as
>one of the files.
Well, first of all, the ESS cards do not support A3D. They support QSound 3D
which has been around for a while and has been featured on many sound cards.
It is not positional audio, but spatialized audio. QSound also has a driver
that emulates A3D - the ESS Maestro chipset contains no hardware that directly
supports it. It interprets the A3D calls and translates them into QSound calls
(or is it DS3D calls?) Anyway, this emulation will not work well with all
games, and does not sound as good as it does on a true A3D card.
Aureal has even stated here that future games will not work period with this
emulation scheme. Its partially because of people like you who state that your
ESS Maestro-based card supports A3D that other people listen to it there and
are underimpressed. I've heard A3D on a Maestro card. It may be better than
QSound but it is not as good as a Montego or Diamond Monster Sound (true A3D
cards). And it tarnishes what real A3D sounds like.
So, if that's FUD ... there, I spread some more. :)
Enduser
heard or bought an A3D card.
Or are A3D competitors trying to confuse the enduser
Enduser
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Horizon/8276/
Daron Myrick wrote in message
<8F160BB6B1327B65.2B8BF42D...@library-proxy.airnews.net>.
..
Mike Ching
>In article <35b62057...@news.ozemail.com.au>, nos...@thanx.com says ...
>
>>I've been reading a few of your posts lately and im starting to think
>>you are just plain speading FUD
>
>What is FUD?
Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. It dates back to the mainframe days when IBM
dominated the industry and used FUD to keep customers from switching to
another brand. Same lineage as "Nobody gets fired for buying IBM." These
days people use it to mean disinformation.
Jarrod Smith
>
FUD = Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt
--
Jarrod Smith <jsm...@scripps.edu>
The Scripps Research Institute
http://www.scripps.edu/~jsmith
Will.T
>Well, first of all, the ESS cards do not support A3D.
How don't they ? If you mean they don't pay Aureal money i.e they
havent licenced it fully then I spose I understand what you mean but
the cards do support the A3D API in some manner. I don't really know
how good the A3D is done, but to my ears especially in games like
Forsaken and Unreal which do support A3D I can really hear a big
difference. It seems to be working great for me. Which makes me doubt
if you've ever really heard one of these cards, going on this and most
of the other misconceptions you have.
> They support QSound 3D
>which has been around for a while and has been featured on many sound cards.
>It is not positional audio, but spatialized audio. QSound also has a driver
>that emulates A3D - the ESS Maestro chipset contains no hardware that directly
>supports it. It interprets the A3D calls and translates them into QSound calls
>(or is it DS3D calls?) Anyway, this emulation will not work well with all
>games, and does not sound as good as it does on a true A3D card.
I don't think its the Qsound people who did the real 3D API support in
the Maestro series. It's the CRL people who have a competing standard
to both Qsound AND A3D. The CRL standard seems at least as good as A3D
and its CRL who after having their stuff licenced by ESS (and now
YAMAHA AS WELL) who provide all the AC3 decode into 2 speakers and A3D
translation as well as support for their own standard. Yamaha and ESS
wouldnt have gone to CRL if they weren't confident about their ability
to support them.
>Aureal has even stated here that future games will not work period with this
>emulation scheme. Its partially because of people like you who state that your
>ESS Maestro-based card supports A3D that other people listen to it there and
>are underimpressed. I've heard A3D on a Maestro card. It may be better than
>QSound but it is not as good as a Montego or Diamond Monster Sound (true A3D
>cards). And it tarnishes what real A3D sounds like.
>
>So, if that's FUD ... there, I spread some more. :)
That's just bullshit.
From what I understand there's nothing spectacular about the A3D 1.0
API and its probably at least as good as the CRL3D standard and all
this work Aureal is putting into trying to make all this propietary
just seems stupid. They should make their chipsets and let them
compete on merit. Nobody does Creative tactics better than Creative
and when their EAX standard comes out Aureal might have a problem.
Anyway maybe you should take a listen to an A3D game on a Maestro
based card, like Unreal because it really does sound great to me. Full
echoing when you go out into the large open spaces can really feel
where the stuff is when you use headphones and its not to bad on
speakers either. If you want me you get you a url of the CRL3D page
describing all the features in their API I will find it for you.
David Gasior
>>Well, first of all, the ESS cards do not support A3D.
>How don't they ?
If you read my post, you would have understood.
>difference. It seems to be working great for me. Which makes me doubt
>if you've ever really heard one of these cards, going on this and most
>of the other misconceptions you have.
Yes, I have three of these cards. I have listened to Unrel on the card, as a
matter of fact. And Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II. These two games represent
what I feel is the best use of 3D positional audio in a game yet. And anyone I
have shown my system off to, can definitely hear the difference.
I really like how I have the misconception. I've heard both cards; you've
heard one. Does that make sense?
>I don't think its the Qsound people who did the real 3D API support in
>the Maestro series.
I was told by a system integrator who is using the ESS Maestro-1 chipset in a
system that the A3D emulation is a separate driver that they could obtain from
QSound. It was not part of the basic ESS driver.
>to both Qsound AND A3D. The CRL standard seems at least as good as A3D
>and its CRL who after having their stuff licenced by ESS (and now
>YAMAHA AS WELL) who provide all the AC3 decode into 2 speakers and A3D
>translation as well as support for their own standard. Yamaha and ESS
>wouldnt have gone to CRL if they weren't confident about their ability
>to support them.
Yamaha and ESS can go to whoever they like to for their 3D implementations.
When it comes down to it, I don't see QSound or CRL3D logos on game boxes, plus
I also don't see any major sound card manufacturers building sound cards based
on the ESS or Yamaha PCI chips. Diamond was the exception with the Sonic
Impact S70, but I believe they will be dumping them pretty quickly since they
just announced a strategic partnership with Aureal. Diamond understands what
Creative is doing with EAX, and they want to stop them. Really, while I love
companies like Turtle Beach and Xitel, if anyone is going to put a serious dent
in Creative's sales, it will be Diamond. And I think the partnership between
Aureal and Diamond is just the combination to do it, and I'm sure that's what
both companies have in mind.
So Yamaha and ESS can go play all they want with PCI chipsets, but until they
create a product that is as good as the competition at the price point they
want, they are going to fade into obscurity. One yer fron now, will anyone
remember the ESS Maestro-1? Only those customers stuck with a card based on
it.
A year ago, ESS was a leader in chipset production and their stock was around
$22, if I remember correctly. Then, Maestro-1 failed to make an impact,
Maestro-2 didn't cause a ripple, and their stock is around $4. ESS had a great
opportunity when they bought Platform Technolgoies. Too bad it didn't work
out.
>From what I understand there's nothing spectacular about the A3D 1.0
>API and its probably at least as good as the CRL3D standard and all
>this work Aureal is putting into trying to make all this propietary
>just seems stupid. They should make their chipsets and let them
>compete on merit.
A3D is more than a chipset, it is a technology. The Diamond Monster Sound
cards do not use Aureal chipsets - they license it and include it on their own
hardware. So, that comment really makes no sense. To me, this has nothing to
do with Aureal chipsets, but with the technology.
Let's say you created a new noise cancelling technique for internet phone
conversations. You spent a lot of time and money to create algorithms that
would detect what is static and background noise and remove it. You license
the technology to a few big companies and people are impressed. Then a bunch
of other phone companies start claiming that they support your algorithms as
well, but they are not licensing it or paying you for it. And because it is
not using your algorithms, but emulating them, they do a poor job. People
start getting less impressed with your product because they are hearing what
they believe to be the results of it on something that does not do it
correctly. Would you be upset?
If you say no, then you obviously take no pride in the things you create.
>Anyway maybe you should take a listen to an A3D game on a Maestro
>based card, like Unreal because it really does sound great to me.
And maybe you should listen to it on an A3D card. What's good for the goose
...
David Gasior
>Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. It dates back to the mainframe days when IBM
>dominated the industry and used FUD to keep customers from switching to
>another brand. Same lineage as "Nobody gets fired for buying IBM." These
>days people use it to mean disinformation.
Ahh, gotcha.
Thanks! :)
Janice in NYC
>I was under the impression the A3D technology was developed by NASA to help
>fighter pilots "hear" where the threats where. I sure hope our fighter
>pilots don't know this stuff doesn't work
Maybe that's why keep crashing?
Eric Griffin
Dan Mckinnon wrote in message ...
Agreed, and this was part of my point; the original poster claimed that he
could not be convinced that a sound could be simulated <behind> him because
he _knew_ the two speakers were in front of him. I'd bet that in my
hypothetical, or in the case of listening to A3D technology, if this
gentleman were blindfolded he would perceive the sound as being behind him
in each case.
--Eric
Darren Greenwald
Frostorm Lee wrote in message <35b30ed7.289700657@news>...
>ztom...@mason2.gmu.edu (ZACHARY R. TOMCICH) wrote:
>
>>
>>It is physically IMPOSSIBLE to create three dimensional sound from
stereo speakers.
>>As an audio engineer, i'm horrified by the fraud of sound card
manufactorers by
>>Ziggy
>>Audio Engineer
>>George Mason University
>>Center for the Arts
>
>True. true 3D sounds is immpossible via 2 speakers. but then what
>customers care is the effect. Long as they are happy with the effect,
My only question/comment then is what about that you only have two (2)
holes in your head? Really, I make no claims to being an audio
knowledgeable but off hand my impression would be that any sense
of dimensionality that we perceive in audio is in our minds (in much
the same way it only takes two eyes to perceive 3-D images). Seems
to me the ears only hear two audio channels, so it should be possible
to simulate "3-d" sound with only two channels (particularly if
headphones
are used).
Darren Greenwald - Senior Systems Engineer, Scala US R&D
Ex-Commodore-Amiga Engineer class of '94 - RIP Amiga!
Darren.G...@scala.com
Templar
That could just as well be infront of you!!!
Eric Griffin skrev i meldingen ...
>
>Fewtch wrote in message <35c24b2b...@news.serv.net>...
>>On 20 Jul 1998 08:39:02 GMT, "Brett Paterson"
>><bpat...@tantalus.com.au> wrote:
>>
>>>why cant you use 2 speakers to simulate 3d sound? you only have 2 ears
you
>>>dont have 3..
>>
>>Do you know what 3-D means? It means three dimensions. Three
>>dimensions are on an X-Y-Z plane, which means that the sound could be
>>coming from in front of you, from behind you, from your left or right,
>>from above you, or from below you. Do you really think two speakers
>>could manage that?
>
>
>
>Before you get too condescending, try this exercise:
>1. Visualize your head floating in space.
>2. Visualize a line from the center of your imaginary head's left ear
canal
>to the center of its right ear canal.
> 3. Ask, "How many dimensions are occupied by that line?"
>
>Here's a hint: it ain't three.
>
>Unless you look really funny, you don't have ears on the top, back, front,
>or bottom of your head. That's not how human hearing localizes sound,
>anyway. Therefore, you don't need speakers coming from all directions to
>experience 3d sound.
>
>Still not convinced? Okay. Say you're just walking down the sidewalk, and
>then >BOOM<, two cars collide behind you. Fender bender. Somehow, you
>"knew" that the sound of the crash, the preceding tire screeches, and the
>following cussing by the drivers was all behind you. HOW did you know,
>without having ears on the back of your head?
>
>In brief, here's how. You heard TWO similar versions--one for the left
ear,
>one for the right--of all those sounds, at almost exactly the same time.
>>Almost< the same time. The tiny little timing differences in timing
>between the sound reaching your left ear and the sound reaching your right
>ear tip you off. Also, the fact that the event is behind you will
>>perceptually< boost or cut frequencies at specific bands--you get two
>slightly different versions of this too, to each ear. Your brain
interprets
>all that info concerning phase difference, frequency variation, Doppler
>effect and about a gazillion other little phenomena and says "Oh. That was
>behind me."
>
>Now the BIG QUESTION. How many versions of that sound event did your brain
>need to draw that conclusion?
>
>TWO!!!
>
>Therefore, how many speakers do you need to supply similar information to
>your brain, thus tricking it into thinking that sound was behind (or above,
>below, left, right, in front, or any combination) you?
>
>Yuppers. Two. Takes a lot of work and analysis, and even the very best
>algorithms aren't perfect yet, but ya don't need more than two speakers,
>unless you also want to simulate the other kinds of stuff people debate
>about (like sound perception based on senses other than hearing--feeling
>bass in yer chest and the like). It may be easier to create localized
sound
>with 3, 4, 6, or 345,985 speakers, but it's possible with two.
>
>Think about stuff like this before proposing or agreeing that companies
like
>Aureal, presumably, should be shut down for claiming to do stuff that is
>entirely possible, and pretty cool at that.
>
>--Eric
Will.T
>>>Well, first of all, the ESS cards do not support A3D.
>
>>How don't they ?
>If you read my post, you would have understood.
I read your post. This isn't any kind of reply seeing as you cut of
the rest of my post relating to this matter.
>>difference. It seems to be working great for me. Which makes me doubt
>>if you've ever really heard one of these cards, going on this and most
>>of the other misconceptions you have.
>
>Yes, I have three of these cards. I have listened to Unrel on the card, as a
>matter of fact. And Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II. These two games represent
>what I feel is the best use of 3D positional audio in a game yet. And anyone I
>have shown my system off to, can definitely hear the difference.
>I really like how I have the misconception. I've heard both cards; you've
>heard one. Does that make sense?
I just seriously doubt you have that's all I just don't really believe
you, because over the past month or two you've just being saying
things about Maestro that don't seem right to me. This kind of bashing
of it that doesn't really seem justified. At least to me.
>I was told by a system integrator who is using the ESS Maestro-1 chipset in a
>system that the A3D emulation is a separate driver that they could obtain from
>QSound. It was not part of the basic ESS driver.
Seems to be part of their generic driver to me. Also I am pretty sure
it is done by CRL as the Dolby AC-3 2 speaker virtualisation is also
probably done by them.
>I also don't see any major sound card manufacturers building sound cards based
>on the ESS or Yamaha PCI chips. Diamond was the exception with the Sonic
Yamaha make their own cards as well don't forget that and this is an
interesting point and I spose i'll answer it here. ESS got to the
point where they were dominant in the low end of the market, but you
never really saw any "major sound card manufacturers" openly
supporting it. ESS made decent quality codecs and good stable drivers
and sold them at a great price.
>So Yamaha and ESS can go play all they want with PCI chipsets, but until they
>create a product that is as good as the competition at the price point they
>want, they are going to fade into obscurity. One yer fron now, will anyone
>remember the ESS Maestro-1? Only those customers stuck with a card based on
>it.
Well that's what i'm trying to say (and so have a few other people it
seems) that for the price I paid I think I got a pretty decent card.
And I got the Diamond S70.
>A year ago, ESS was a leader in chipset production and their stock was around
>$22, if I remember correctly. Then, Maestro-1 failed to make an impact,
>Maestro-2 didn't cause a ripple, and their stock is around $4. ESS had a great
>opportunity when they bought Platform Technolgoies. Too bad it didn't work
>out.
I wouldn't count ESS down for the count. The Maestro-2 is a very good
low cost solution and dispite what you say Diamond did make a card
based on their chipset. Even tho Diamond do seem like the virtual
"whores" of the peripheral business. This business of "will anyone
remember it a year from now" its just a cheap point. Most people these
days dont seem to know or care what exact chipset they have in their
computer and the smart people are skipping these "big name" brands and
buying cards based on these chipsets and not paying for the name. Of
course people who own a card are going to remember it and they'll
remember that they bought an ESS based card for a low price got decent
drivers and good continued support. ESS didn't chuck a turtle beach or
a gravis, they supported Directx5 when it came out and now you see as
well they have WDM drivers for most of their codecs too, its continued
support. Hardware wise the Aureal cards seem worse than Maestro-2, the
Maestro supports more hardware streams and has a more powerfull DSP.
So the only thing holding up the Aureal cards is a software API that
isn't really that much different from their competitors the only
advantage they maybe have is jumping the gun and agressively pushing
it. But once Creative hit it's all leveled and the "tarnish" that you
seem to call this propietary fiasco will be Aureal making their
drivers intercept EAX calls. Or maybe everyone agreeing to support one
decent standard and maybe extending it from there. Like they do with
ratifying modem protocols.
>A3D is more than a chipset, it is a technology. The Diamond Monster Sound
>cards do not use Aureal chipsets - they license it and include it on their own
>hardware. So, that comment really makes no sense. To me, this has nothing to
>do with Aureal chipsets, but with the technology.
Diamond is the ONLY one tho and they really only did that before
Aureal had their own chipset. There's the MX200 sure but it doesn't
seem like much of a product for the price and it was probably delayed
in getting released too.
>Let's say you created a new noise cancelling technique for internet phone
>conversations. You spent a lot of time and money to create algorithms that
>would detect what is static and background noise and remove it. You license
>the technology to a few big companies and people are impressed. Then a bunch
>of other phone companies start claiming that they support your algorithms as
>well, but they are not licensing it or paying you for it. And because it is
>not using your algorithms, but emulating them, they do a poor job. People
>start getting less impressed with your product because they are hearing what
>they believe to be the results of it on something that does not do it
>correctly. Would you be upset?
What if a different company had competiting algorithims that were as
good if not better than Aureal's i.e CRL and were perfectly legal
legitimate algorithims and when confronted with this defacto standard
simply made it possible to convert between the algorithims. Why should
they have to go and relicence stuff they already know? Besides this of
course is the fact that ESS and Diamond and ACER and Yamaha don't seem
to advertise/actively state that their cards support A3D. It's simply
there, no big deal.
>If you say no, then you obviously take no pride in the things you create.
I'm seriously worried about how far copywrights and trademarks are
going these days. The way its going maybe one day we wont be able to
open our eyelids because someone owns that because they discovered it
first. That's stupid I know but I can't help feeling like it when you
look at Creative trying to PATENT and SUE over how data is transferred
over a bus and microsoft taking out copywrights on a bell dinging. It
just looks a little out of control.
>And maybe you should listen to it on an A3D card. What's good for the goose
Maybe I will but will I be much more impressed over what I have now ?
Seriously doubt it :)
David Gasior
>I just seriously doubt you have that's all I just don't really believe
>you, because over the past month or two you've just being saying
>things about Maestro that don't seem right to me. This kind of bashing
>of it that doesn't really seem justified. At least to me.
Well, I can provide you part numbers off the chips if you'd like. But nothing
I have said is unjustified. My complaints against the Maestro chipsets are
legitimate. It's not like I say they suck, and leave it at that.
In fact, I never said they are bad chipsets. I've just said there are far
better for the price, and I direct people towards cards that I feel are a
better bargain and will be supported into the future. I still contend that is
not a card based on the ESS Maestro (either 1 or 2).
>Yamaha make their own cards as well don't forget that and this is an
>interesting point and I spose i'll answer it here. ESS got to the
>point where they were dominant in the low end of the market, but you
>never really saw any "major sound card manufacturers" openly
>supporting it. ESS made decent quality codecs and good stable drivers
>and sold them at a great price.
Well, again, as I said, I don't see any major sound card companies building
cards around these audio products. Yamaha may release cards on their own, but
unless they sell really really well, how are they going to finance driver
development into the future? How will they be able to continue support for
their product? They need to sell them to people other than themselves, and
right now neither ESS or Yamaha have major audio card manufacturers lined up.
I'm sure the motherboard business will keep Yamaha alive, but as for ESS, I
doubt it. I've seen only one motherboard with Maestro-2 on board.
Even Intel, who normally puts Yamaha on their motherboard, chose Crystal as
their PCI audio solution on their new motherboards. Whether they drop in
Yamaha at another time is yet to be seen.
>Well that's what i'm trying to say (and so have a few other people it
>seems) that for the price I paid I think I got a pretty decent card.
>And I got the Diamond S70.
And I don't disagree with you if you feel that way. All I am saying is for
$35 (half the retail price) you could have gotten an Aztech PCI-338 A3D which
has more features and IMO sounds a hell of a lot better and will be around for
longer.
>drivers and good continued support. ESS didn't chuck a turtle beach or
>a gravis, they supported Directx5 when it came out and now you see as
>well they have WDM drivers for most of their codecs too, its continued
>support.
Well, ESS and Turtle Beach are completely different animals. ESS makes
chipsets, Turtle Beach places them on a board. The reason some TB cards don't
have DirectX drivers is because the chipset makers didn't release DirectX
drivers, so there was nothing for TB to release.
>it. But once Creative hit it's all leveled and the "tarnish" that you
>seem to call this propietary fiasco will be Aureal making their
>drivers intercept EAX calls.
Well, why not? Creative intercepts A3D calls ... kind of flattering when the
largest sound card company is trying to emulate your technology.
As for who becomes the winner, I'm sure that Creative will get plenty of
support for EAX because they will buy it. If you were a game developer and
someone offered you some money to throw in support for some hardware, wouldn't
you do it? That's the advantage of a big company, and where Aureal is at a
severe disadvantage.
What's funny is that later in your post, you ponder on copyrights and
trademarks going to far. For little companies to survive and new technologies
to be innovated, we must protect them from getting swallowed by larger
companies who with a little cash can destroy another company. If the 3D
technology of ESS and Creative is good, then why do they need to intercept A3D
calls? Why does ESS include A3D.DLL in their package (which seems to be
illegal in the first place)?
I actually think the best thing that Creative ever did was announce their "new"
SB PCI products would support Aureal3D. Even though they removed it shortly
thereafer, it gave a lot of validation to Aureal and their technology.
Creative has been so far behind the curve on PCI and 3D technology, they should
have just bought Aureal instead of Ensoniq. Instead, they sue them. Oh well,
and some people find the audio industry boring. :)
>What if a different company had competiting algorithims that were as
>good if not better than Aureal's i.e CRL and were perfectly legal
>legitimate algorithims and when confronted with this defacto standard
>simply made it possible to convert between the algorithims. Why should
>they have to go and relicence stuff they already know?
Ahh, competing algorithms are fine. But then they should go out and get game
companies to support their algorithms and support their API. If their
algorithms are so good (if not better) then why do they have to steal calls to
another API?
>Maybe I will but will I be much more impressed over what I have now ?
>Seriously doubt it :)
Oh well, some people are just so close minded.
Will.T
>Well, I can provide you part numbers off the chips if you'd like. But nothing
>I have said is unjustified. My complaints against the Maestro chipsets are
>legitimate. It's not like I say they suck, and leave it at that.
What really are your complaints ? I mean you're good at making fun of
people for owning one of these cards but there's no real complaint
other than it doesn't have A3D licenced drivers.
>In fact, I never said they are bad chipsets. I've just said there are far
>better for the price, and I direct people towards cards that I feel are a
>better bargain and will be supported into the future. I still contend that is
>not a card based on the ESS Maestro (either 1 or 2).
Hardware wise what makes the Aureal cards superior ? You can point to
Arny's site to show some poor SNR but maybe this card he tested had
poor components or an early revision of the chipset, maybe not, maybe
the cards are a little "noisy" (altho I really don't notice any on
mine I turn all the mixer functions on and turn them all the way up
and don't hear much at all) I really don't do much recording at all.
so ignoring that side of the equation, the Maestro-2 (or 1 whatever)
are able to mix 64 streams (probably mono?) in hardware and upsample
to 48kz before it goes out. Do Aureal Vortex cards have the capability
to do that many? I'm not sure of the exact figure but it's not as
much. I'm not sure about using the hardware for effects. It certainly
seems like it has more capabilities than the Aureal Vortex tho.
>Well, again, as I said, I don't see any major sound card companies building
>cards around these audio products.
What's a major sound card company these days anyway? Diamond isn't?
What's the Diamond Sonic Impact S70? Or the Acer AW300? Sound card
only companies arent that big to begin with. Apart from Creative
really and they aren't even a sound card only company anymore. Sound
card only companies make more quality solutions.
> Yamaha may release cards on their own, but
>unless they sell really really well, how are they going to finance driver
>development into the future? How will they be able to continue support for
>their product? They need to sell them to people other than themselves, and
>right now neither ESS or Yamaha have major audio card manufacturers lined up.
>I'm sure the motherboard business will keep Yamaha alive, but as for ESS, I
>doubt it. I've seen only one motherboard with Maestro-2 on board.
I guess time will tell. Yamaha if they release a card that lets you
upload samples to ram ON the card and has the effects capability of
the DB50XG it will be a knockout for midi but doesn't seem like many
people are interested in this anymore, but I am.
>Even Intel, who normally puts Yamaha on their motherboard, chose Crystal as
>their PCI audio solution on their new motherboards. Whether they drop in
>Yamaha at another time is yet to be seen.
Intel motherboards ? Are Intel really a big motherboard player ? The
new crystal chipset coming along looks great. The 300mips one, hope
they spend some time on doing the midi right, I might buy one anyway.
Crystal haven't licenced A3D either :P
>And I don't disagree with you if you feel that way. All I am saying is for
>$35 (half the retail price) you could have gotten an Aztech PCI-338 A3D which
>has more features and IMO sounds a hell of a lot better and will be around for
>longer.
I don't live in the US and $35 US is probably around what I paid for
my card. Not more than 20$ more. It's pretty easy to beat Diamond's
retail prices isn't it ?
>Well, ESS and Turtle Beach are completely different animals. ESS makes
>chipsets, Turtle Beach places them on a board. The reason some TB cards don't
>have DirectX drivers is because the chipset makers didn't release DirectX
>drivers, so there was nothing for TB to release.
Makes no difference to the end user.
>Well, why not? Creative intercepts A3D calls ... kind of flattering when the
>largest sound card company is trying to emulate your technology.
Great so you're cool with it now then? ;)
>As for who becomes the winner, I'm sure that Creative will get plenty of
>support for EAX because they will buy it. If you were a game developer and
>someone offered you some money to throw in support for some hardware, wouldn't
>you do it? That's the advantage of a big company, and where Aureal is at a
>severe disadvantage.
The way Aureal has virtually flooded the market with these Vortex
chips shows that maybe they aren't so weak. If the SB Live ever
actually comes out and it is as good as it's sposed to be anyone who
really cares about what soundcard they have are going to want one of
these things, me included. For once Creative will have killer
hardware superiority. 131 channels geez.
>What's funny is that later in your post, you ponder on copyrights and
>trademarks going to far. For little companies to survive and new technologies
>to be innovated, we must protect them from getting swallowed by larger
>companies who with a little cash can destroy another company. If the 3D
>technology of ESS and Creative is good, then why do they need to intercept A3D
>calls? Why does ESS include A3D.DLL in their package (which seems to be
>illegal in the first place)?
>Ahh, competing algorithms are fine. But then they should go out and get game
>companies to support their algorithms and support their API. If their
>algorithms are so good (if not better) then why do they have to steal calls to
>another API?
It's better for everyone if things are kept open. Why do they
intercept A3D calls ? I don't know maybe after CRL spent years
developing their API and didn't quite get there on time they needed
something to do in the mean time ? This is assuming that it really
even took a great deal of time or that the A3D API is really that
special/unique. On the CRL page it says they are happy to work with
game developers and will provide all the help they want. Short of
maybe as you say just handing them money.
>I actually think the best thing that Creative ever did was announce their "new"
>SB PCI products would support Aureal3D. Even though they removed it shortly
>thereafer, it gave a lot of validation to Aureal and their technology.
>Creative has been so far behind the curve on PCI and 3D technology, they should
>have just bought Aureal instead of Ensoniq. Instead, they sue them. Oh well,
>and some people find the audio industry boring. :)
I was unaware that Creative did that. It would have given Aureal alot
more validation if Creative actually followed through though don't you
think? ;)
>>Maybe I will but will I be much more impressed over what I have now ?
>>Seriously doubt it :)
>
>Oh well, some people are just so close minded.
True enough. maybe you just dont hear the Maestro ;) hehe
David Gasior
>What really are your complaints ?
I have no real "complaints" against the card. As I said before, I just think
there are better cards for the money. And that means not only what the
hardware can do, but what kind of support you can get, what features you get,
sound quality, viability for the future, compatibility, company track record,
etc ...
It is with all of that in mind, that I don't recommend the Maestro-based cards.
They are noisier (in general - I can't listen to them all), the MIDI is poor,
DOS support can be iffy, and the overall feature set is not as good. This is
my opinion from my experiences. Other people can have other opinions. So far,
I have registered that there are two really big fans of the Maestro-based cards
- that's great. I have no problem with that.
In fact, the funniest part of all this is that if we bring this down to a
battle of Aureal vs ESS (which it somehow got turned into), the two people
saying how wonderful the Maestro is haven't heard a Vortex-based board. Yet,
they feel compelled to say theirs is still better. Discussing (or debating) is
what keeps these soundcard newsgroups fun ... but when you have people who take
the stand of "I haven't listened to your card, but mine is better", it becomes
like a pissing match. Well, I'm done drinking. :)
>True enough. maybe you just dont hear the Maestro ;) hehe
Well, if those chipsets represent the Maestro, let me pull a Van Gogh because I
will still only need one to be able to tell quality audio from sub-par audio.
Tomi Holger Engdahl
> the same way it only takes two eyes to perceive 3-D images). Seems
> to me the ears only hear two audio channels, so it should be possible
> to simulate "3-d" sound with only two channels (particularly if
> headphones are used).
It is true that you can make very good 3D sound reproduction with
good headphones if the sound generation is optimized for your head.
The transfer function from ears and head vary somewhat from people
to people, so for best results the sound should be optimized
for your head. One method to do very realistic 3D sounds is
to record stereo sounds using two small microphones fitted to
your ears and then listening them though headphones. Very realistic !
If you are not using headphones and can't utiilize the HRTF
(Head Related Transfer Function) of your head then it is hard
to do any good 3D sound. If the sounds are not generated in
exactly for your head, then the effect is not very gooe even
with headphones. If you try to do the same with two speakers
then you just can't get good results because the room acoustics
will screw up the things. If you were in inechoic chamber with tho
speakers and you know the position of the speakers and you head then
you might be able to do some good 3D sound with just two speakers.
--
Tomi Engdahl (http://www.iki.fi/then/
Take a look at my electronics web pages at http://www.hut.fi/Misc/Electronics/
Remove "nospam" from my e-mail address if you want reply to me using e-mail.
Darren Greenwald
Tomi Holger Engdahl wrote in message ...
>"Darren Greenwald" <darren.g...@scala.com> writes:
>> the same way it only takes two eyes to perceive 3-D images). Seems
>
>It is true that you can make very good 3D sound reproduction with
>good headphones if the sound generation is optimized for your head.
>you might be able to do some good 3D sound with just two speakers.
>
Sure, to simulate 3-D audio sound you need to simulate the two waveforms
you would hear (one in each ear) so the waveforms need to be correct at
the ears, not at that speakers. Simple enough. Presumably you also
could
mention that even if you use headphones without a position locator the
calculations cannot be modified to account for head position relative to
the source of the sound(s).
Chris Owens (Creative Labs)
On Fri, 24 Jul 1998 00:09:43 GMT, dga...@nospam.home.com (David
Gasior) wrote:
>In article <35b7689a...@news.ozemail.com.au>, nos...@thanx.com says ...
>
>Well, why not? Creative intercepts A3D calls ... kind of flattering when the
>largest sound card company is trying to emulate your technology.
>
>As for who becomes the winner, I'm sure that Creative will get plenty of
>support for EAX because they will buy it. If you were a game developer and
>someone offered you some money to throw in support for some hardware, wouldn't
>you do it? That's the advantage of a big company, and where Aureal is at a
>severe disadvantage.
I rather suspect we'll get lots of support because ours is an open
standard, and we're working with industry standards organizations and
with Microsoft to make it more open. We do 'buy' support for titles
we bundle in our boxes sometimes, but really, that's the only way to
make sure the end user gets the best experience from the product they
just bought.
I assure you, Aureal isn't above buying support.
On the other hand, buying support from every software developer is not
a valid business model for the long term. Devlopers will begin to
expect it, and soundcard companies will go out of business. It's a
tough industry.
>
>What's funny is that later in your post, you ponder on copyrights and
>trademarks going to far. For little companies to survive and new technologies
>to be innovated, we must protect them from getting swallowed by larger
>companies who with a little cash can destroy another company. If the 3D
>technology of ESS and Creative is good, then why do they need to intercept A3D
>calls? Why does ESS include A3D.DLL in their package (which seems to be
>illegal in the first place)?
It's illegal if we copy their technology, not if we can work with it.
Creative didn't take people to court for being compatible, just for
being 100% compatible, usually by copying our technology through shady
means.
Aureal is trying to shut out competition by having a proprietary API.
I can't believe you support them in this, David, even as much as you
don't like Creative.
Lack of competition and open standards is never good for the consumer.
>
>I actually think the best thing that Creative ever did was announce their "new"
>SB PCI products would support Aureal3D. Even though they removed it shortly
>thereafer, it gave a lot of validation to Aureal and their technology.
>Creative has been so far behind the curve on PCI and 3D technology, they should
>have just bought Aureal instead of Ensoniq. Instead, they sue them. Oh well,
>and some people find the audio industry boring. :)
As for suing them, that's very straightforward. Scientists at both
companies do research. The companies patent their discoveries. Other
companies come along and violate those patents to make competing
products. Then the legal system gets to decide who was behind the
curve.
If we were to violate their patents, I assure you they'd have us in
court just as fast. Such research isn't free: that's why patents
exist, to let us make some money off the research we do.
>
>>What if a different company had competiting algorithims that were as
>>good if not better than Aureal's i.e CRL and were perfectly legal
>>legitimate algorithims and when confronted with this defacto standard
>>simply made it possible to convert between the algorithims. Why should
>>they have to go and relicence stuff they already know?
>
>Ahh, competing algorithms are fine. But then they should go out and get game
>companies to support their algorithms and support their API. If their
>algorithms are so good (if not better) then why do they have to steal calls to
>another API?
Because we want our products to work with all the games that support
3D sound? If 3DFX was the only 3D accelerator on the market, and
Intel could figure out how to make their i740-based cards work with
Glide, I assure you they would do it. Fortunately, there's other good
standards in the graphics industry, and competition. That's good for
the consumer.
>
>>Maybe I will but will I be much more impressed over what I have now ?
>>Seriously doubt it :)
>
>Oh well, some people are just so close minded.
>
>--------------------------------
>David A Gasior
>dga...@home.com
>/
>Fight spam - remove the word
>"nospam" from my email address
>
Chris Owens
Creative Labs, Inc.
David Gasior
says ...
>On the other hand, buying support from every software developer is not
>a valid business model for the long term.
I agree, but it certainly helps gets things started. Well, except for NEC and
their PowerVR chipset. :)
And I'm fairly sure that motherboard manufacturers didn't put SB-LINK
connectors on their motherboards without a little financial incentive from
Creative.
>Aureal is trying to shut out competition by having a proprietary API.
>I can't believe you support them in this, David, even as much as you
>don't like Creative.
I support them because if you want to work with their API, then you should
license it. If you don't find it valuable enough to license it, why work with
it at all?
This is not an anti-Creative thing. I feel the same way about ESS
Maestro-emulation of A3D as well. So, please don't try to turn this into a
Creative-bashing exercise. It's about playing fair.
You said it yourself:
"Creative didn't take people to court for being compatible, just for
being 100% compatible"
So, if other companies found a way to work with SB compatibility that was
perfect, Creative would take them to court. Why? You said it was "usually by
copying our technology through shady means." And when it wasn't? Why did you
take them to court then? Because they didn't license your products. And you
were getting no money from them yet they could have Sound Blaster
compatibility. You might have even cared about the quality of the Sound
Blaster name and reputation. How is this different?
I firmly believe this is a two-way street. If Aureal or any other
company wanted to support EAX when it comes out, then they should license it
from you. There is already an open standard that everyone can code for -
DirectSound3D - and each sound card company should be able to have its own API
for showing off the power of its sound card. Much like what 3Dfx did with
GLide (even though GLide was necessary because of the poor state of Direct3D at
the time).
>Lack of competition and open standards is never good for the consumer.
I agree wholeheartedly.
>Because we want our products to work with all the games that support
>3D sound? If 3DFX was the only 3D accelerator on the market, and
>Intel could figure out how to make their i740-based cards work with
>Glide, I assure you they would do it. Fortunately, there's other good
>standards in the graphics industry, and competition. That's good for
>the consumer.
Yup, but here's the kicker. Intel doesn't have GLide support for i740. NEC
doesn't have GLide support for the PowerVR. Matrox doesn't have GLide support
for the G100/G200. Yes, there are other good standards - open standards - that
these cards exploit: Direct3D and OpenGL being the main ones.
So, if Matrox came along and released a GLide driver for the Matrox G200 cards
and started advertising that for less than half the price of a Creative Voodoo
Blaster 2, you could get better graphics, full 2D and 3D support, and it works
with all 3Dfx games, no one at Creative would be expressing concern to 3Dfx?
And do you really think that 3Dfx would not be fighting to protect their Voodoo
and GLide reputation? I seriously think not.
It's not about having a proprietary API; its about protecting a technology you
worked hard to create. It's not about shutting people out; it's about
licensing it out to reap a profit and innovate further technologies.
I think it's about playing fair.
Chris Owens (Creative Labs)
words.
On Fri, 24 Jul 1998 19:35:06 GMT, dga...@nospam.home.com (David
Gasior) wrote:
>In article <35b8d518...@clihost.cli.creaf.com>, chr...@creativelabs.com
>says ...
>
>And I'm fairly sure that motherboard manufacturers didn't put SB-LINK
>connectors on their motherboards without a little financial incentive from
>Creative.
I can't speak to that at the moment. I rather expect the financial
incentive was from them selling the AWE64D card, which didn't turn out
to be terribly popular.
>
>>Aureal is trying to shut out competition by having a proprietary API.
>>I can't believe you support them in this, David, even as much as you
>>don't like Creative.
>
>I support them because if you want to work with their API, then you should
>license it. If you don't find it valuable enough to license it, why work with
>it at all?
>
>This is not an anti-Creative thing. I feel the same way about ESS
>Maestro-emulation of A3D as well. So, please don't try to turn this into a
>Creative-bashing exercise. It's about playing fair.
Again, my apologies.
>
>You said it yourself:
>
>"Creative didn't take people to court for being compatible, just for
>being 100% compatible"
>
>So, if other companies found a way to work with SB compatibility that was
>perfect, Creative would take them to court. Why? You said it was "usually by
>copying our technology through shady means." And when it wasn't? Why did you
>take them to court then? Because they didn't license your products. And you
>were getting no money from them yet they could have Sound Blaster
>compatibility. You might have even cared about the quality of the Sound
>Blaster name and reputation. How is this different?
Dozens of companies made (and make) Sound Blaster compatible cards.
Many companies are making cards that work with A3D to some extent or
another. It's not different at all.
>
>I firmly believe this is a two-way street. If Aureal or any other
>company wanted to support EAX when it comes out, then they should license it
>from you. There is already an open standard that everyone can code for -
>DirectSound3D - and each sound card company should be able to have its own API
>for showing off the power of its sound card. Much like what 3Dfx did with
>GLide (even though GLide was necessary because of the poor state of Direct3D at
>the time).
EAX is an extension to DS3D, not a proprietary API that 'surrounds and
supports it' in some non-standard way. We feel our technology is what
we want people to buy, not our API. The Sound Blaster Live! will
provide such a good experience, we're welcoming people to use our API
if they like.
>
>So, if Matrox came along and released a GLide driver for the Matrox G200 cards
>and started advertising that for less than half the price of a Creative Voodoo
>Blaster 2, you could get better graphics, full 2D and 3D support, and it works
>with all 3Dfx games, no one at Creative would be expressing concern to 3Dfx?
>And do you really think that 3Dfx would not be fighting to protect their Voodoo
>and GLide reputation? I seriously think not.
Well, frankly, we probably wouldn't, since we're not really tied to
3DFX the way we are to our audio chipset manufacturers, namely us.
:-)
>
>--------------------------------
>David A Gasior
>dga...@home.com
>/
>Fight spam - remove the word
>"nospam" from my email address
>
Jeffrey L. Jones
because when you're mastering a CD, it misleads you. I always check to make
CERTAIN that my 3d is still off before adjusting levels in a multitrack
sequence. On my particular soundcard, the SRS 3d sound was defaulted to on
and I didn't realize it. So my vocals sounded louder than they really were,
especially through headphones. So I'd make a CD for a client and they say
they can barely hear the vocals. I play it on my 3d system and it's fine.
Trouble was, the soundcard didn't RECORD the 3d effects it generated, so
what I heard was not what I got. To add to the confusion, when I played my
CDs on my computer, the 3d effect was re-applied. So it sounded fine to me
again. Wasted a bunch of CDs on that.
There were certain stereo ping-ping effects that I added to certain songs
that seemed minimized in my recordings. I found that while 3d added
"spaciousness" it reduced the stereo image.
I have since disabled the 3d sound altogether, and honestly don't know why
I'd ever need it. I will admit that when I had the AWE card, the helicopter
game DID pull off the directional stunts when I wore head phones. I think
the 3d skeptics should understand that the 3d effect might be meant to be
realized through headphones. There are plenty of effects, like brain sync
ala Cool Edit, that stipulate that they require headphones or at least
proper placement of speakers.
George Mealer
> All this talk in interesting, but I have to say that I hate 3d sound, only
> because when you're mastering a CD, it misleads you. I always check to make
> CERTAIN that my 3d is still off before adjusting levels in a multitrack
> sequence. On my particular soundcard, the SRS 3d sound was defaulted to on
> and I didn't realize it. So my vocals sounded louder than they really were,
> especially through headphones. So I'd make a CD for a client and they say
> they can barely hear the vocals. I play it on my 3d system and it's fine.
>
Note that SRS is vastly different from what most people mean when they
say "3D Sound". SRS is a spatializer algorithm; it makes the sound seem
like it comes from larger speakers sitting farther apart, while keeping
midrange (vocals) centered. A3D, QSound, D3D, etc., are positional sound
algorithms that place individual sounds (streams) in XYZ space.
And yes, SRS will mess with your playback.
Geo
--
George Mealer
g...@snarksoft.com
"Let your mind wander and never come back." -- Skyclad
Gregg @ Diamond
you. As a side note, another "reason" you may know that the sound is behind
you is because you didn't see the crash. So, your brain can eliminate the
crash from being in front of you. This is another reason why the 3-d sound
in games works also. If you hear a monster or enemy or whatever but you
don't see him on the screen, this helps you to realize that the sound is
coming from behind you. Personally, I find 3-d sound to be quite
convincing.
--
Please remove NOSPAM from email address when responding. Thanks!
Gregg @ Diamond
----------------------------
Will.T
>I have no real "complaints" against the card. As I said before, I just think
>there are better cards for the money.
Uhuh. Those Vortex cards are pretty spectacular. With their only real
advantage being support of an API that might not be around or
important for much longer. yay.
> And that means not only what the
>hardware can do, but what kind of support you can get, what features you get,
>sound quality, viability for the future, compatibility, company track record,
>etc ...
Sound quality: Signal to Noise Ratio: >90dB
This is for the S70 I got it off the Diamond Web page.
Viability for the future: Full stable drivers, support for NT, WDM
drivers as well. Support for DS3D and others. etc. As I've mentioned.
64 pipelined hardware accelarated streams. There's even os/2 drivers.
Company track record: ESS what have they ever done to make people
think they dont support their products ?
>It is with all of that in mind, that I don't recommend the Maestro-based cards.
> They are noisier (in general - I can't listen to them all), the MIDI is poor,
>DOS support can be iffy, and the overall feature set is not as good. This is
>my opinion from my experiences. Other people can have other opinions. So far,
>I have registered that there are two really big fans of the Maestro-based cards
>- that's great. I have no problem with that.
MIDI is poor i'll grant you that but how good could the Vortex's be?
You don't seem to be too keen to talk about it. DOS support means less
and less each day and I had a little go of Dungeon Keeper and it
seemed fine with the Sbpro compatibility. How is the overall feature
set not as good ? Apart from some Aureal based cards having a
daughterboard connecter on them I really see no reason to buy one
unless you really want 100% A3D support and how important is it ? How
viable will that be in the future ?
>In fact, the funniest part of all this is that if we bring this down to a
>battle of Aureal vs ESS (which it somehow got turned into), the two people
>saying how wonderful the Maestro is haven't heard a Vortex-based board. Yet,
>they feel compelled to say theirs is still better.
Because you offer no real evidence other than you just think it sounds
worse. I'm not really a fan I just think it's a decent card for how
much I paid.
> Discussing (or debating) is
>what keeps these soundcard newsgroups fun ... but when you have people who take
>the stand of "I haven't listened to your card, but mine is better", it becomes
>like a pissing match. Well, I'm done drinking. :)
I offer hardware statistics to you. I say to you how I think it's a
better card and you dont really say anything back except that I
haven't listened to a Vortex card and you aren't really giving me much
of an incentive to either because in no way am I seeing a way that a
Vortex card could be any better than the one I have now.
>Well, if those chipsets represent the Maestro, let me pull a Van Gogh because I
>will still only need one to be able to tell quality audio from sub-par audio.
To me it's the Vortex cards that seem sub-par in just about every way.
But you're right this isn't going anywhere so i'm done too.
Fred Mah
>
> >I have no real "complaints" against the card. As I said before, I just think
> >there are better cards for the money.
>
> Uhuh. Those Vortex cards are pretty spectacular. With their only real
> advantage being support of an API that might not be around or
> important for much longer. yay.
>
I think you are missing a few things about the benefits of the vortex.
For one thing the vortex has high quality mixing for wavetable and
general digital audio (using high order multipoint interpolation)
providing, they claim > 100dB S/N for the mixer. The Maestro2 doesn't
mention anything about providing high quality mixing abilities and notes
a >85db S/N for output. Most likely the Maestro2 uses less intensive
simple mixing routines. I find the output smooth and clean from the
vortex. Also, the MIDI wavetable engine on the Vortex provides the bare
minimum features I would expect in an entry level soundcard, including
good mixing, low pass resonant filtering and 2 FX channelized by MIDI
channel. This is the bare minimum in order for MIDI to continue being
of any use in the future. The Maestro2 doesn't have any low pass
resonant filtering, and probably basic simpler mixing functions. Why is
low pass resonant filtering important? Well, why do you thing Roland
and Yamaha MIDI cards are considered to sound good, low pass filtering
is necessary for controlling timbre in the sound of acoustic instruments
(without using megs, or even gigs of sample data) and to provide
additional dynamic features to synthetic sounds. Resonance adds
additional interesting dynamics to sounds and are found in a lot of
music (most dance/techo, various pop (latest Janet Jackson and Madonna
tunes, etc...) rock (Smashing Pumpkins, etc..) music. So to try to
recreate these type of music you need similar tools, that's one of the
reasons why MIDI isn't used so much in game music these days, the
inability to create the sounds the musicians wants to make.
Concerning total number of digital audio channels, well that ends up the
trade off in quality versus quantity. For just Directsound "2d" data
streams, the 16 streams on the Vortex could be considered sufficient for
"2d" audio, given that is generally the limit for most games with 2d
sound. Due to the higher quality mixing routine, the output of the
Vortex would be better since low sample rate sounds (such as those used
in most games, 11kHz, 22kHz, etc..) benefit most from higher quality
sample rate conversion. Additional 2d sounds could be added either by
software or through the wavetable mixer. At this point software mixing
for "2d" is in many cases considered inconsequential. For 3d audio
however, 8 is really the minimum, but actually 16 should be the current
minimum. The Mastro2 is presently listed to support about 5 3d voices
in hardware, and concurrently with what other capabilities? Does it use
the whole chip? That's not even the 8 minimum nor near the 16 that is
anticipated as the desired level of voices. In which case, most of the
3d sounds would have to be done in software. Is this significantly any
worse or better than the Vortex (which could provide 16 3d sounds too by
software)? At this point if you really want 3d audio you would be
expecting to pick up something that will support 16 hardware 3d sound
minimum in the future. This isn't too surprising since 3d audio has
just started and things will change during the first few years, not
unlike the numerous model changes in 3d graphics cards.
Daron K. Myrick
A singly little piddly chip with its capability and audio quality bets the heck out of those big
assed multi chipped boards which hiss to hell and back and have 1/4'th the features.
>Sound quality: Signal to Noise Ratio: >90dB
>This is for the S70 I got it off the Diamond Web page.
Oh you are kidding now.
All Diamond soundcards are a joke as they use generic Analog Devices DSP's which can mix a total
of about 6 realtime voices at 44.1K at 16bits while vortex can do 48 realtime voices at 48K at 18bits, with
4x interpolation and resonance filtering, with multiple source modulation. :-)
Yes, Diamond cards are a joke compared.
Skip McIlvaine
(Creative Labs)) wrote:
>I assure you, Aureal isn't above buying support.
Chris, as a representative of a sound card company posting in this
forum I would hope that you would restrict your posts to strict fact
and not conjecture and propaganda. This statement is obviously just
your opinion, and it is false. Aureal has never paid for any title
support and probably never will. Please use better discretion with
what you say in a public forum as it may be taken as fact. Please do
not assure anyone of something you are not yourself completely
certain, especially when relating to the "competition."
>Aureal is trying to shut out competition by having a proprietary API.
Again, completely untrue. As a matter of fact, A3D sits on top of
DS3D and restricts nothing. Developers are free to support whatever
they choose, whether A3D is in their plans or not. Developers like
A3D and use A3D to give those customers with A3D hardware the best
possible experience; nothing is stopping them from using DS3D, or EAX
for that matter. Same goes with A3D 2.0, which not only works on any
sound card, but provides for DS3D acceleration on generic DS3D cards.
Again, developers are free to use whatever other APIs they choose, as
are gamers free to buy whatever sound card they choose.
By the way EAX is a "proprietary API" as well, and depending on your
definition, so is DS3D. A3D and EAX provide additional functionality
to those users with the hardware, and if you see something wrong with
that, then I suspect you will have difficulty evangelising EAX without
talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Skip McIlvaine
(obviously, or not, an Aureal employee)
Skip McIlvaine
(Creative Labs)) wrote:
>EAX is an extension to DS3D, not a proprietary API that 'surrounds and
>supports it' in some non-standard way. We feel our technology is what
>we want people to buy, not our API.
Umm, that is exactly what A3D is: an extension to DS3D. Are you
willing to retract your previous statement that A3D is proprietary, or
should we just change the definition of "proprietary?" Aureal feels
the same about our technology and API, I really don't see any
difference in your model and the A3D model: we both provide an API to
developers to grant support to gamers with certain hardware; how is
Aureal doing this in "some non-standard way?" What is "non-standard"
and how is Creative implementing the same model in more of a standard
way?
Will Creative grant every sound card manufacturer free rights to EAX
just to be nice and propel standards? Just my opinion, but I doubt
it; EAX exists to create demand for your products (as A3D exists to
create demand for Aureal products), not to strengthen "non
proprietary" standards. If Creative plans to enable the entire gaming
public with EAX support then I am obviosuly wrong, but if you can tell
me that Creative will sacrifice money spent on developement of EAX and
potential revenue for Creative products just to be philanthropic and
promote standards, I'd have to question your business practices.
Skip
Scott Willing
says...
> Umm, that is exactly what A3D is: an extension to DS3D. Are you
> willing to retract your previous statement that A3D is proprietary, or
> should we just change the definition of "proprietary?" Aureal feels
> the same about our technology and API, I really don't see any
> difference in your model and the A3D model: we both provide an API to
> developers to grant support to gamers with certain hardware; how is
> Aureal doing this in "some non-standard way?" What is "non-standard"
> and how is Creative implementing the same model in more of a standard
> way?
Skip,
"...in more of a standard way"??
Surely you jest.
You know as well as I do that EAX, first of all, is implemented as a
property set, i.e. via a Microsoft-sanctioned mechanism, not a
proprietary set of commands. Most readers here won't know that the
significance of that is, and IMHO you're counting on that lack of
knowledge to slip your argument by.
Furthermore, the EAX protocol has been put before the 3D Working Group of
the IASIG for group consideration as a standard interface, and it's only
a matter of time before--with some modifications as requested by the SIG-
-it becomes just that. Any OEM will be able to provide reverb algorithms
in their products and developers will be able to access them in a
standard way. Again, this won't begin to make a dent in the lives of this
newsgroups' readers until they can get their hands on hardware, but the
day will come.
If you want to debate developer preference for open standards or the
issue of reverb vs. wavetracing, those are different topics. I suggest we
set those aside for the moment.
The point here is that EAX is open and well on its way to becoming an
industry-sanctioned standard and A3D 2.0 is neither. A developer will
soon be able to write to EAX and know that they will get results on more
than just Creative cards, i.e. a compliant card's reverb capabilities
will be used through the EAX interface. So while EAX rendering may indeed
be a selling feature of Creative cards, support for the EAX API is non-
exclusive, and kudos to Creative for opening it up! (As I pointed out to
Toni, there's nothing to prevent Aureal from supporting it, which ought
to be a slam-dunk, BTW.)
You could call our QMDX API "proprietary" too; the definition is a bit
nebulous after all. It's proprietary in the sense that we are a "third
party" i.e. we are neither the title developer nor the OS provider.
However, QMDX doesn't exist in order to restrict gamers' ability to
listen to competing non-QSound hardware or algorithms, it exists to
facilitate it! It's free and can be downloaded by anyone! So, no, we're
not Microsoft, but we have provided a superb API at no cost that assists
DS3D development--while using pure DS3D protocol to communicate with
hardware--to the benefit all 3D vendors equally. And yes, you can bet
your hat it's going to have EAX support built in when we release version
5.0.
A3D 2.x apparently "supports" alternate hardware by ignoring everything
including its basic DS3D positional capabilities in favor of a watered-
down software version of your rendering algorithm. In other words, nobody
else can create a rendering engine that works with the extensions of the
A3D 2.x API--or even basic 3D rendering unless the developer programs
"around you". Is this not so? Is there a flag somewhere in your API like
"UseArbitraryDS3DAccelerator?" I don't think so.
Heck, as Joe Citizen I can't even look at the API, much less think about
supporting it either in a development tool or--God forbid--an alternative
rendering engine. <gasp!> Can you explain to me why these sorts of
tactics are necessary if Aureal algorithms are as clearly superior as
your marketing claims? What harm is there in supporting open standards if
you're utterly confident that everyone will sound like crap compared to
your product?
Unless I've missed something that's the end o' the story. I keep hoping
that I _have_ missed something, 'cos if Aureal had the kahoonas to open
A3D 2.0 in any real sense, I could shut up and go do something more
productive. I really wish you guys would join the party; it would be a
lot more fun for everybody that way.
I shouldn't need to repeat this, but for the record here: I don't
begrudge Aureal the right to develop proprietary technology in any way. I
just think it would be a lot better for players and developers alike if
you would at least support baseline standards like everybody else. That's
what I mean by "joining the party" so please spare us another rundown of
why A3D is "superior." Whether it is or not is an entirely separate
discussion and very, very subjective.
If developers want to support your proprietary extensions, swell, that's
their right, and I wouldn't dream of discouraging them. Just don't put
roadblocks into everything you do to make it hard, for a developer who
_does_ want to use A3D, to simultaneously provide effective support for
alternative hardware. That doesn't mean A2D, either, that means providing
at least the _option_ (who can ask for more?) for true support of
competing hardware.
--
Scott Willing
Tech Info Guy
QSound Labs, Inc.
Skip McIlvaine
Before I begin, I just have to say that I am very much looking forward
to meeting you some day. You seem like a very intelligent reasonable
person. I certainly respect you and your attitude and work, but I
cannot allow all of the half-truths and conveniently missing facts in
your statements about A3D and Aureal to go unaddressed. Nothing
personal but people deserve the whole story.....
On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:54:24 GMT, s...@shaw.wave.ca (Scott Willing)
wrote:
>In article <35bc3939...@nntp.netcruiser>, ski...@ix.netcom.com
>says...
>> Umm, that is exactly what A3D is: an extension to DS3D. Are you
>> willing to retract your previous statement that A3D is proprietary, or
>> should we just change the definition of "proprietary?" Aureal feels
>> the same about our technology and API, I really don't see any
>> difference in your model and the A3D model: we both provide an API to
>> developers to grant support to gamers with certain hardware; how is
>> Aureal doing this in "some non-standard way?" What is "non-standard"
>> and how is Creative implementing the same model in more of a standard
>> way?
>
>Skip,
>
>"...in more of a standard way"??
>
>Surely you jest.
>
>You know as well as I do that EAX, first of all, is implemented as a
>property set, i.e. via a Microsoft-sanctioned mechanism, not a
>proprietary set of commands. Most readers here won't know that the
>significance of that is, and IMHO you're counting on that lack of
>knowledge to slip your argument by.
I think you will find that Microsoft will announce its acknowledgement
and "sanctioning" of A3D and A3D 2.0 very soon, as they both provide
the same added functionality that EAX does (only more) and do so in a
non-restricting way. Using A3D has never restricted anyone from using
another API, it's just that developers stayed away from DS3D because
of its shortcomings. A developer checks for the existence of A3D
hardware, if it's there, great, do A3D, if not, it is completely up to
them whether or not they want to fall back to DS3D or stereo. Many
have fallen back to DS3D and many have not. It is simple as that.
Whether A3D is a property set or not, it is no different from EAX or
QSound in practical implementation or usage.
So, if MS decides what is "standard" or not, I think that you will
find yourself without that argument against A3D any longer...
Aureal had to do something to get the ball rolling while MS were
contemplating property sets and a DS3D HAL, and I think you have
complimented us on that more than once. Whether or not you consider
it standard or not, it was the only way to provide support for our
hardware, and it helped to convince MS of the need for proper hardware
3D audio. I think that QSound and others have benefited from this
more than anything, but just because A3D received exposure, we become
everyone's target.
>Furthermore, the EAX protocol has been put before the 3D Working Group of
>the IASIG for group consideration as a standard interface, and it's only
>a matter of time before--with some modifications as requested by the SIG-
>-it becomes just that. Any OEM will be able to provide reverb algorithms
>in their products and developers will be able to access them in a
>standard way. Again, this won't begin to make a dent in the lives of this
>newsgroups' readers until they can get their hands on hardware, but the
>day will come.
We were also present at this meeting and presented A3D 2.0 for the
IASIG's consideration. Until they choose a standard I think we can
hold off on this discussion, but it just goes to show that it is
convenient to leave out facts about Aureal and A3D to promote your
technology, and to use loosely defined terms to try to make A3D and
Aureal seem like they aren't interested in "playing nice" or
establishing open standards: we just want the best possible standard
that will do the most for gamers and end-users.
>If you want to debate developer preference for open standards or the
>issue of reverb vs. wavetracing, those are different topics. I suggest we
>set those aside for the moment.
Again, we are interested in providing the most features and best
functionality to gamers. If you want to promote old technology
(simple 4 speaker panning and simple reverb) as what gamers want I
think the gamers would prefer to speak for themselves. What's better?
A standard that offers little in the way of added realism and
practical usage, or one that pushes the envelope and offers new
technology (as well as all the technology inherent in your standard)
that comes much closer to recreating reality? I am sure that not
every developer wants to put in the added time to exercise A3D 2.0 and
wavetracing to their fullest, but many will, and that is what will
help them bring the most moving experience to their customers. If
they cannot or will not spend the time to take advantage of all the
new features in A3D 2.0, they are still able to code to the same
direct-path and reverb technology that you are offering, through our
API.
Microsoft provides the great foundation from which we can all build
the most powerful applications, but they (MS) are not necessarily the
"end-all, be-all" to innovative technology. Hopefully they will
continue to promote the innovation of companies like ours to improve
upon this foundation.
>The point here is that EAX is open and well on its way to becoming an
>industry-sanctioned standard and A3D 2.0 is neither. A developer will
>soon be able to write to EAX and know that they will get results on more
>than just Creative cards, i.e. a compliant card's reverb capabilities
>will be used through the EAX interface. So while EAX rendering may indeed
>be a selling feature of Creative cards, support for the EAX API is non-
>exclusive, and kudos to Creative for opening it up! (As I pointed out to
>Toni, there's nothing to prevent Aureal from supporting it, which ought
>to be a slam-dunk, BTW.)
I have to again question the definition of your terms. A3D is "open"
and an "industry-sanctioned standard." Any developer is free to use
A3D at no charge (we have never denied a developer access to our API),
and I think that the developers (LucasArts, Activision, Interplay, GT
Interactive, etc.) and the OEMs (Compaq, Dell, Diamond, Turtle Beach,
etc.) are all part of the "industry" that is "sanctioning" A3D as a
standard. No? If Creative and Microsoft are the only ones who can
dictate what is "open" and an "industry-sanctioned standard" in your
book, I will have to defer until Microsoft speaks out about A3D in the
near future. Will that get you off our back if MS "sanctions" us?
If the monopolizing power of Creative is allowed to set the standard,
I think you see where that might lead. Why do the 2 most powerful
entities in the market have to provide the rules for "standards?"
Shouldn't the end-users? To counter your statement: "The point here
is that EAX is open and well on its way to becoming an
industry-sanctioned standard and A3D 2.0 is neither," I have to say
that the exact opposite is true: A3D is open and the current standard;
EAX hasn't even shipped yet. I am confident Creative will use its
marketing and financial muscle to put a standard in place that will
serve them (and not necessarily the end-user) the best.
I do have to applaud Microsoft though for the intelligence and
integrity necessary to allow hardware companies to improve upon their
design (like Creative and Aureal) and not "restrict" the progress that
this engenders.
About supporting EAX: who knows, I certainly don't make that decision,
but it is possible, but it is messy for developers. I think a bunch
of them want to know exactly what their application is going to sound
like all the time. That is what A3D gives them: consistent
performance for all supported hardware. To support EAX and other
extensions means that every sound card manufacturer has to write a
driver that might (or might not) provide the same experience or
stability across the board. This creates risk and uncertainty for the
developer. Aureal's support for EAX might perform or sound totally
different from what they intended. And this is the nature of the A3D
authentication call that you are so scared of....it is not what you
think. A3D authentication simply guarantees that A3D will work as
designed and not break on emulating, uncertified hardware. It is
completely the developer's decision and has never been forced upon
anyone. Aureal has the right to ensure the quality of the
representation of its technology, and so does the developer. If
Creative or someone else makes a shoddy A3D emulation, than that hurts
Aureal's image and the A3D developer's. We want to provide a way for
our developers to ensure this quality. It certainly isn't the same as
Creative's campaign to eliminate "Sound Blaster" clones and bring them
to court: it is simply an elegant, unobtrusive, non-restrictive way to
allow the developer and gamer to appreciate the intended effect. And
I will repeat one more time: it is simply a check for certified
hardware, and a parameter around which the developer and gamer can
make an informed decision, nothing else. It is through this
authentication that developers can than make the decision to fall back
to DS3D. See? No "restrictions," just empowerment.
>You could call our QMDX API "proprietary" too; the definition is a bit
>nebulous after all. It's proprietary in the sense that we are a "third
>party" i.e. we are neither the title developer nor the OS provider.
Thank you.
>However, QMDX doesn't exist in order to restrict gamers' ability to
>listen to competing non-QSound hardware or algorithms, it exists to
>facilitate it! It's free and can be downloaded by anyone! So, no, we're
>not Microsoft, but we have provided a superb API at no cost that assists
>DS3D development--while using pure DS3D protocol to communicate with
>hardware--to the benefit all 3D vendors equally. And yes, you can bet
>your hat it's going to have EAX support built in when we release version
>5.0.
Boy, you guys really like this "restrict" thing. If restrict means we
want to make money, sure, I'll accept your definition, but again we
are not restricting anyone from using anything else. If developers
don't want to use A3D, we aren't restricting them; if they want to use
A3D, great, we won't restrict them from using another API as well; if
a gamer doesn't want A3D support, fine, we won't restrict them; they
can make up their own mind and purchase whatever they like. When you
have something close to a monopoly, like MS and Creative, that is
where you begin to approach the ability to restrict users and
developers, Aureal cannot and will not. Enough with the "restrict"
business already. If it makes you happy (although that isn't
necessarily our intention), as soon as we finish our new Aureal.com
website, the A3D SDK will be available for the world to download. :)
This should be done within the next month when we launch a
much-improved developers area for the public. But if you want proof
of our willingness to "open" the API, here is the generic username and
password to the A3D Developers' Area: a3ddev. Have at it....
>A3D 2.x apparently "supports" alternate hardware by ignoring everything
>including its basic DS3D positional capabilities in favor of a watered-
>down software version of your rendering algorithm. In other words, nobody
>else can create a rendering engine that works with the extensions of the
>A3D 2.x API--or even basic 3D rendering unless the developer programs
>"around you". Is this not so? Is there a flag somewhere in your API like
>"UseArbitraryDS3DAccelerator?" I don't think so.
Not true. A3D 2.0 supports DS3D and generic DS3D accelerators.
Developers are then free to use whatever extensions they wish. This
"watered-down" software version that you speak of is faster than DS3D
software and provides the same positional quality with added
functionality to old ISA and non-DS3D sound cards. It's called A2D,
and I think it is similar to (although more powerful than) the
host-rendered feature of QDMX. Does yours support occlusions? Is
yours faster than DS3D?
>Heck, as Joe Citizen I can't even look at the API, much less think about
>supporting it either in a development tool or--God forbid--an alternative
>rendering engine. <gasp!> Can you explain to me why these sorts of
>tactics are necessary if Aureal algorithms are as clearly superior as
>your marketing claims? What harm is there in supporting open standards if
>you're utterly confident that everyone will sound like crap compared to
>your product?
Like I said, as soon as the good people working on our new Aureal.com
website are done, the 1.2 SDK will be there for the world to download.
Yes, until we feel the A3D 2.0 SDK has finally found its way into
Creative's hands, it will probably be password protected as well.
>Unless I've missed something that's the end o' the story. I keep hoping
>that I _have_ missed something, 'cos if Aureal had the kahoonas to open
>A3D 2.0 in any real sense, I could shut up and go do something more
>productive. I really wish you guys would join the party; it would be a
>lot more fun for everybody that way.
I really don't think you expect me to believe you haven't
intentionally "missed something." You are a very intelligent person,
and well informed: you wouldn't miss something that would make your
position appear superior. That is the nature of marketing and
evangelism, no?
Join the party? Geez, we feel like we brought a lot of the booze.
>I shouldn't need to repeat this, but for the record here: I don't
>begrudge Aureal the right to develop proprietary technology in any way. I
>just think it would be a lot better for players and developers alike if
>you would at least support baseline standards like everybody else. That's
>what I mean by "joining the party" so please spare us another rundown of
>why A3D is "superior." Whether it is or not is an entirely separate
>discussion and very, very subjective.
For hopefully the last time, "proprietary" lacks a solid definition
but is obviously being used by you as negative, although you admitted:
"
>You could call our QMDX API "proprietary" too; the definition is a bit
>nebulous after all. It's proprietary in the sense that we are a "third
>party" i.e. we are neither the title developer nor the OS provider.
"
Let's stop using the word, it's useless in conveying the facts of the
situation.
Sorry, I won't go through another rundown of why A3D is superior, but
what exactly have you been attempting here? Obviously this is not the
best forum for this sort of thing, so maybe we should keep our noses
out of this forum. I can't allow people telling untruths about our
company our technology without setting the record straight. That is
why I stepped in in the first place. I was only here to provide
support and direction in terms of new drivers and other fixes until
Chris at Creative made some untrue statements about Aureal and A3D.
>If developers want to support your proprietary extensions, swell, that's
>their right, and I wouldn't dream of discouraging them. Just don't put
>roadblocks into everything you do to make it hard, for a developer who
>_does_ want to use A3D, to simultaneously provide effective support for
>alternative hardware. That doesn't mean A2D, either, that means providing
>at least the _option_ (who can ask for more?) for true support of
>competing hardware.
"Roadblocks?" Geez. What roadblocks? We do "provide effective
support for alternative hardware." Like I said previously, DS3D is
supported when A3D hardware doesn't exist in the system and the option
to use anything else is as well.
>--
>Scott Willing
>Tech Info Guy
>QSound Labs, Inc.
Hey Scott, wanna move to California? We're hiring. ;)
Skip
Aureal Dev. Guy
Chris Owens (Creative Labs)
On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 07:45:35 GMT, ski...@ix.netcom.com (Skip
McIlvaine) wrote:
>Again, we are interested in providing the most features and best
>functionality to gamers. If you want to promote old technology
>(simple 4 speaker panning and simple reverb) as what gamers want I
>think the gamers would prefer to speak for themselves.
Neither Qsound nor the Sound Blaster Live! is about simple 4 speaker
panning and simple reverb. The Sound Blaster Live! supports HRTFs for
headphone and 2-speaker systems as well as supporting 4 or more
speakers setups.
>
>If the monopolizing power of Creative is allowed to set the standard,
>I think you see where that might lead.
>When you
>have something close to a monopoly, like MS and Creative, that is
>where you begin to approach the ability to restrict users and
>developers, Aureal cannot and will not.
Calling Creative a monopoly in what I suspect is the most bitterly
competitive pc-related market today is propaganda.
>
>Yes, until we feel the A3D 2.0 SDK has finally found its way into
>Creative's hands, it will probably be password protected as well.
>
Yes, a proprietary API.
>
>>Unless I've missed something that's the end o' the story. I keep hoping
>>that I _have_ missed something, 'cos if Aureal had the kahoonas to open
>>A3D 2.0 in any real sense, I could shut up and go do something more
>>productive. I really wish you guys would join the party; it would be a
>>lot more fun for everybody that way.
>
>Sorry, I won't go through another rundown of why A3D is superior, but
>what exactly have you been attempting here? Obviously this is not the
>best forum for this sort of thing, so maybe we should keep our noses
>out of this forum. I can't allow people telling untruths about our
>company our technology without setting the record straight.
Good plan. If people have questions about issues that have been
raised here, they're free to ask. Clearly we're all quite passionate
about our products and companies, but this conversation probably
doesn't have a purpose in this venue.
Skid
Creative makes no claims one way or the other, since they haven't licensed the
technology. They'd just like us to buy their cards without asking such pesky
questions.
jgl...@spamgone-borg.com wrote in message <35c29b67...@news.borg.com>...
>>>David Gasior
>>>Creative intercepts A3D calls. If the 3D
>>>technology of ESS and Creative is good, then why do they need to intercept
A3D
>>>calls? Why does ESS include A3D.DLL in their package (which seems to be
>>>illegal in the first place)?
>
>>Chris Owens (Creative Labs)
>>It's illegal if we copy their technology, not if we can work with it.
>>Creative didn't take people to court for being compatible, just for
>>being 100% compatible, usually by copying our technology through shady
>>means.
>
>So, you're saying that Creative's support of A3D is not 100%
>compatible? Interesting. By what non-100% percentile is it compatible,
>and are consumers made aware of the fact that it is not 100%
>compatible A3D support?
Scott Willing
says...
> >>David Gasior
> >>Creative intercepts A3D calls. If the 3D
> >>calls? Why does ESS include A3D.DLL in their package (which seems to be
> >>illegal in the first place)?
>
> >It's illegal if we copy their technology, not if we can work with it.
> >Creative didn't take people to court for being compatible, just for
> >being 100% compatible, usually by copying our technology through shady
> >means.
>
> So, you're saying that Creative's support of A3D is not 100%
> compatible? Interesting. By what non-100% percentile is it compatible,
> and are consumers made aware of the fact that it is not 100%
> compatible A3D support?
Hang on. This discussion lacks a bit of perspective.
"Emulation" of current (i.e. 1.x) A3D titles involves nothing more than
replacing the functionality of the Aureal resource manager and telling
the application that's it's OK to cough up the positional calls. The
"emulated" functions are basically to do with bookkeeping, not the
processing algorithm.
The positional calls in A3D 1.x titles are straightforward Microsoft
DirectSound3D commands! Yup, the very API that was created so that the
developer doesn't have to care about writing to specific hardware unless
the choice is made to support specific extended features (if any.) DS3D
isn't hardware-specific, it's just an API that tells the hardware where
to put sounds. The hardware does it with its own algorithms, whether for
2 or more speakers or for headphones. In effect, 98% of the "A3D 1.x API"
is just DS3D. Without the DS3D API, the A3D API wouldn't exist!
This is a totally different concept than emulating the actual 3D
processing that A3D uses to place sounds in space, which is the
impression I think some people have.
Even this is kinda silly. Aureal uses binaural synthesis corrected for
speakers with cross-talk cancelation (BS+CC), which is a public-domain
approach that's been around for decades. They don't own the idea, nor for
that matter (with respect to A3D 2.0) neither do they own wavetracing,
also an old concept in the public domain. Any first-year college kid can
get a bunch of HRTF's from one of several university web sites and do
their own BS+CC 3D rendering engine (and many have!) Of course, there's
more than one way to skin a cat. I've seen various patents on particular
details of the approach or research methods, and of course our own method
for speaker 3D, which is NOT BS+CC, is patented--but it's the only truly
different approach in the market.
Basically the differences between 3D algorithms come down to:
- effectiveness and fidelity, which is very subjective and subject to
severe degradation in the end-user environment due to lousy headphones,
speakers, and speaker placement,
- efficiency, which translates directly to cost.
Any proprietary solutions have more to do with the latter than the
former.
"Emulation" of A3D 1.x is no longer much of an issue, given the wide
support by developers of general DS3D accelerators for current projects.
It's really only relevant to the very first titles that came out.
Again, the whole idea of DS3D is that the developer doesn't have to be
overly concerned with the hardware, and the consumer gets to buy whatever
they want to render the soundscape. Aureal got out of the gate early,
before DS3D hardware support was completed, but the latter occured a year
ago with DX5.
I'll say it again: early "A3D" titles use Microsoft DS3D commands for
positioning sounds. DS3D was, and is, supposed to be a univeral open
standard, and all "emulation" does is make these industry-standard
commands useable by the hardware, in exactly the same sense that A3D 1.x
made them useable by Aureal hardware before anyone else did.
In case it isn't abundantly clear, this is FYI, not an argument for or
against A3D or any other 3D audio renderer. There are lots of them.
David Gasior
>Aureal tells people the Creative cards aren't compatible on their website.
>Creative makes no claims one way or the other, since they haven't licensed the
>technology. They'd just like us to buy their cards without asking such pesky
>questions.
Actually, Creative had claimed A3D compatiblity when the new cards debuted a
while ago, but the reference to A3D was quickly changed to "and derivative
technologies".
Scott Willing
says...
> Hey Scott,
>
> Before I begin, I just have to say that I am very much looking forward
> to meeting you some day. You seem like a very intelligent reasonable
> person.
Ah, shucks...
> I certainly respect you and your attitude and work, but I
> cannot allow all of the half-truths and conveniently missing facts in
> your statements about A3D and Aureal to go unaddressed. Nothing
> personal but people deserve the whole story.....
Couldn't agree more. Bring forth.
> >You know as well as I do that EAX, first of all, is implemented as a
> >property set, i.e. via a Microsoft-sanctioned mechanism, not a
> >proprietary set of commands. Most readers here won't know that the
> >significance of that is, and IMHO you're counting on that lack of
> >knowledge to slip your argument by.
>
> I think you will find that Microsoft will announce its acknowledgement
> and "sanctioning" of A3D and A3D 2.0 very soon, as they both provide
> the same added functionality that EAX does (only more) and do so in a
> non-restricting way.
I'm not sure what you're getting at, as my own impression is that they'd
rather A3D 2.0 was truly open, but obviously I can't speak for MS.
> Using A3D has never restricted anyone from using
> another API,
Didn't say that.
> it's just that developers stayed away from DS3D because
> of its shortcomings. A developer checks for the existence of A3D
> hardware, if it's there, great, do A3D, if not, it is completely up to
> them whether or not they want to fall back to DS3D or stereo. Many
> have fallen back to DS3D and many have not. It is simple as that.
> Whether A3D is a property set or not, it is no different from EAX or
> QSound in practical implementation or usage.
It certainly has been, but perhaps the winds of change are a-blowin'?
> So, if MS decides what is "standard" or not, I think that you will
> find yourself without that argument against A3D any longer...
If the conditions I object to are removed, then that's pretty obviously
the case.
> Aureal had to do something to get the ball rolling while MS were
> contemplating property sets and a DS3D HAL, and I think you have
> complimented us on that more than once. Whether or not you consider
> it standard or not, it was the only way to provide support for our
> hardware, and it helped to convince MS of the need for proper hardware
> 3D audio. I think that QSound and others have benefited from this
> more than anything, but just because A3D received exposure, we become
> everyone's target.
I have experience of the same phenomenon vis-a-vis our professional audio
products.
However, that isn't why you're being "targeted" IMHO. It's clear from
many posts here and elsewhere that people don't have much perspective on
how the current situation came to pass. If DS3D had hardware acceleration
from the get-go, and you had merely been the first vendor to provide
DS3D-compatible hardware to market, you wouldn't have been able to
establish yourselves in the collective consciousness to the extent you
did.
All this chat about A3D "emulation" is a perfect example; people don't
understand how it all came about. Many of them think Aureal invented 3D
audio on the PC, and in the spirit of "deserving the whole story" I'm
here along with others to say "wait a minute."
I completely understand that you must make every effort to ride this
initial impression for all it's worth. But there you go... IMHO this has
led to a good many "conveniently" missing facts etc. on the part of
Aureal.
> >Furthermore, the EAX protocol has been put before the 3D Working Group of
> >the IASIG for group consideration as a standard interface, and it's only
> >a matter of time before--with some modifications as requested by the SIG-
> >-it becomes just that. Any OEM will be able to provide reverb algorithms
> >in their products and developers will be able to access them in a
> >standard way. Again, this won't begin to make a dent in the lives of this
> >newsgroups' readers until they can get their hands on hardware, but the
> >day will come.
>
>
> We were also present at this meeting and presented A3D 2.0 for the
> IASIG's consideration.
My understanding from our own people at that meeting was that this
amounted to a suggestion that Microsoft adopt some form of A3D 2.0. While
that would clear up many if not all of my objections (because it would
make the API open and standard) it's a long way from tabling an API for
open discussion in an industry forum.
> Until they choose a standard I think we can
> hold off on this discussion, but it just goes to show that it is
> convenient to leave out facts about Aureal and A3D to promote your
> technology, and to use loosely defined terms to try to make A3D and
> Aureal seem like they aren't interested in "playing nice" or
> establishing open standards: we just want the best possible standard
> that will do the most for gamers and end-users.
Primarily I have avoided "promoting" QSound technology. That's a whole
other discussion, and so subjective it's pretty much pointless. I have
promoted our efforts to help developers achieve the best possible results
across all systems from all vendors, with the associated benefits for
consumers.
As for the "best possible standard." Hmm...
> >If you want to debate developer preference for open standards or the
> >issue of reverb vs. wavetracing, those are different topics. I suggest we
> >set those aside for the moment.
>
> Again, we are interested in providing the most features and best
> functionality to gamers. If you want to promote old technology
> (simple 4 speaker panning and simple reverb) as what gamers want I
> think the gamers would prefer to speak for themselves. What's better?
How many times have I said that consumer choice is the bottom line?
Speaking of convenience, your use of "simple" and "old" is an affront to
those many folks who feel that multi-speaker solutions are preferable.
I'm neutral in this.
> A standard that offers little in the way of added realism and
> practical usage,
...an opinion, highly subjective...
> or one that pushes the envelope and offers new
> technology
...that IMHO will be in many cases indistinguishable from, or at least of
similar value to alternatives...
> (as well as all the technology inherent in your standard)
> that comes much closer to recreating reality?
Developers mess with reality all the time!(Speed of sound, acceleration
due to gravity etc. etc.) Frankly, reality often just isn't exciting
enough. How does that fit the geometry-passing model?
For that matter, reverbs used in pro audio production for years do all
kinds of effects that don't necessarily occur in the real world. This is
the entertainment business! If you want reality, go for a walk. (Not
knocking it--it's full 360 3D sound and video, and totally interactive.)
> I am sure that not
> every developer wants to put in the added time to exercise A3D 2.0 and
> wavetracing to their fullest, but many will, and that is what will
> help them bring the most moving experience to their customers. If
> they cannot or will not spend the time to take advantage of all the
> new features in A3D 2.0, they are still able to code to the same
> direct-path and reverb technology that you are offering, through our
> API.
But only for your hardware. No?
> Microsoft provides the great foundation from which we can all build
> the most powerful applications, but they (MS) are not necessarily the
> "end-all, be-all" to innovative technology. Hopefully they will
> continue to promote the innovation of companies like ours to improve
> upon this foundation.
>
>
> >The point here is that EAX is open and well on its way to becoming an
> >industry-sanctioned standard and A3D 2.0 is neither. A developer will
> >soon be able to write to EAX and know that they will get results on more
> >than just Creative cards, i.e. a compliant card's reverb capabilities
> >will be used through the EAX interface. So while EAX rendering may indeed
> >be a selling feature of Creative cards, support for the EAX API is non-
> >exclusive, and kudos to Creative for opening it up! (As I pointed out to
> >Toni, there's nothing to prevent Aureal from supporting it, which ought
> >to be a slam-dunk, BTW.)
>
>
> I have to again question the definition of your terms. A3D is "open"
> and an "industry-sanctioned standard." Any developer is free to use
> A3D at no charge (we have never denied a developer access to our API),
> and I think that the developers (LucasArts, Activision, Interplay, GT
> Interactive, etc.) and the OEMs (Compaq, Dell, Diamond, Turtle Beach,
> etc.) are all part of the "industry" that is "sanctioning" A3D as a
> standard. No?
OK, I'll define my terms.
"Open" means anyone can get the details of the API for nothing, and
anyone can produce a rendering engine, using their own approach, that
works with the API to whatever extent they wish.
"Industry-sanctioned standard" is in reference to the API. It means
either something provided by the OS vendor, or something agreed upon by
an organization of third-party vendors for all to use freely. (See "open"
above.)
When you say "standard" it appears to imply "the most popular solution".
Since the numbers don't support Aureal being in this position by a long
stretch, I'm not sure just what you mean either.
> If Creative and Microsoft are the only ones who can
> dictate what is "open" and an "industry-sanctioned standard" in your
> book,
See above.
> I will have to defer until Microsoft speaks out about A3D in the
> near future. Will that get you off our back if MS "sanctions" us?
Can't speculate!
> If the monopolizing power of Creative is allowed to set the standard,
> I think you see where that might lead. Why do the 2 most powerful
> entities in the market have to provide the rules for "standards?"
As opposed to _you_ setting the rules? And that is better how?
Secondly, Creative brought forth a proposal. There were a number of
suggestions for changes, and they have dilligently set to work addressing
them, with some updates implemented already. This has implications for
their own products; they'll have to go back and alter stuff to work with
this as well. A pain! Much easier for them if they just decided to do
their own thing behind closed doors and to hell with everybody else, eh?
> Shouldn't the end-users?
Choice choice choice.
> To counter your statement: "The point here
> is that EAX is open and well on its way to becoming an
> industry-sanctioned standard and A3D 2.0 is neither," I have to say
> that the exact opposite is true: A3D is open and the current standard;
...apparently a reference to A3D 1.x, and I still have difficulty with
both "open" and "standard" by my definition... or even yours.
> EAX hasn't even shipped yet.
Neither has A3D 2.0. A3D 1.x is more Microsoft than Aureal.
> I am confident Creative will use its
> marketing and financial muscle to put a standard in place that will
> serve them (and not necessarily the end-user) the best.
If EAX is agreed upon, in some modified form, by the IASIG, then you
could support it (easily I would think) just like anyone else. You can
also provide wavetracing to your heart's content, and so your hardware
would be effective in either case. Sounds to me like you have nothing to
lose, so I don't see the problem. I should think you'd be far more
concerned if EAX was closed and proprietary.
We're supporting EAX because it's been placed on the table for group
discussion and possible adoption. We can't discuss A3D 2.0 in any useful
sense because it isn't on the table.
We can go back to our lab and put together a killer EAX rendering
implementation (as can anyone else). Maybe we do such a good job that we
sell a billion cards and put Creative out of business. Or they could sell
a billion cards and put us out of business. That's the risk we take. More
likely is that we find our respective market niches. Developers go on
with their projects knowing that multiple vendors are going to be around
with multiple products that support the API they're using.
> I do have to applaud Microsoft though for the intelligence and
> integrity necessary to allow hardware companies to improve upon their
> design (like Creative and Aureal) and not "restrict" the progress that
> this engenders.
Ditto.
> About supporting EAX: who knows, I certainly don't make that decision,
> but it is possible, but it is messy for developers.
I honestly don't see why. EAX may not be the most convenient thing for
pure DS3D coding, but QSound isn't the only company providing a free API
that will smooth those challenges out. You could be one as well; I should
think (again, having never seen the A3D 2.0 API or expecting to at this
point) that you could do it as easily as any of us.
On the hardware side, it can't be that big a deal to take the EAX
commands and use your engine to make "simple" reverb, can it?
> I think a bunch
> of them want to know exactly what their application is going to sound
> like all the time.
I would counter that a bunch of them would like their applications to
sound as good as possible on the broadest range of hardware. Yeah,
consistency is desireable, but that's the argument Microsoft used when
they hovered on the brink of closing the API and making everyone use the
same algorithm. Remember that? In any event, it's the developer's choice,
and it's choice that I'm advocating.
> That is what A3D gives them: consistent
> performance for all supported hardware. To support EAX and other
> extensions means that every sound card manufacturer has to write a
> driver that might (or might not) provide the same experience or
> stability across the board. This creates risk and uncertainty for the
> developer. Aureal's support for EAX might perform or sound totally
> different from what they intended.
Goldernit. They're providing guidelines, Matlab outputs... I don't for a
moment think that it would be anything other than a walk in the park for
you to do something that would sound very similar... or maybe this
"simple" reverb stuff isn't so easy?
> And this is the nature of the A3D
> authentication call that you are so scared of....it is not what you
> think. A3D authentication simply guarantees that A3D will work as
> designed and not break on emulating, uncertified hardware.
Un-hunh.
> It is
> completely the developer's decision and has never been forced upon
> anyone.
This is welcome news.
> Aureal has the right to ensure the quality of the
> representation of its technology, and so does the developer. If
> Creative or someone else makes a shoddy A3D emulation, than that hurts
> Aureal's image and the A3D developer's. We want to provide a way for
> our developers to ensure this quality. It certainly isn't the same as
> Creative's campaign to eliminate "Sound Blaster" clones and bring them
> to court: it is simply an elegant, unobtrusive, non-restrictive way to
> allow the developer and gamer to appreciate the intended effect. And
> I will repeat one more time: it is simply a check for certified
> hardware, and a parameter around which the developer and gamer can
> make an informed decision, nothing else. It is through this
> authentication that developers can than make the decision to fall back
> to DS3D. See? No "restrictions," just empowerment.
>
> >You could call our QMDX API "proprietary" too; the definition is a bit
> >nebulous after all. It's proprietary in the sense that we are a "third
> >party" i.e. we are neither the title developer nor the OS provider.
>
>
> Thank you.
You're welcome!
>
> >However, QMDX doesn't exist in order to restrict gamers' ability to
> >listen to competing non-QSound hardware or algorithms, it exists to
> >facilitate it! It's free and can be downloaded by anyone! So, no, we're
> >not Microsoft, but we have provided a superb API at no cost that assists
> >DS3D development--while using pure DS3D protocol to communicate with
> >hardware--to the benefit all 3D vendors equally. And yes, you can bet
> >your hat it's going to have EAX support built in when we release version
> >5.0.
>
>
> Boy, you guys really like this "restrict" thing. If restrict means we
> want to make money, sure, I'll accept your definition, but again we
> are not restricting anyone from using anything else. If developers
> don't want to use A3D, we aren't restricting them; if they want to use
> A3D, great, we won't restrict them from using another API as well; if
> a gamer doesn't want A3D support, fine, we won't restrict them; they
> can make up their own mind and purchase whatever they like. When you
> have something close to a monopoly, like MS and Creative, that is
> where you begin to approach the ability to restrict users and
> developers, Aureal cannot and will not. Enough with the "restrict"
> business already. If it makes you happy (although that isn't
> necessarily our intention), as soon as we finish our new Aureal.com
> website, the A3D SDK will be available for the world to download. :)
A3D 2.0? That would be progress.
> This should be done within the next month when we launch a
> much-improved developers area for the public. But if you want proof
> of our willingness to "open" the API, here is the generic username and
> password to the A3D Developers' Area: a3ddev. Have at it....
>
>
> >A3D 2.x apparently "supports" alternate hardware by ignoring everything
> >including its basic DS3D positional capabilities in favor of a watered-
> >down software version of your rendering algorithm. In other words, nobody
> >else can create a rendering engine that works with the extensions of the
> >A3D 2.x API--or even basic 3D rendering unless the developer programs
> >"around you". Is this not so? Is there a flag somewhere in your API like
> >"UseArbitraryDS3DAccelerator?" I don't think so.
>
>
> Not true. A3D 2.0 supports DS3D and generic DS3D accelerators.
> Developers are then free to use whatever extensions they wish.
I asked Toni to clarify this and didn't get a response. This is not the
story that's been told to date, and again, if it's the real deal, this is
truly a happy day.
Just so I'm sure I get this right, could you be more specific? Is this
implemented now? Will it be in the first release of 2.0?
Also, will you support the Voice Manager property set, either in your API
for "generic" DS3D accelerators or in your hardware or hopefully both?
> This
> "watered-down" software version that you speak of is faster than DS3D
> software
What isn't? (Sorry, had to say that.)
> and provides the same positional quality
i.e. a simple headphone algorithm that sounds weird on speakers?
> with added
> functionality to old ISA and non-DS3D sound cards. It's called A2D,
> and I think it is similar to (although more powerful than) the
> host-rendered feature of QDMX. Does yours support occlusions? Is
> yours faster than DS3D?
1. More powerful in what sense?
2. It will support occlusions via EAX.
3. It's faster than regular DS stereo, and waaaay faster than DS3D. Heck,
our full 3D stuff is about as fast as DS stereo, as you must know.
> >Heck, as Joe Citizen I can't even look at the API, much less think about
> >supporting it either in a development tool or--God forbid--an alternative
> >rendering engine. <gasp!> Can you explain to me why these sorts of
> >tactics are necessary if Aureal algorithms are as clearly superior as
> >your marketing claims? What harm is there in supporting open standards if
> >you're utterly confident that everyone will sound like crap compared to
> >your product?
>
>
> Like I said, as soon as the good people working on our new Aureal.com
> website are done, the 1.2 SDK will be there for the world to download.
1.2? Oh nuts. I got excited too soon. There's not much in 1.2 that's very
interesting. Thanks for releasing old news.
> Yes, until we feel the A3D 2.0 SDK has finally found its way into
> Creative's hands, it will probably be password protected as well.
Back to square one.
> >Unless I've missed something that's the end o' the story. I keep hoping
> >that I _have_ missed something, 'cos if Aureal had the kahoonas to open
> >A3D 2.0 in any real sense, I could shut up and go do something more
> >productive. I really wish you guys would join the party; it would be a
> >lot more fun for everybody that way.
>
> I really don't think you expect me to believe you haven't
> intentionally "missed something." You are a very intelligent person,
> and well informed: you wouldn't miss something that would make your
> position appear superior. That is the nature of marketing and
> evangelism, no?
I don't know everything, though I wish I did! I don't want to make untrue
or misleading statements, ever. The only time I've had the experience of
being pressured to do so, I got out of the company I was working for; I'd
rather pump gas for a living than lie.
I can say with a clear conscience that if I knew what I know now, and had
never worked for QSound in my life, I'd be saying the same dang thing. As
a consumer buying a sound card or other gear, it is frankly a serious
piss-off when one gizmo doesn't work with another gizmo just because the
manufacturer did it that way to keep you faithful to their brand. In my
book, products should stand on their merits, though I'm not naive enough
to think that this isn't largely a dead concept in a world more driven by
hype and packaging than content.
>
> Join the party? Geez, we feel like we brought a lot of the booze.
>
>
> >I shouldn't need to repeat this, but for the record here: I don't
> >begrudge Aureal the right to develop proprietary technology in any way. I
> >just think it would be a lot better for players and developers alike if
> >you would at least support baseline standards like everybody else. That's
> >what I mean by "joining the party" so please spare us another rundown of
> >why A3D is "superior." Whether it is or not is an entirely separate
> >discussion and very, very subjective.
>
>
> For hopefully the last time, "proprietary" lacks a solid definition
> but is obviously being used by you as negative, although you admitted:
>
> "
> >You could call our QMDX API "proprietary" too; the definition is a bit
> >nebulous after all. It's proprietary in the sense that we are a "third
> >party" i.e. we are neither the title developer nor the OS provider.
> "
>
> Let's stop using the word, it's useless in conveying the facts of the
> situation.
Sorry, cannot ever agree.
>
> Sorry, I won't go through another rundown of why A3D is superior, but
> what exactly have you been attempting here?
<sigh>
Let's say that Microsoft and Aureal and QSound and Creative etc. etc.
worked together with developers to create the best API for 3D audio
possible, similar to the way the MIDI standard came about.
Then we all went out and built products that supported it. And developers
wrote to it.
Then consumers bought the ones they thought were the best fit for their
budget, priorities, preferences and ears. And everything worked together.
That's what I have been attempting to advocate here.
> Obviously this is not the
> best forum for this sort of thing, so maybe we should keep our noses
> out of this forum.
Good god, you're right! People might make up their own minds!
> I can't allow people telling untruths about our
> company our technology without setting the record straight.
And you're free to state your opinions. Isn't that a good thing? As for
me, I express my own opinions (with a good deal of respect; more than is
typical of newsgroups I might add) and really try to get at the facts.
The latter--as anyone who's followed this long discussion must have
noticed by now--is tricky at best because they're easily obscured by
different definitions of "support" "standard" "proprietary" etc. ad
nauseum.
> That is
> why I stepped in in the first place. I was only here to provide
> support and direction in terms of new drivers and other fixes until
> Chris at Creative made some untrue statements about Aureal and A3D.
That's between you guys.
> >If developers want to support your proprietary extensions, swell, that's
> >their right, and I wouldn't dream of discouraging them. Just don't put
> >roadblocks into everything you do to make it hard, for a developer who
> >_does_ want to use A3D, to simultaneously provide effective support for
> >alternative hardware. That doesn't mean A2D, either, that means providing
> >at least the _option_ (who can ask for more?) for true support of
> >competing hardware.
>
>
> "Roadblocks?" Geez. What roadblocks? We do "provide effective
> support for alternative hardware." Like I said previously, DS3D is
> supported when A3D hardware doesn't exist in the system and the option
> to use anything else is as well.
If you have a moment, I'd appreciate clarification on this as previously
indicated.
> Hey Scott, wanna move to California? We're hiring. ;)
Well, that's very kind of you. But the simple answer is "no, thanks."
Will.T
>Oh you are kidding now.
>DSP's which can mix a total
>realtime voices at 48K at 18bits, with
>modulation. :-)
>Yes, Diamond cards are a joke compared.
No you are the joke because the S70 doesnt use a "generic Analog
Devices DSP" it uses the ESS Maestro-2 chipset which has nothing to do
with what you are talking about.
Will.T
>I think you are missing a few things about the benefits of the vortex.
>For one thing the vortex has high quality mixing for wavetable and
>general digital audio (using high order multipoint interpolation)
>providing, they claim > 100dB S/N for the mixer. The Maestro2 doesn't
>mention anything about providing high quality mixing abilities and notes
>a >85db S/N for output.
Maybe. More later. The Diamond Web page says the SNR of the S70 is
>90DB and it certainly sounds pretty quiet and clean to me. The
Maestro-2 has upto 20bit ADC/DAC resolution and upsamples synth output
to 16bit 48khz each stream can have separate pan, vibrato, tremolo and
tone filter settings.
> Most likely the Maestro2 uses less intensive
>simple mixing routines.
Doubt it.
> Also, the MIDI wavetable engine on the Vortex provides the bare
>minimum features I would expect in an entry level soundcard, including
>good mixing, low pass resonant filtering and 2 FX channelized by MIDI
>channel.
Yes I would term that as poor.
> This is the bare minimum in order for MIDI to continue being
>of any use in the future. The Maestro2 doesn't have any low pass
>resonant filtering, and probably basic simpler mixing functions. Why is
>low pass resonant filtering important? Well, why do you thing Roland
>and Yamaha MIDI cards are considered to sound good, low pass filtering
>is necessary for controlling timbre in the sound of acoustic instruments
>(without using megs, or even gigs of sample data) and to provide
>additional dynamic features to synthetic sounds. Resonance adds
>additional interesting dynamics to sounds and are found in a lot of
>music (most dance/techo, various pop (latest Janet Jackson and Madonna
>tunes, etc...) rock (Smashing Pumpkins, etc..) music. So to try to
>recreate these type of music you need similar tools, that's one of the
>reasons why MIDI isn't used so much in game music these days, the
>inability to create the sounds the musicians wants to make.
That all sounds great and i'm not really sure about "low resonant
filtering" i.e whether the maestro-2 supports it or not. One thing I
will say tho is that I think both probably the midi in the Vortex and
the Maestro-2 could have been alot better but the simple problem or
circumstances are that the importantance of midi to these cards isnt
great. They are low cost and so the programmers are now spending their
time making sure the 3Dapis or whatever are properly supported and
they put in a very basic midi engine and patchset, enough to get it
by.
>Concerning total number of digital audio channels, well that ends up the
>trade off in quality versus quantity. For just Directsound "2d" data
>streams, the 16 streams on the Vortex could be considered sufficient for
>"2d" audio, given that is generally the limit for most games with 2d
>sound. Due to the higher quality mixing routine, the output of the
>Vortex would be better since low sample rate sounds (such as those used
>in most games, 11kHz, 22kHz, etc..) benefit most from higher quality
>sample rate conversion. Additional 2d sounds could be added either by
>software or through the wavetable mixer. At this point software mixing
>for "2d" is in many cases considered inconsequential. For 3d audio
>however, 8 is really the minimum, but actually 16 should be the current
>minimum. The Mastro2 is presently listed to support about 5 3d voices
>in hardware, and concurrently with what other capabilities? Does it use
>the whole chip? That's not even the 8 minimum nor near the 16 that is
>anticipated as the desired level of voices. In which case, most of the
>3d sounds would have to be done in software. Is this significantly any
>worse or better than the Vortex (which could provide 16 3d sounds too by
>software)? At this point if you really want 3d audio you would be
>expecting to pick up something that will support 16 hardware 3d sound
>minimum in the future. This isn't too surprising since 3d audio has
>just started and things will change during the first few years, not
>unlike the numerous model changes in 3d graphics cards.
MAestro-2 upsamples all output to 48kz regardless (this is when the
synth/accelarator is used) as for the 5 streams i'm not sure if this
is actually true I know the Diamond web page says this maybe the
diamond drivers support only 5 but from what i've been told it
supports 32 DS3D streams (which is 64 mono) but I really don't know,
lots of conflicting information. All I originally set out to do with
my postings in this thread was to provide some kind of arguement to
David's constant bashing of a product that is perhaps even superior to
the one he so openly advocates.
Cheers.
Fred Mah
>
>
> Maybe. More later. The Diamond Web page says the SNR of the S70 is
> >90DB and it certainly sounds pretty quiet and clean to me. The
> Maestro-2 has upto 20bit ADC/DAC resolution and upsamples synth output
> to 16bit 48khz each stream can have separate pan, vibrato, tremolo and
> tone filter settings.
>
The Diamond info is typical line-in line-out S/N. Where you send a
analog signal in the input, it runs through the Codec chip (not the
Masetro chip, or whatever chip is there), and out the analog output.
This doesn't have anything to do with the audio processing chip. The 85
number is from the ESS spec sheet.
http://www.esstech.com/Product/PCIAudio/pbmaestro2.pdf
Though it isn't actually specific whether that's dynamic range or S/N
ratio, but S/N can't be greater than dynamic range if that is dynamic
range.
Pan, vibrato, tremolo are standard features on all decent wavetable
devices, and pretty much required for General MIDI capability. Tone
filter setting would very likely mean a fixed tone setting that is set
at the beginning of playback but probably not changeable during playback
(not dynamic). The Emu Proteus called it the same thing "tone
filter/control" and it was not dynamic.
> > Most likely the Maestro2 uses less intensive
> >simple mixing routines.
>
> Doubt it.
Again, the PDF spec sheet isn't indicative of any high order mixing
routines being used. It doesn't mention that anywhere, such as "4 point
interpolation" or "24th order sinc filter," etc... These are mentioned
in the initial Vortex manual
http://www.ncal.verio.com/~multiwav/manuals/digitalsound/manual.pdf
where 4 point interpolation is used in the wavetable playback and
essentially 25 point is used in the digital audio mixer. Most cards use
2 points, SBL uses 8. Realize that most games use 11kHz and 22kHz
sample rate sound, so for a 11kHz -> 48kHz you're "making up" more than
75% of the data, and for 22kHz -> 48kHz more than 50% is "made up."
Thus the sample rate conversion is actually creating more than half the
sound you hear. This is related to the 85db number in that if a lower
quality sampe rate conversion/interpolation procedure is used then
spurious freqencies are created in the rate converted output. This will
show up as noise in the output as compared to the original input signal
resulting in lower dynamic range and S/N ratio, which appears to be
proof of the lower 85db number that is given. Whether that's is
actually the case I can't confirm, but there's a fair amount of evidence
that direction.
>
> > Also, the MIDI wavetable engine on the Vortex provides the bare
> >minimum features I would expect in an entry level soundcard, including
> >good mixing, low pass resonant filtering and 2 FX channelized by MIDI
> >channel.
>
> Yes I would term that as poor.
However, not many chips do this, well the ESS Maestro ones do not.
>
> > This is the bare minimum in order for MIDI to continue being
> >of any use in the future. The Maestro2 doesn't have any low pass
> >resonant filtering, and probably basic simpler mixing functions. Why is
> >low pass resonant filtering important? Well, why do you thing Roland
> >and Yamaha MIDI cards are considered to sound good, low pass filtering
> >is necessary for controlling timbre in the sound of acoustic instruments
> >(without using megs, or even gigs of sample data) and to provide
> >additional dynamic features to synthetic sounds. Resonance adds
> >additional interesting dynamics to sounds and are found in a lot of
> >music (most dance/techo, various pop (latest Janet Jackson and Madonna
> >tunes, etc...) rock (Smashing Pumpkins, etc..) music. So to try to
> >recreate these type of music you need similar tools, that's one of the
> >reasons why MIDI isn't used so much in game music these days, the
> >inability to create the sounds the musicians wants to make.
>
> That all sounds great and i'm not really sure about "low resonant
> filtering" i.e whether the maestro-2 supports it or not. One thing I
> will say tho is that I think both probably the midi in the Vortex and
> the Maestro-2 could have been alot better but the simple problem or
> circumstances are that the importantance of midi to these cards isnt
> great. They are low cost and so the programmers are now spending their
> time making sure the 3Dapis or whatever are properly supported and
> they put in a very basic midi engine and patchset, enough to get it
> by.
Sure, but there are very specific features that are important which
should become standard features. At least I've posted
(http://x7.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=342998022&CONTEXT=902369387.839843889&hitnum=8)
that supporting most of the Yamaha XG features as a base is a good idea,
and a resonant low pass filter (which is quite inter-related to hardware
mixing, i.e. you wouldn't really want to do it in software and then mix
in hardware) is one of those main features. It's all over the place in
some of the Quake 2 soundtrack clips I've heard.
When using a AC97 CODEC you pretty much have to convert the final output
to 48kHz since that's the optimal rate the AC97 chips are designed to
perform at.
Well, it's most likely it doesn't support that many 3d audio streams, if
the SBL is purportedly supporting 8 and future solutions supporting
more, it would seem if it doesn't support more now (of high quality,
i.e. not getting more by just reducing the quality overall) it doesn't
really support a significant number more.
I find it's good to see advancement in digital audio mixing accuracy and
wavetable features which I didn't really see in the Maestro chip when I
read the spec when it came out. At this point though, the beginning of
the uphill road has begun which means many designs will come out and
become "old" fairly soon, until some local plateau is reached (refer to
Deja News post I noted above).
Adam Smith
I recently recieved a Turtle Beach Montego A3DXstream soundcard w/Aureal 3D
chipset and it is marvelous. The card GM patch set is so realistic no-one
could tell if I was playing a mpg3 or a midi.
I had an Ensoniq AudioPCI before (nothing but problems, buy at own risk)
then I installed the Montego (using windows 98) and it installed perfectly
and I've been enjoying perfect midis, wavs, mpgs and 3d games ever since
--
A. J. Farnsworth
Engineering Technician
Mullen Scientific Software
1686 State Route 69
Parish, NY 13131
(315) 625-4660
aj...@dreamscape.com
"If all else fails, read the instructions..."
Todd
Monster Sound and think it's the best A3d, how's that? It has a faster onboard
DSP and lower cpu overhead. Who cares about midi anymore? I don't have one nidi
game anymore.
David Gasior
>HOw do you know it's the best A3d board out, you've only tested one! I have
>Monster Sound and think it's the best A3d, how's that? It has a faster onboard
>DSP and lower cpu overhead. Who cares about midi anymore?
Actually, musicians still find MIDI quite important. And with DirectX 6.1 and
DirectMusic, MIDI is poised to make a comeback in games as well. There are
still games that use MIDI - two recent examples are Final Fantasy VII and Croc.
The Diamond Monster MX200 has the best MIDI of any PCI card, with the Vortex
cards coming in second. Of course, the Montego allows you to add a
daughterboard, so my Montego with DB50XG gives me the best of both worlds.
As for the Montego being the best A3D card, there are advntages to it over the
Monster Sound, and there are advantages to the Monster Sound. Depending on
what features are needed in a card will decide which one to buy.
You really can't go wrong with either one.
Samurai7
suspend under windows98 ??
Adam Smith wrote in message <7rKy1.10$9%1.23...@newsfeed.dreamscape.com>...
David Gasior
>Quick question when are they gonna fix the No Sound after your PC goes into
>suspend under windows98 ??
You can download the reference drivers from the Aureal web site which have
fixed the problem.
Samurai7
drivers if your Card is Montego cause there are some difference in the card.
David Gasior wrote in message ...
>In article <6qgu93$7...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>, samu...@ix.netcom.com says
....
David Gasior
...
>Thanks but if you read what's on there site it states not to download the
>drivers if your Card is Montego cause there are some difference in the card.
The drivers work fine. They put there because they would rather have people
going to the vendor's site for drivers.
Will.T
>Actually, musicians still find MIDI quite important. And with DirectX 6.1 and
>DirectMusic, MIDI is poised to make a comeback in games as well. There are
>still games that use MIDI - two recent examples are Final Fantasy VII and Croc.
> The Diamond Monster MX200 has the best MIDI of any PCI card, with the Vortex
>cards coming in second. Of course, the Montego allows you to add a
>daughterboard, so my Montego with DB50XG gives me the best of both worlds.
The MX200 has a crippled Dream 9407 with fixed rom. You can get a
ST128 DDMA from Hoontech which lets you put ram on the card and use
it. It's a PCI card and there's a 10MB GS set for it. It probably
beats the MX200 without even trying. As for vortex midi dont make me
laugh.
The Dream 9407 chip MAY seem under powered at 50 mips compared to the
current crop of soundcards but it is a truly unique chip in that the
DSP in the card really is 100% configurable. Not just drivers are
developed, firmware is too. Kinda strange when u think Diamond has
put a chip that has such capabilities and have virtually disabled what
makes it special. If Dream ever make a more powerfull chip it will
really hammer.
David Gasior
>The MX200 has a crippled Dream 9407 with fixed rom. You can get a
>ST128 DDMA from Hoontech which lets you put ram on the card and use
>it. It's a PCI card and there's a 10MB GS set for it.
I have a SoundTrack 97 PCI and was very unimpressed with it. It would work
only in 1 machine out of the 4 that I tried it in. The 8 MB sample set
available at the the time was not very good, nor was the 4 MB XG set. The
SoundTrack series will never be major contenders in the PCI sound card market,
especially if the stability of the product remains the same.
As for limiting the capabilities of the Dream synth, I won't disagree with you.
But it would have cost Diamond much more to implement as you would have
liked, and the fact is, most consumers are not going to add RAM to the card or
upload their own samples, especially on a gaming card. So, why bother with the
extra cost?
Hal
lacking in customer support. The Montego has problems with working after my
system wakes from suspend mode, forcing me to reboot to get sound. TB's
response, "It's a Microsoft problem with Win98". It's always a Microsoft
problem isn't it.
My response back to TB is Win98 has been out for months, and TB as a
hardware developer clearly had an opportunity to work with Win98 for months
before its release. If there was a problem, why didn't they know?
Furthmore, all of the other Areal based boards seem to have a patch out to
fix the problem, and they are not claiming it's MS's problem. Guess TB
doesn't think much of telling their customer's the truth.
When I first attempted the upgrade to Win98, I had a bunch of problems with
the Montego. TB's answer "get a different Video card that may work better
with OUR SOUND card". Not an answer that I was happy with either.
Bottom line: I will not ever purchase a card for TB again. Their prices
are high, and the support is poor at best. If I have to deal with support
problems, I don't need to pay a premium for the product.
--hms
dave wrote in message
<44D1D8B0999C2C33.C76EB2E3...@library-proxy.airnews.ne
t>...
Hey, don't knock Turtle Beach just because Areal is retarted and slow when
it comes to updating
drivers.
TB itself makes excellent hardware, it is all Aureal's fault.
r...@suneast.east.sun.com
"Samurai7" <samu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Quick question when are they gonna fix the No Sound after your PC goes into
> suspend under windows98 ??
>
Heh. Look at the Turtle Beach FTP site. Now count the fixes they've provided
for the Montego (0). If you think they're just a little slow, count the fixes
they've provided for the Daytona (0).
Still think the Montego is a good sound card to buy???
I will never buy another card from Turtle Beach - no matter how good the
engineering is. Every driver has bugs, and somebody better be fixing them.
Add to this the nightmare of dealing with their phone tech support (they
wouldn't even stay on the line while I rebooted to try an idea they
suggested - they said to call back and get in line again after trying it!).
Finally consider their 9-8 EST M-F support hours.
I am suspicious of the suggestion that the Aureal site driver supports the
card completely. The site says you can use the driver for several other
cards, but explicitly says not to use it for the Montego. Presumably TB
modified the Aureal reference driver to add support for other card features.
My experience with Creative Labs tech support is 180 degrees opposite. They
have late night and weekend support hours. They stayed with me through
several reboots and good ideas for about an *hour*! (In the end I couldn't
use the AWE64 with my motherboard - I blame the motherboard). They provide
quite timely patches.
SBLive, here I come!
-Bob
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
David Gasior
>Heh. Look at the Turtle Beach FTP site. Now count the fixes they've provided
>for the Montego (0). If you think they're just a little slow, count the fixes
>they've provided for the Daytona (0).
Issue 1: I think the reason they decided not to go with the 1.14 drivers is
that there are some quirks still with those drivers, and most issues are not
still not yet resolved by Aureal. Why send those drivers through engineering
to be customized, then through QA, then released when a new set of drivers that
will fix the more serious issues will be released a little after?
If Turtle Beach didn't have to customize the drivers, or have a QA department
check them over, then they could just throw them up like other companies.
Issue 2: As for the Daytona, as far as I recall, Turtle Beach had released the
last driver revision that S3 has released before it discontinued its audio
division. That is why there are no updates for the Daytona; it uses the S3
Sonic Vibes chipset and there are no more driver updates for it because there
is no more support from S3.
>I am suspicious of the suggestion that the Aureal site driver supports the
>card completely. The site says you can use the driver for several other
>cards, but explicitly says not to use it for the Montego. Presumably TB
>modified the Aureal reference driver to add support for other card features.
The Aureal site _does not_ says you can use the driver for several other cards.
The exact quote is
"Below are Aureal Semiconductor's reference drivers. They
will be different than the ones that you received from the
manufacturer of your sound card. Each of the sound board
manufacturer's drivers are modified to support various
features that are unique to the board. As a result, Aureal
in no way guarantees the functionality and stability of these
drivers and they are made available for reference purposes
only. Please contact your sound board manufacturer for
support questions.
Some A3D sound cards use the Aureal Vortex AU8820 processor,
some A3D sound cards do not. Verify that your sound card
uses the Vortex AU8820 before downloading these drivers.
Additionally, the following sound cards and PCs are
sufficiently different from the Vortex reference design."
It then lists the Montego among a few other cards. If you are going to make
comments like you did, please make sure they are accurate.
dave
r...@suneast.east.sun.com
dga...@nospam.home.com (David Gasior) wrote:
> In article <6qo62v$ats$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, r...@suneast.east.sun.com says
...
>
> >Heh. Look at the Turtle Beach FTP site. Now count the fixes they've
provided
> >for the Montego (0). If you think they're just a little slow, count the
fixes
> >they've provided for the Daytona (0).
>
> Issue 1: I think the reason they decided not to go with the 1.14 drivers is
> that there are some quirks still with those drivers, and most issues are not
> still not yet resolved by Aureal. Why send those drivers through engineering
> to be customized, then through QA, then released when a new set of drivers
that
> will fix the more serious issues will be released a little after?
>
> If Turtle Beach didn't have to customize the drivers, or have a QA department
> check them over, then they could just throw them up like other companies.
>
A moment ago you were telling Samurai7 "The drivers work fine." Now you're
agreeing that the board is different from the Aureal reference and that the
Aureal driver is too quirky for TB to pick up and customize. Which is it?
I think folks are making too many excuses for TB support.
> Issue 2: As for the Daytona, as far as I recall, Turtle Beach had released the
> last driver revision that S3 has released before it discontinued its audio
> division. That is why there are no updates for the Daytona; it uses the S3
> Sonic Vibes chipset and there are no more driver updates for it because there
> is no more support from S3.
More implies >0. There's not even one patch on the TB site, nor a pointer to
the S3 site to get patches for the Daytona, if that's the recommended
procedure. How hard would it be to create a pointer for folks in search
of updates??? The answer is probably more along the lines you quote below:
Reference drivers from the chipset manufacturers are really not suitable for
use directly due to other board features. It's up to TB to pick up patches
and roll them into a patch of their own. They didn't do this even once!
> >I am suspicious of the suggestion that the Aureal site driver supports the
> >card completely. The site says you can use the driver for several other
> >cards, but explicitly says not to use it for the Montego. Presumably TB
> >modified the Aureal reference driver to add support for other card features.
>
> The Aureal site _does not_ says you can use the driver for several other
cards.
> The exact quote is
>
> "Below are Aureal Semiconductor's reference drivers. They
> will be different than the ones that you received from the
> manufacturer of your sound card. Each of the sound board
> manufacturer's drivers are modified to support various
> features that are unique to the board. As a result, Aureal
> in no way guarantees the functionality and stability of these
> drivers and they are made available for reference purposes
> only. Please contact your sound board manufacturer for
> support questions.
>
> Some A3D sound cards use the Aureal Vortex AU8820 processor,
> some A3D sound cards do not. Verify that your sound card
> uses the Vortex AU8820 before downloading these drivers.
> Additionally, the following sound cards and PCs are
> sufficiently different from the Vortex reference design."
>
> It then lists the Montego among a few other cards. If you are going to make
> comments like you did, please make sure they are accurate.
>
Although I didn't quote the words exactly (sorry),
my interpretation of them and my observation still stands. The TB is
"sufficiently different from the Vortex reference design" to use the driver
directly (I guess your point is that it shouldn't be used with *any* Vortex
based card). So it is up to TB to pick up the patches and incorporate them
into their own driver. Looking at their track record, what kind of confidence
do you have that this is going to happen in a timely fashion?
I'm sorry if I'm coming across harshly - I'm just very bitter about my Daytona
experience and hate to see other folks make a similar mistake with TB.
Anybody want a used Daytona? Cheap? :-) My one tip-of-the-hat to TB, they
are (or were, anyway) offering a discount for upgrading the Daytona to the
Montego, presumably to make ammends for the card's shortcomings. It's still
not enough to get me past my reservations about TB support, tho.
Aureal *is* providing fixes. Other vendors are picking them up. TB is not.
As long as the bug count is going down instead of up, I want those fixes. I
don't want to wait around for "perfection", which will never come (in this
market, anyway).
The good news is that this is theoretically fixable. The board is a very good
board, technically.
In today's market, however, that's not enough. Vendors need to provide great
support, too. That means extended support hours, good (and patient) technical
support staff, and a good turnaround time for offering driver bug fixes. A
tech support BBS is also a good thing (like on IOMagic's web site). TB
completely strikes out here today.
The board is a done deal, and they got that right. Now they need to fix
their support story. The ball's in their court. Until they show a better
support story it's frankly dangerous to buy from them. You will most likely
experience problems due to buggy drivers and nobody will help you. How many
times have you been *there* before?
David Gasior
>A moment ago you were telling Samurai7 "The drivers work fine." Now you're
>agreeing that the board is different from the Aureal reference and that the
>Aureal driver is too quirky for TB to pick up and customize. Which is it?
The comments "The drivers work fine" was in regards to whether the drivers will
work with the Montego card, and yes, the drivers will work fine with the
Montego card. While it is different than the reference design, the drivers
work just as well on the Montego as they do for the Storm VX, PCI 338, NuSound
3D, etc ... I never said the board wasn't different. It is very different!
Drivers still work.
The 1.14 drivers continue to improve performance of A3D on older processors,
corrects the no sound on resume from standby in Windows98, and fixes a defect
with non-MMX P200 processors being detected incorrectly. That's really it.
The outstanding issues of some digital joysticks not working properly, no
S/PDIF support, and scratchy MIDI when reverb and chorus are cranked past 75%
still have not been fixed. With release of those drivers coming soon, I could
understand why TB would forgo the 1.14 drivers and wait for this new release.
Maybe they have already been working with Aureal on these new drivers, getting
it ready because this will be a bigger drop, especially with S/PDIF support.
So, to sum up - if you need the new drivers because of one of the fixes I
mentioned, then get them - they will work fine with the Montego.
>More implies >0. There's not even one patch on the TB site, nor a pointer to
>the S3 site to get patches for the Daytona, if that's the recommended
>procedure. How hard would it be to create a pointer for folks in search
>of updates??? The answer is probably more along the lines you quote below:
>Reference drivers from the chipset manufacturers are really not suitable for
>use directly due to other board features. It's up to TB to pick up patches
>and roll them into a patch of their own. They didn't do this even once!
I'll repeat this again, *if* Turtle Beach *did* include the last driver
revision that S3 provided, what would they "pick up" and "roll into a patch of
their own"?
As for linking to the S3 site, I really doubt that S3 would like that. The
point is that TB should take care of releasing driver updates - it is TB's
card, not S3's card. The fact that S3 makes reference drivers available
doesn't mean they want every vendor linking to their site and running up web
traffic for them.
Savvy users will go out and find driver updates from various sites if they want
to. You seem to have an issue with the Daytona ... what problems with the
Daytona are you experiencing that not have been resolved? or that have been
resolved by a driver you found from another location?
Or do you just want updates even though you have no problems outstanding with
the card?
>I'm sorry if I'm coming across harshly - I'm just very bitter about my Daytona
>experience and hate to see other folks make a similar mistake with TB.
Well, I really like TB and having worked for them for a while and still having
friends there, leads me to be more of an advocate for them. But I have no idea
what they were thinking when they did a board on the S3 Sonic Vibes chipset. I
guess they wanted to be one of the first to market with a PCI sound card - only
S3 and Ensoniq were ready at the time. They chose unwisely.
S3 makes inferior products, and their first foray into audio was no exception.
The trap here is that while you bought the card from Turtle Beach, the lack of
driver updates and any further support from the chipset is because of S3's
motions. Turtle Beach, like any other company, wants to provide the best
support they can. But Turtle Beach did not create the Sonic Vibes chipset,
they do not write the drivers, and they cannot fix defects in the last revision
of the drivers (if there are any).
The only way to avoid this situation is to buy from Creative Labs. They are
pretty much the only sound card manufacturer who designs their own chips and
boards. (Except for Ensoniq, who are now part of Creative.) Diamond, AVM,
Orchid, Xitel, Gallant, MediaTrix, Aztech, Guillemot, and all the rest of the
sound card companies rely on the chipset company to create, refine, and release
drivers. It's very sad that TB chose SonicVibes only to have S3 pull support,
but Turtle Beach can't do anything about that.
The fact that they offer upgrades to other cards (something I pushed for as I
was leaving the company) shows that they do care about their customers, and
want to keep them as customers.
Zyg Z
with a Montego don't consider it. They do not work with MIDI in so you can't
use a MIDI keyboard. Also they only allow you to use one input source at a
time. If you want to record from line in and mic at the same time you can't. Or
any other two sources for that matter. They cut so many corners it's pathetic.
And forget about documentation. one tiny booklet that doesn't tell you
anything. Also it is the most un-plug and play device I have seen. As for the
up side, it does have a pretty nice sound. However I think a two speaker Aureal
system is smoke and mirrors. People say that they can hear sound behind them
and in front of them. I certainly could not hear that effect. At any rate I
would advise people not to make the mistake I made.
Mark P
Run the Windows 9x Mixer (SNDVOL32.EXE)
Select Options->Properties from the menu.
Select Recording under "Adjust volume for"
Make sure you have StereoMixer Input selected under "Show the following
volume controls".
Click on OK
You should now see the recording controls.
Select "StereoMixer" and viola! WYHIWYR (What You Hear Is What You Record)
This works on the reference drivers, I imagine the TB drivers should be the
same.
Good luck!
~Mark
Zyg Z wrote in message <199808260200...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...