Hættið með þetta BS strákar, þið heyrið mestan mun á Crystalizer ef þið notið Sennheiser eða betri headphones, þegar hlustað er á pakkaða tónlist þá er hvaða bæting sem er betri en ekkert.
Crystalizer "giskar" á hvaða hljóð vantar inní með flóknum stærðfræði fórmúlum sem voru unnar út frá algengustu pökkunar aðferðunum, stundum verður hljóðið skrítið en oftast verður það miklu betra. Aðal kosturin við þetta framyfir aðra möguleika er að þetta tekur enga orku frá örgjörvanum whatsoever enda er gífurlega öflugur heili á X-Fi kortunum. Aðrar DSP lausnir eru flestar langt á eftir Crystalizer og taka óþarflega mikið CPU power....
Audio Clean-Up getur líka verið hentugt þegar horft er á video með lossy hljóði eða gamlar hljóðupptökur þar sem það fjarlægir suðið á auðveldan hátt t.d. upptökur af VHS. Vissulega með einhverri skerðingu á hljóði en það er skárra en að hafa suð.
Hafa skal í huga að dýrari X-Fi kortin eru að nota sömu kubba og stúdíó hljóðkort og high end búnaður enda kubbar frá framleiðendum eins og Yamaha... Hættið svo með þetta BS að Creative sé að gera léleg hljóðkort. Vissulega er rangt að segja að tónlistin verði betri en upptökurnar en í sumum tilfellum er gífurlegur munur.
Reynslusaga: Kaupið ykkur almennilegt hljóðkort
-
Servo Natura
- Staða: Ótengdur
-
gnarr
- Kóngur
- Póstar: 6496
- Skráði sig: Lau 29. Mar 2003 19:54
- Reputation: 315
- Staðsetning: Reykjavík
- Staða: Ótengdur
24-bit Crystalizer
After justified reproaches to the advertisement campaign for 24-bit cards of the previous generation, about 24 bits being excessive for playing back 16-bit CD and MP3 (99.9% among digital recordings of a modern melomaniac), Creative marketing specialists quickly invented a technology that uses 24 bit in real life. Meet 24-bit Crystalizer!
Before the field tests of this technology, I have read and heard a record-breaking number of pseudo-scientific nonsense and blunt fairytales.
The funniest phrase belongs to the Creative website, it claimed that this technology enhances MP3 by making your music sound even better than it did on the original CD, before it was compressed to MP3 . This phrase is indeed an invention of marketing guys, who have their own alternative idea of quality.
This technology is dished up under the sauce of expanding the dynamic range of 16-bit records to 24 bit due to some smart record analysis and bringing them back to details, lost at the conversion processes, and making up for the compromises, appearing at the mastering stage.
In practice, it took me less than a minute to figure out what Crystalizer really was. This technology is similar to what we have seen in Intel with its HDA, in the bundled Intel Audio Studio.
Indeed, a record is remastered by a well-known mastering plug-in called "multiband compressor". Just to make sure I was 100% correct, I compared Crystalizer with three mastering multiband compressors: Waves LinMB, iZotope Ozone, Steinberg MultiBand Compressor. These plugins changed the audio character similar to Crystalizer.
To be 200% sure, I tested Crystalizer in our RMAA and compared it with the results of Waves LinMB Linear Phase MultiBand compressor (with the standard Low-Level Enhancer preset - if you'd like to carry out this test on your own). Crystalizer was configured by default in the medium position.
Pay attention to the frequency response equalization and large intermodulation distortions - the plugins' effect is similar. But the results sound much better. It has to do with the music signal differing from the test sample. According to psychoacoustics, people don't notice overloads shorter than 6 ms. A high quality compressor does not tolerate long overloads, it quickly reduces the signal level, regulated by the attack time.
We can also find a counterpart of the Crystalizer technology in the world of digital photography. Suppose there appears a new plug-in that converts a JPEG file, compressed from a high-quality TIF, into 16-bit color; then it adjusts tonal range (roughly speaking, it increases brightness/contrast) and sharpness by 10-20% depending on the original image. Here we go! We get a new brilliant "48-bit Picturelizer", which enhances JPEG and makes them better than the original TIF. Here is the question: in what case the quality is higher? You are right, only when this JPEG file has a quality margin for such violations and a display has problems rendering the lightest and the darkest halftones of the original image.
The situation with MP3 and WAV is similar, but there is some difference. Mastering studios use very expensive equipment that analyzes the original file: not in the real time, but running a tad forward, or even at several passes; and the calculation precision is floating point 64 bit instead of 24 bit. Then, mastering compression parameters must be laboriously adjusted individually for each record on high-quality reference monitors of the middle and far field. To delegate a similar function to real time automation and then speak of the advantage over the studio results is arrogant at best. The final mastering stage includes a noise shaping step, which makes a 16-bit record sound like a 20-bit one. So the only thing left is to transfer the record bit-by-bit to the DAC input. Any interference into this process damages audio quality. Anyway, an MP3 file cannot possibly be better than the original record, multiband compression may distort the tone balance and result in the redistribution of signal energetics, which will lead to the overload at high or low frequencies.
It's quite another matter, if we speak of mediocre consumer acoustics with a limited dynamic range and defective frequency response, so that even the most primitive timbre adjuster makes a record subjectively much more comfortable to listen to. In this case, an additional band compression of high and low frequencies facilitates the record perception through given speakers, especially combined with moderately compressed original record, with less aggressiveness (peak power/average value). In this case the resulting audio processing distortions will not exceed the distortions in the playback channel.
That was the situation in practice. Some records sounded more coherent on inexpensive active speakers, though with more aggression. In case of high quality acoustics (studio monitors and Hi-Fi speakers of the mid class), I had no problems picking several MP3 files as well as original CDs, which quality was degraded by Crystalizer. I heard overloads, or the sound got too aggressive, so that I was getting tired of listening very fast.
Our measurements showed that besides the multiband compression, the signal level is raised approximately by 3 dB. So that any quiet records would seem subjectively better even without the compressor.
Thus, 24-bit Crystalizer will come in handy to owners of inexpensive acoustics or low end headphones, which automatically means insufficient LF and HF, as well as problems with medium frequency detailing. The good news for owners of high quality acoustics is that this technology can be easily disabled.
24-bit Crystalizer technology has a right to life, but the way this technology is announced with a portion of wishful thinking is disappointing. In reality, Crystalizer does not expand, but narrows down the dynamic range. It really uses 24 bits, but this is done only to avoid the rounding error accumulation (it's normal practice, no modern DSP works in the same resolution as the original data).
http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/multimedia/creative-x-fi.html
"Give what you can, take what you need."
-
Servo Natura
- Staða: Ótengdur
ICM skrifaði:Passið ykkur samt á einu að þegar maður setur upp kortin er kveikt á einhverju plat 3D effect sem eyðileggur allt hljóð! Slökkva á því samstundis!
Já það er satt hjá þér þegar maður er með heyrnatól! Hljóðir verður allt svo eitthvað móðugt og óskýrt! En það er hinsvegar fínt að hafa það þegar maður er með 5.1-7.1 hljóðkerfi (3-D Expander mappar soundið á surround hátalarana)...