Better Quality Sound with 5.1 over 4

I recently started experimenting with?5. for xfi gaming instead of 4. (switching was the only way to get a sub channel with the xfi!) and there seems to be a big improvement in sound quality with 5.--sort of like the improvement you get switching from Prologic to 5. with movies ... Is this my imagination? Or did the rest of you notice an actual improvement with in-game sound when moving from four channels to 5.

Hi there !
Well I got the same problems, using a X-Fi Titanium PCIe, newest beta drivers (tried severals ones before) - but receiving the same problems like the poster above me.
It also happens in WIN DVD 9 Plus, but I get this "problem" in 8 Speaker mode (I've got a Creative 7. Sound System).
It's like a frame lag (skipping frames) - or like a "stuttering", happening sometimes every 20-30sec. from time to time every 4-5min.
I guess it must be driver problem, but how should this get fixed?
I reinstalled my OS (XP Pro 32bit), severals times in order to find out where it might come from.
Also I think, that the PC has more than enough power to playback blu-ray.
Please Creative, let us know if this issue is already known ! - (on a 2nd PC - with an older Creative Soundcard PCI Version, I don't have this problem there !)
So it must be a related one esp. with the PCIe ! Versions !!
Sys Spec:
Intel E6600
Asus P5E + 4gig RAM
9800GTX+
Creative X-Fi Titanium PCIe
PLEASE HELP US WITH THAT - cuz it's very annoying to have with such expensi've hardware getting problems... (It can't be that cheap onboard Sound devices don't have those probs !!)

Similar Messages

  • Can apple put an update for ipod 6th generation so that it gives better quality sound?

    I have an ipod 6th generation and i have heard a lot about apple's popular white earphones. The problem is that my ipod don't give enough volume to enjoy music from those white earphones. Can apple bring something new in their updates to fix this issue???
    HELP !!!

    You must realize that the quality of sound has been compromised by the very fact of compression and equipment. You are never likely to experience the nature of a live event by listening on an iPod. The best solution is to get a better quality of earbuds/ earphones/ headphones to improve the playback experience. The higher quality headphones such as Bose, Sennheiser, Sony have capabilities to counter ambient interference ( Bose noise-cancelling for example), and they have a better quality speaker than the Apple earbuds. This standard issue bit of kit is more of a courtesy to iPod buyers so that they will have something right out of the box in order to listen to their music but they are not the highest audio quality. The best audio quality will cost every bit as much as, or even more than, the cost of an iPod. As for turning up the volume, that is a foolish undertaking that can have long-term consequences on your hearing. Tinnitus cannot be cured! You will live with it unto your last days.

  • How can I get the sound to be of a better quality when I make a video on my iPhone?

    I make videos of myself playing the piano. When I play it back I find the quality of the sound on the video is not the best. I edit the video on my MacBook Pro. How can I get a better quality sound on my videos when I do them on my iPhone and edit them on my MacBook Pro?

    the iphone is not a good sound recorder so if you whannting to record your self playing you need to consider were the mic is on the phone and how fare it is a way from the piano but if i was you i would record the video and get a mic in the senter of the piano and record both of thoes and the in the mac software sycranize them both to gever to get the best.
    i am very good at recording and i am a live sound enginner so if you would like my help with it i can. up to you tho 
    i have very good knowledge in EQ and compreshon and stuff like that so i can make it sound good for ya

  • How to make sound better quality?

    So I exported a preview of my animation but the sound isn't high quality. How can I make it better quality? It doesn't sound like when I press Enter in Flash CS5.

    Go to the publish preferences and see what bit rate is set for the compression of the audio. Be sure to check both stream and event.

  • New Sound Quality Problems with Flash and Macintosh

    First I noticed the the Flash 8 Video Encoder exported low
    low quality sound, as if pass through some bit-crusher folder,
    happened on several macs in the office. Finally, I try it on
    Windows XP, and no sound problems with FLV export (and it was
    exporting videos 400% faster than macs).
    Now, both inside Flash Ap itself, and worse in the SWF,
    stream sounds are low-quality, with 16bit 44k pristine-sounding
    source files.
    If anyone has answers (I've been searching for a couple days
    now) please write [email protected]

    Hi guys - last time I looked no one had posed a similar
    posting, so I went on just now and posted to the link below. Don't
    wish to hijack this thread at all - sorry - but are we having a
    similar problem? cheers Rob
    http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/webforums/forum/messageview.cfm?forumid=12&catid=189&threadid =1292147&enterthread=y

  • Should I Use An External Burner For Better Quality With Macbook Pro?

    Hey I have a macbook pro and used IDVD to burn a movie but near the end it freezes and kinda skips a bit and I was wondering cause it takes two to three hours to burn will using an external burner be better quality?

    will using an external burner be better quality?
    Ext. Burners tolerate burning multiple copies with fewer read / write errors better than the stock internal S-Drive that come built into many mac laptops. Stock drives heat up faster than external burners do for the most part. So the answer is, it's very possible you will get slightly better results with an external burner as opposed to an internal laptop S-Drive when burning back to back copies.
    I recommend using Verbatim Dvd-r media and burning from a disc image at 4x or slower for best results.

  • Does iPod with iTrip have a good quality sound on car stereo?

    Does the iPod with a iTrip have as good a quality sound on the car stereo as say the same song on a CD?

    Not even close. Even if you can find a completely unused frequency in your area to use the bandwith for FM is much more limited than a CD. Even a direct connection to your stereo is going to be below CD quality enless you are encoding with AIFF...assuming your ears can tell the difference.

  • Replacing lower quality files with better files on iTunes Match

    I have an iTunes library that is years old so some of the music files are of a lower quality than the files that are now on Match.  Rather than ripping these CDs again to iTunes, is there a way of replaceing the old files with the Match files on iCloud?
    Thanks,
    Larry

    Hi,
    If the tracks are match, you can delete the original and download the upgraded version. If the track is uploaded, you will need to rerip your CDs to get better quality.
    Jim

  • Quality sound cards with good linux support

    Since my Auzentech XFI forte is doomed on linux according to most of the internet (if you have one and made it work then please  PLEASE tell me how ) I'm gonna need a new one. Onboard sound just doesn't cut it anymore for me.
    What I'm looking for is a good quality sound card that works perfectly on linux and isn't too expensive.
    I don't care about 5.1 or 7.1, I mostly use headphones so high quality stereo output is of most importance.
    Are there any sound card manufacturers that have some love for linux?
    How are the Asus Xonar cards. I've read good reviews about them but I know nothing about how they work on linux.

    I had an M-Audio Delta 1010lt once that had studio quality sound, linux support is good on the entire delta series.
    Also look here:
    http://alsa.opensrc.org/index.php/Alsa_ … Soundcards

  • Which yields a better quality slideshow?

    Which yields better quality images?
    If I "send" my slideshow from iPhoto to iDVD? Or if I start in iDVD and import a slideshow from iPhoto?

    It's probably more a matter of personal preference than anything else. Allegedly, a track ripped at aac 128 sounds "better" than a 128 mp3. You should rip a track with which you are familiar in both formats (and perhaps at different bit rates) to see which you like the best.

  • Is m4v better quality than a remuxed MKV file via Subler?

    I'm slowly building my home media server and putting my Blu-Ray's onto it. I normally do a Handbrake conversion for ATV3, so the MKV files end up being significantly smaller m4v's and the quality is outstanding. But I recently learned about the quick remux method using Subler, which quickly converts the MKV container into an m4v container without any quality loss and while keeping the same size file.  But I noticed that, say, a 29GB MKV file is a much poorer softer picture on my plasma TV than the same movie that's only a 9GB MKV file (remuxed to m4v with subler for streaming over ATV3). I'm running a 300mbps cable modem so the streaming shouldn't be a problem over my home wifi.  But I also noticed that the smaller m4v's (say a 3.5GB file that comes from a 9GB MKV file via Handbrake) seem to be slightly better quality than the 9GB file that was remuxed.  So it seems like the larger file should be even higher quality -- but I'm getting better results with a smaller file that's Handbrake'd from MKV to m4v.
    Is there some sort of streaming setting on the ATV3 that needs to be set or adjusted that will allow the full gorgeous pic quality of a 29GB file to stream right through to it, and look better than the Handbrake'd m4v file?  It feels like there's a bottleneck somewhere that's not letting all of the complete picture information through, and an intact, perfect 29GB file should look light years better than that 29GB file Handbrake'd down to 4GB.  Trying to figure this out before I continue down this home media server path cuz it's a lot of work to do these Blu's one at a time.
    Kirby

    I have no experience of the remuxing you describe, but interesting observations.
    There is nothing you can adjust on AppleTV - it will either play the encoded movie or it won't.
    AppleTv's generally playback the h264 codec (in an m4v container) - there are many many versions/levels of this codec and each generation of AppleTv has been able to play slightly more sophisticated versions.
    I suspect but cannot prove that the issue you notice is due to AppleTV attempting to support advanced h264 features but making compromises which affect playback quality - in other words it is cutting corners to playback advanced h264 profile features rather than refusing.  Handbrake on the other hand has time at its disposal - it has been refined over many years by dedicated enthusiasts so if a simple remux is all that's required i'd be surprised they have not implemented that.  Instead I suspect it more accurately processes enhanced h264 features before transcoding into a new smaller m4v file.  Equally there might be settings in HB which artificially sharpen or otherwise alter the video which you prefer.  I'd compare the BluRay tothe remuxed or HB versions to attempt to decide which was more faithful to the original but even then it would be dependent on the BluRay player's settings in some cases.

  • Better quality render AE or Premiere?

    I know this might not be a big deal to some of you but since I have some shorts and feature that are gonna be projected at film festivals I'd like to know if anyone has any ideas.
    Since that new 'max render quality' checkmark popped up in the 4.0.1 I don't like rendering out of Premiere. I'd like to know exactly what it does. Obviously that means media we rendered in CS4.0.0 didn't look as good as is could have (and we weren't told) but the big question is WHAT DOES IT DO THAT WASN'T BEING DONE IN CS3 AND IS OR ISN'T BEING DONE IN AFTER EFFECTS? It is slow, slower than AE does that mean it renders better than AE?
    Call me overly curious but if I'm rendering a movie or short that gonna be projected on a movie theater screen I want best quality period.
    So which one gives the best quality?
    Thanks

    Go to Sequence > Sequence settings > check the the maximum render quality check box > SAVE (you have to do this before you send to Adobe Media Encoder)
    Now render out an uncompressed TIFF still (first frame) or ten seconds of any video as an uncompressed AVI.
    Now that the renders done go back and uncheck the 'max render quality' now SAVE (important) then render same way.
    Bring the two new files into with your original composition. Zoom in 200-400% toggle between them. The one with 'max render' is different but the other is exactly the same as the original down to the exact pixel what is what we want with uncompressed.
    I tried with FX without FX rendered in AE CS3 and 4 and anything uncompressed matches exactly.
    Not saying 'max render' makes it look bad just wondering what it's doing. As far as I can tell it does help for resizing and when your compress your video or a lot. Just don't wanna use it for this workflow. Also nice to know your renders are gonna look the same as they did before without checking the button and having to wait 2-3 times as long.

  • Capture window, Viewer window, better quality then Canvas, why?

    Hi there!
    Both my capture window and viewer window show the recorded footage in a better quality then in my Canvas once I play it up in the timeline, was wondering why this is, is it simply because it's at 100% of it's size?
    I checked the Sequence Settings, they seemed right at DV PAL (I recorded in HDV here in Europe) with quality set to 100%.
    Also, by better quality I mean that the footage is brighter, with better sharpness and normal color, on my canvas the lighting is redder, everything is darker and the footage is fuzzier
    thanks!

    Double click on a suspect clip, it will appear in the viewer...
    (a) filters tab - are there any video filters?
    (b) motion tab - is scale set to 100% and zeroes everywhere else?
    Or simpler: does your clip when on the timeline have a grey bar over it (indicating it needs no render)? If not, what colour is the bar over it?

  • Slow burn vs Fast burn (which is better quality) fact or fiction

    Ok again I would like to know the official answer to this question because from the response last time, I'm not really confidence with the answer.
    IS IT FACT THAT IF YOU USE WAV BURNER AND BURN AT A SLOWER SPEED COMPARED TO FASTER SPEED THE QUALITY BECOMES BETTER BY PROOF?
    IF THIS FACT OR FICTION.
    SOMEONE PLEASE PROVIDE SOME LONG YEARS EXPERIENCE PROOF.

    Sorry, can't wait until someone clocks what I've said, 'cos I might be going out soon, so thought I'd write it up first...
    The difference between the HHB and the Mac burner is... nothing much. The actual tray and laser workings are probably the same in both units. The extra dosh for the HHB covers the casing, functionality and the convertors - it's basically a hardware version of WaveBurner, and we all know hardware versions cost more than software versions.
    Therefore, in my alleged test there should only be one of the four that shows any difference, and that's the real time recording via analogue. The other three, all remaining in the digital domain, irrespective of speed, should give the same results, because data is encoded in the same way, no matter how you do it. It would be interesting to see if there is any difference, but I doubt the equipment I've got would be sensitive enough to monitor it (or would allow me to zoom in and see the difference enough to post here). With that in mind, the human ear isn't going to hear it.
    The only REAL difference the speed option gives you is reliability of burning. The faster you get, the more prone it is of making an error in the burning process, but this can sometimes come down to the quality of the disc itself. Not all discs are the same, as I guess most people have realised to their horror at some point (data).
    Just a final note. I'm working with a voice-over artist for TV and radio, and the stations are happy to receive the files as MP3's via email. Who'd have thought that would happen when MP3 came out?!? Just goes to show people are putting a perspective on the quality standard for final use. But I'm still sending AIFF files though, MP3 makes me shudder as an original! And here we are worrying about CD quality...

  • Does Pro-Res codec yield better quality from AVCHD files than AIC?

    Hi folks,
    I use FCE4 and ingest AVCHD for editing. I'm wondering if, for example, I ingested with the Pro-Res codec (eg. such as when using Final Cut Pro or FCX), would that be a higher quality transcoder than the inherent Apple Intermediate Codec that is part of FCE4? In other words, if I upgraded my software, would I likely get better quality?
    FYI: I shoot with a single chip AVCHD camcorder, in case that matters.
    Thanks,
    Vixter

    If you are running Lion, then FCPX is the only way forward unless you go with a non-Apple editing suite.  For what it's worth, I think FCPX has gotten a bum rap overall.  It's quite powerful compared to the old FCE even with its current limitations.  Apple will continue to improve the program over time, and no one should discount the foresight that Apple actually does have in its product lines.  The FCPX user interface and the method of editing is quite different compared to FCE, and takes a lot of adjustment if you were familiar with FCE or FCP.  For general purpose editing, even prosumer editing, FCPX is quite an application, even if it's not quite ready for broadcasters & professionally employed editors.
    The best way to find out is to try it out - it's available as a free 30-day trial so you can see for yourself whether or not it works for you.  You can read all about it elsewhere and of course people in these forums have their opinions one way or the other.  As I long ago discovered about wine, there is no definitively good or bad wine ... just wine that we ourselves like because it satisfies our individual tastes and conditions.  I don't concern myself with Robert Parker's opinions.  In fact I think a lot of his 95+ rated wines stink!  If you follow my drift ...

Maybe you are looking for