🚀 go-pugleaf

[caution: crossposted]

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@pop3free.com> wrote:

>Ladies and gentlemen of RAO this is one of those rare most
>pleasurable moments in life. After taking abuse from Mr. Dormer
>literally for years, w/r/t the insensitivity of Double Blind
>Listening Tests (DBTs), I get to argue the pro-audible-differences
>side of the argument against Mr. Dormer, and base my claims on DBTs.

[History : I commented on another posters subjective findings of a
soundcard ("tinny", "harsh" etc) saying he was being too gross.
Krueger then interjects with a reference to his DBT comparator PCABX.
He's seems to be rather excited by this.]

PCABX is NOT relevant to quantitative subject judgements - it only
gives binary results.  Besides which there is no data to speak of..
just anecdotal evidence.  I completely dismiss DBT as a basis for your
claims that the Live! is a POS soundcard, or as support for Roj's
subjective findings.

>(1) The SB Live! audibly corrupts musical sounds played and recorded
>through it. They can hear differences between original sounds and
>sound that have been played and recorded on the Live!
>
>(2) The Turtle Beach Santa Cruz operating under identical conditions
>with identical musical sounds does not corrupt musical sounds played
>and recorded through it.

The Santa Cruz is not an audibly transparent device in either the
digital or analog domain as *your own* tests show.  So to say that the
Cruz "does not corrupt musical sounds" is nothing less than absolutely
blatant dishonesty.

Since I have found your Live! tests at www.pcavtech.com do not
demonstrate the full hardware capabilities of the Live! card I have in
front of me (I am getting solid 90dB+ loopback S/N ratio compared to
your 77dB) I can only imagine how awful your samples must be.

[It remains to be seen why your results with the Live! are so
poor, and you have shown little interest in finding out why mine
are so much better. Yet I sincerely hope that your test results at
www.pcavtech.com which have been referenced to and quoted hundreds
maybe thousands of times on web pages and usenet posts, literally
directing customers away from the product in droves, are not *grossly*
flawed and inaccurate as they seem to be.  Perhaps a representative of
Creative Labs would care to comment?]

>Mr. Dormer were you to actually LISTEN to the evidence I presented,

I do not trust your samples.  I do not have any faith that you can
copy a signal from one device to another without screwing it up.

>you might find that the SBLive! that you've been hyping..

I have not been hyping the Live! card.  I have praised and
criticized it.

>Mr. Dormer you may lack the hearing acuity or an adequate
>reference system to hear audible differences of this size.

Puerile argument..

>AFAIK Roj was simply telling the truth.

Nobody suggested otherwise.

>> You have been spitting blood and teeth about the frequency response of
>> the Live! making all sorts of outrageous pronouncements, driving
>> customers away, yet.. straight out of the box I turn out a palatable
>> +0.3/-0.5 dB from 20Hz to 19Khz.
>
>> http://home.clara.net/media/scans/fr.jpg
>> [Analog 48Khz, 16bt, 32768pts, Flattop]
>
>> Same story with the 1Khz S/NR test, I get 88dB compared to your 82dB.
>> That's half as much noise.  With the digital outputs I get a whopping
>> 92dB S/NR compared to your 80dB, and an even flatter signal response
>> than with analog.
>
>That's very nice Mr. Dormer. BTW which mode of operation was this
>for? You don't seem to mention that.

'Playback'.

In analog loopback at either 44.1Khz or 48Khz I easily achieve 90dB+
S/N ratio.

>Also, which version of the SB Live! is this for?

4830 OEM

>> essentially the card I have in front of me sounds a LOT'S better than
>> your www.pcavtech.com site suggests.
>
>That's very fine for you Mr. Dormer.

How fine is it for you to operate a 'reference' site for audio
equipment sound quality when there appears to be glaring errors that
may inadvertently convolute the market based on faulty information?

>Let me remind you of the www.pcavtech.com disclaimer:
>
>http://www.pcavtech.com/disclaimer.htm
>
>"Typically, only one sample of each card was tested, and there is no
>guarantee that that sample is representative of how the card performs
>in general, or that the card has not undergone significant technical
>changes since I tested it."

With the volume of traffic that your site attracts I think it's highly
disingenuous of you not to ensure that this statement makes a greater
impact than it does.  Many people seem to use your site as a
reference, seemingly unaware that a single sample of any one product
type is unlikely to provide a complete and accurate picture.  Maybe
your Live! is faulty Mr Kreuger.  What then?

>> Nice one.  Now tell us whether the PCI hogging is
>
>> 1) a myth
>> 2) caused by poor hardware design
>> 3) caused by poorly written drivers
>> 4) other
>
>IME items 2,3, and 4 seem to apply.

So concise!

>> >> So where's the rip-off?
>
>> >The apparent claim that there is a significant difference between
>> >what is in the boxes that you put in your computer.
>
>> Example?
>
>How many variations of the Live! are sold for various prices ranging
>from $39 to $86 to $169? at http://www.pc-beyond.com/scard.htm  for
>example. In terms of what you plug into the computer and records and
>plays back sound what are the actual technical performance
>differences between them?

Only subtle differences in terms of hardware, but you know that's not
the whole story.. don't you?  You have not cited any specific example
of a "claim that there is a significant difference between what is in
the boxes that you put in your computer".  Is this all just hot air?

>> >> >Not really - I own a Santa Cruz.  **THAT** DSP impresses me :-)
>
>> >> What makes it far superior in your mind?
>
>> >Better
>
>> Really?  The EMU10K has more than twice the number crunching power of
>> the Soundfusion DSP in the Cruz.  The EMU10K performs *one billion*
>> instructions per second, all dedicated to audio.  I'm looking at a
>> card with 64 voice polyphony, 48 MIDI channels, soundfont
>> compatibility, 131 hardware audio channels, 92dB S/N ratio (88 for
>> analog), four independant (sic) effects busses (assignable to hardware
>> outputs), strip inputs, reverb, chorus, flanger, delay, auto wah,
>> pitch shifter, distortion, compression, four independant (sic) shelf EQ and
>> four independant (sic) Parametric EQ.. all of which can be used
>> *simultaneously*.  Your answer of "better" goes no way toward
>> convincing me that the Cruz DSP is, indeed, "better".  Could you be a
>> tad more specific?
>
>Mr. Dormer, this all seems to be unsubstantiated techo-blather.

Do you deny that the EMU10K supports these features?

>Furthermore it seems very one-sided listing only the features of the
>Live!

Well spotted!  Now since you claim the Santa Cruz DSP is "better" to
the twice-the-horsepower EMU10K, perhaps you'll make the case for the
Sound Fusion?

>> >cheaper.
>
>> It is more expensive you moron.
>
>The "full" version of the Santa Cruz is selling for $79 at
>http://www.voyetra-turtle-beach.com/site/products/santacru/  (the
>vendor site) or at my local Comp/USA store.

Is that the cheapest Santa Cruz you could find?  A Live! OEM can be
had for just $43 (http://www.cheapgamers.com/products/171.asp) - a
saving of $36.

>Thank You.

My pleasure! :-)


--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t