How dumb do they think we are???

http://www.creative.com/products/pro...&product=15913

lol

[dj_soo]

i love the bar graph detailing "Experience" as a linear parameter

[mekim]

if you get two and daisy chain them, the sound quality will literally blow your mind.

[Royal_Phunk]

i love how theres no audio examples of this Magical technique.

[Drazkers]

i bet it makes a difference just not an audible one

[Senior]

Originally Posted by Junglist

How dumb do they think we are???

Are you talking about the same general public that I am? If so they are really dumb.

[Grapes]

Originally Posted by dj_soo

i love the bar graph detailing "Experience" as a linear parameter

What unit do you measures "experience" in anyways? Is it ounces?

[project.one]

Originally Posted by Grapes

What unit do you measures "experience" in anyways? Is it ounces?

Im gunna go with Joules!

[nabs]

Originally Posted by projectone

Im gunna go with Joules!

isent work measured in Joules. i was thinking more like Litres of experience.

[Bevvy Swift]

dummies. experinces are measured in waves

[mapleleaf4ever]

^ Wouldn't that be Hertz then? :p

[nabs]

for bevan and erik....

if it is measured in waveform. Amplitude (A) and Frequency (Hz.) would both be needed.

[C_squared]

P002 N003z!

[Cdn_Brdr]

http://www.x-fi.com/whatis/

There's a demo there..... but considering it's streaming how can they really expect to demo it's ACTUAL quality... or supposed quality at the very least.

[a10aleks]

lol Interesting!

[scue]

ha nabs, grapes, cheez etc.. karma wished upon yall but i gotta spread my stuff around first apparently

[MC Hammered]

How dumb?

Have you read some of the stuff posted on this site?

[Revolver]

lol...the responses on this thread are hilarious.

and yeah, i loooove that 'experience' chart.

so hokey, i can toataly see a dumb baby-boomer spoon fed consumer falling for this glorified equaliser.

creative....pffft/...they had so much potential.

[Technix]

Trust me. There's not much difference that the human ear can detect between 192kbps mp3 and studio quality.

What a gimmick.

It'd make a good paper weight.

or a dimmer switch.

[FireWire]

The human ear can't detect any difference past the sample rate of 22,050Hz because the range of human hearing is around 20Hz to 20,000Hz. However, the Nyquist Theorem states that in order to produce an accurate representation of a given frequency of sound, each cycle of the sound's vibration must be sampled a minimum of two times. That is why the most widely accepted sample rate is 44,100Hz (exactly twice than what we can hear). You may ask why that is? And you may wonder why ASIO exists with a sample rate of 48,000Hz? And maybe why there is now 192,000Hz? We can't hear anything REMOTELY close to what these new sample rates are producing. Our eardrums can't vibrate fast enough to capture all those samples.

Here's another reason why higher is better:

Higher sample rates CHANGE how you PERCEIVE frequencies. If you record something in 96kHz - then the whole perception of the audio frequency changes... and you start "feeling" the sound. Higher rates produce more of an "air" feel to the audio you are perceiving and add more "dynamic depth" that you can feel in your chest...

The reason why I told you this is because I see now that all the new X-Fi cards have 192kHz stereo outputs and 96kHz sample rates... which is starting to become the new standard. Of course we can't hear anything past 20kHz, but we can surely FEEL the difference of 96kHz for example.

So I wouldn't be ridiculing their diagram, because most of the idiots on this planet don't even have a clue as to what's going on. Their diagram is just a visual representation of the science involved in outputting audio at higher sample rates in all the new X-Fi cards.

[Royal_Phunk]

Audio waveforms are commonly sampled at 44.1k samples/s (CD) or 48k samples/s (professional audio). This is usually sufficient for any practical purpose, since the human auditory system is capable of discerning sounds up to about 15-20 kHz.
The recent trend towards higher sampling rates, at two or four times this basic requirement, has not been justified theoretically, or shown to make any audible difference, even under the most critical listening conditions. Nevertheless, a lot of 96kHz equipment is now used in studio recording, and 'superaudio' formats are being promised to consumers, mostly as a DVD option. Most articles purporting to justify a need for more than 48 kHz state that the 'dynamic range' of 16-bit audio is 96dB, a figure commonly derived from the simple ratio of quantizing level to full-scale level, which is 216, or 65536. This calculation fails to take into account the fact that peak level is not maximum permitted sine-wave signal level, and quantizing step size is not rms noise level, and even if it were it would not represent loudness, without the application of the ITU-R 468 noise weighting function. A proper analysis of typical programme levels throughout the audio chain reveals the fact that the capabilities of well engineered 16-bit material far exceed those of the very best hi-fi systems, with the microphone noise and loudspeaker headroom being the real limiting factors

and this is with originally high quality recorded wave files. Imagine running this thing on your 192 mp3s. All it does is act like those "enhancment" plugs that come with winamp. Analyzes the song freq wise and pumps in some high low and 3d. As my teacher said in audio school... you cant polish a turd.