Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Bass with Audigy cards

Tags:
  • Sound Cards
  • Sony
  • Components
Last response: in Components
Share
December 18, 2003 3:42:35 AM

I connected my audigy to my sony reciever using the multi-channel in... everything works except for the bass channel, i finally found that if i enable bass redirection in the audigy settings, and set the crossover to 200hz i get bass... i use my klipsch prodmedia sub out of the reciever, but i get a loud hum if i raise the volume too high on the sub
has anyone tried doing this sort of setup? audigy to a reciever and had bass issues?
i'm thinking of buying a regular home theater sub and see if that works any better... rather not have to waste the $400 klipsch though
if anyone knows anything please let me know
thanx

More about : bass audigy cards

December 18, 2003 3:48:27 PM

$400 for PC speakerz?.. heh, I feel for ya.

for this kind of money you could get decent 10-12 inch self powered sub, 4 very good settlites and a center channel (if you are not as lazy as I am, let me know, I will get you a "plan" for a bestest softest sounding sub there was, takes bout 4 hours to make)

and by the way, through that cr.p out of the window and get a normal sound card.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
December 20, 2003 2:44:35 PM

those $400 speakers are better than every other PC speaker system i've listened too... they are amazing.. why should i waste more money on speakers when i can just hook these up to the reciever
the audigy is a nice card.. but creative will never learn to make cards that are easily supported.
i'd get the M-Audio revolution, but i really like the front bay, which is only on the audigy
Related resources
December 23, 2003 12:45:46 PM

so, you want to say that you are better off with convenience than the quality? heh, that's typical for an american (not as it is a bad thing, me is that way too sometimes ;) 

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
December 23, 2003 12:46:36 PM

by the way, have you listened to MS SS-80?

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
December 24, 2003 3:06:24 AM

"better off with convenience than the quality"

what are you talking about? i want nothing but quality!
Klipsch are amazing speakers, so rather than deal with using the devices seperately, i bought a reciever, that way i can hook my comp, tv, dvd to the reciever, and use the klipsch for everything... the problem is that going through the reciever, i get no bass from the audigy
i dont know why this is.... but when i enable the crossover then i do get bass
was thinking of buying a new powered subwoofer thinking maybe that would help, but then i would be completely wasting the klipsch sub
December 24, 2003 4:15:01 AM

I have this sort of setup...audigy to a Denon HT reciever and Boston Acoustics Frt/Cen/Rear and a regular home theatre Mirage Sub. When playing games I also need to enable bass redirection in the audigy settings. For DVD Audio or DVD Video discs playback I need to disable bass redirection to obtain balanced LF. Don't know why but this I found works best.
I don't encounter any hum issues as you describe though. The sound is clean and quiet. Must be your sub or ground connections.
December 26, 2003 6:02:22 AM

<""what are you talking about? i want nothing but quality!"">

read yer lips

<""but i really like the <b>front bay</b>, which is only on the <b>audigy</b>"">

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
December 26, 2003 6:09:30 AM

lol, you make absolutely no sense. why do I need a separate receiver if I have a "Klipsch" PC speakers? that kills me. I have MX300, Technics receiver which haz a Sub out with two frequency adjustments for it, 5.1 setup, sub I made myself, and it rocks the apartment I live in. It cost me only 360 bucks for my Bose center and satellites, it has 500W out, which is more than I can handle when watching DVDs. You peopel have to ask a music "guru" before you waste yer money for worthless stuff.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
December 30, 2003 5:47:53 PM

that front bay happens to be very useful.. i can plug headphones right into it without having to go to the back... can also hook mic or my guitar directly to the front and also not have to deal with back, and have volume control for them right there
before i got reciever i also used the optical in

as for the reciever... yes the klipsch is great, but it only works from 1 source, i now have a tv, dvd, as well as the computer, getting a stand alone reciever was only way i could connect the klipsh speakers to all 3.. and since i had the speakers and they happen to be great ones, why buy more?
January 1, 2004 8:27:37 AM

gg, i feel fo ya, hehehe. if you would use yer brain sells and not the money you could plug simple 3.1 stereo extension cords from the Radio Shack to do just that. optical in does no quality enhancements over the analog (not on the average setup that is) for yer enjoyment, not funny but true. and if you are happy with what you have, why bother reading my crappy writings (crapp that is ;)  caz my sub and speakers are better anyway, made by me own self.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
January 1, 2004 9:23:43 PM

Quote:
and by the way, through that cr.p out of the window and get a normal sound card.

Uh...are you drunk? The only thing wrong with the Audigy series is the bloatware software package Creative tries to force on you when you install the drivers.

<b>1.4 Ghz AMD T-Bird underclocked to 1 Ghz...just to be safe!</b>
January 2, 2004 2:26:24 AM

I find it simply amazing how someone can be critial of a Audigy sound card and use Bose speakers, there's not a stereo/HT forum anywhere that hasn't blasted Bose as being way over priced and poor sounding.
There are better sounding cards out there, but not a lot that have the features the Audigy has, ya trade one for the other, least the Klipsch sound like speakers....
January 2, 2004 8:05:12 AM

hehe, I have only center Bose, side ones are JVC, rear KLH, and sub is "blah" made, lol. So, you see, I choose my stuff according to sound quality they produce at the place they should be placed. There are lots of Bose speakers that sound ok, but there are few of them that can't be beaten by anything I have listened to, and believe me, I am over too much peaky for the sound producing things.

yeah, by the way, that is exactly the point why I have no SB cards, their "software" killed my interest in any of them, even if it is sounds ok (yeah, I wish ;}

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
January 4, 2004 10:30:30 PM

geeze man, how the hell can you talk that your so much better off quality wise when you have JVC and KLH speakers?
damn.. talk about crap quality
Audigy is an amazing card hardware wise... the only problem is Creative software on general.. progs suck, drivers suck, support sucks.... cards still always manage to make it worth it to get even over better supported cards
January 5, 2004 3:13:27 AM

<""cards still always manage to make it worth it "">

yep, I hear you, that's why I still am an active user of MX300 card - no progs, no driver support, no support at all, but the card is still "magage to make it worth it.. even over better.. cards"

and I can clearly say that you have no idea what real JVC speakers can produce.

PS: I've spent 5 years in a quire and 3 years in a band singing, we built speakers ourselves, caz there were no good setups at that time at the place I lived for the money we had. you don't have to trust my word, but it really makes not difference to my ability to "hear" things that are coming out of something, and make them come out better for my liking. it absolutely does not mean you will like what I do.

I found a sub for a little over $1000 which I kind of liked, but jee, man, $1000 for a box and a speaker? so 6 hours later I have cost of wood and speaker sub that plays tones at the lowest notes my receiver can give out (20Hz) and does not break the walls like the $1000 one would (no pressure)

talke about "quality"

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
January 14, 2004 2:35:12 AM

klipsch is not a cheap brand. its better than bose, klh or jvc.
most people (probably including yourself) dont know how to properly setup a non-boxed stereo setup and end up with some ragtag system that never works right nor sounds as good as its potential. Hence the $400 Klipsch system.

building speakers correctly yourself might sound 'ok' to your ears but in no way is a match for a engineered box and sub setup as the real high quality audio equipment like martin logans.
I'm personally not an audiophile but I have rich American friends who are with the above mentioned Martin Logan equipment and other real high quality audio equipment and there is no replacement... especially if you're trying to duplicate it yourself.
I suppose you'd have to be American to know what the almighty dollar can get you in sound quality. You should come here and we will show you what big money and real sound quality is.

A self-styled guru in a garage can not match work of a couple dozen engineers and quality controlled equipment.
Unless you are a sound engineer yourself.

Its not 'just a box and a speaker'.

----
Yeah, thats right. I support the NV/AMD/IBM axis of evil.
January 14, 2004 3:55:47 AM

>Its not 'just a box and a speaker'.

As a matter of fact it is, so that is a big mistake, caz ALL speakers ARE just a box and a speaker. BUT what kind of a box and what kind of a speaker IS a difference that you CAN (or me, if you can't) hear. And please, I've listened to the very expansive speakers, they do sound top quality (in our church just one 30inch boombox is over 3 grand), BUT it does not mean I can't build something that sounds as good at least to say. You don't have to tell me about what dollar can get you, caz the most brilliant ideas came not from the dozen of spendy ingeniouess, but from the "garage guru" (you can argue with it as much as you wish;)

I can take 100 bucks speaker, put it into my case, get a $1000+ sub from the store, put you infront of them, and you will gladly say that my cheap one sounds better (note: not louder, even I can make that as well) and gives truer sound.

And by the way, there is no such thing that can tell me the quality of the sound other than my own ears. Caz I don't hear anything above 20Khz or below 20hz, even those super dollar speakers can do more or less.


..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
January 14, 2004 5:19:43 AM

I was simply defending the world of audio 'physics' and how sound quality depends not only on frequency range of 20,000 to 20hz but on many other factors. My logitech z560 sub hits around 40hz but that doesnt make it an equal in sound quality to a real high quality setup simply because it hits low bass or a high range.

Those 'boxes' are usually designed with complex audio properties and physics involved in their design. That is usually matched very scientifically with the speaker (and its design) used with it. It must also be airtight, something I dont trust someone in their garage to do sucessfully, let alone design on par with the engineers from Martin Logan or similar.

If it sounds fine to you then thats all that matters. I have very low standards personally, my cheap logitech speakers are fine.
I also had to defend Klipsch's honor, they are worth every penny they cost. The $400 he spent is actually a good deal considering the quality of his setup and the sound they are able to produce. I'm simply saying that its actually a good value, and generally going to be a better setup than "Joe Somebody's" homemade stereo. Most people dont understand even simple concepts as ohm ratings or the multiple ways to configure an amp to make it 'right'. You may know, but most of us don't.
I am basically saying audio isnt a simple thing when you're talking about professional quality (audiophile) sound, and I leave that to the professionals.. hence the high prices.
You would have to listen to Klipsch to know what we are talking about, their home line is astounding.

----
Yeah, thats right. I support the NV/AMD/IBM axis of evil.
January 14, 2004 6:38:09 AM

<"You would have to listen to Klipsch to know what we are talking about">

I did, a lot, nothing special, little crisper than the others on the top and middle, but no lows (not that I had to notice, I am a bass freak). Same with the headphones, I have Technics DJ1200 not caz they cost only 190 bucks, but caz they produce the most bass I could hear in the headphones, even there are more expansive ones out there, but to spend 500 and more on a headphones and carry amplifier for them is not my thing, hehe.


..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
January 14, 2004 6:42:20 AM

By the way, forgot to mention MS SS-80. It is only 2.1 setup, but it is not what I wanted to say, in my book the highs on satellites from it have not being matched by any ones I've listened so far, and they were only 149.99 at the time.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
January 14, 2004 7:09:10 AM

I was referring to the home line of audio from Klipsch.
The computer stuff is decent to great stuff as you said.

----
Yeah, thats right. I support the NV/AMD/IBM axis of evil.
January 14, 2004 7:30:53 AM

well, as far as I know, anything that you can afford is the best thing you can get at the moment, even there are better ones. it is a never ending road to perfection, you can not reach the limit no matter how much you try, there will always be something better tomorrow.

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
January 14, 2004 7:35:54 AM

what kind of music you listen to, do you like stuff like Ryan Farish plays (bass work is awesome)

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
January 29, 2004 1:16:42 AM

Quote:
what kind of music you listen to, do you like stuff like Ryan Farish plays (bass work is awesome)

I have a wide range of interests but I'm a guitar guy.. I play a little bit so I appreciate good work.. along with good song writing of course.

I like the band In Flames, I picked up on them back in '96 with the Colony release. They are one of my favorites.

I also listen to quite a bit of Buckethead. I like his stuff.. experimental but much of his acoustic albums (colma and electric tears) are beautiful works of art in the guitar realm.

I remember seeing him play last year with Guns N Roses (a fave of mine) and he was freaking amazing.

You can catch me listening to some old KMFDM once in a while for fun.

Besides Buckethead, my other favorite guitarist is Zakk Wylde.. though I dont appreciate his songwriting as much as others I have both Black Label Society albums because his skills are amazing.
If I had to say what my main roots are, they'd be Black Sabbath and Ozzy records. Rather than many my age who were weaned on Metallica I couldnt get away from listening to old Sabbath or Ozzy when growing up.

So yea, I'm a rock guy for sure.
I can appreciate all types of music though, I've heard alot of techno (KMFDM is about as close I come though regularly), country (maybe some Kenny Chesney..)and blues (mmmmm.. Texas Floods by Stevie Ray Vaughn).. guess I should pick a rap tune also but I cant think of much.. I suppose Slam by Onyx, yeah its old but the closest I can think of to having a rock attitude.
I used to listen to Tantrics debut CD nonstop for years... that band seriously kicks ass.

I like that new band Jet (cold hard bitch) and the new Korn cd is decent.
But I'm a fan of solos.

I listen to alot of euro-metal like Arch Enemy and the above mentioned In Flames. They still do solos unlike my American comrades.

I highly suggest checking out In Flames if you havent, get the cd Colony.. I'd put my reputation on the line for that CD! :smile:

edit- BTW i havent listend to him, let me know what cd to pickup by him.

----
Yeah, thats right. I support the NV/AMD/IBM axis of evil.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by kinney on 01/28/04 09:21 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 29, 2004 8:51:45 AM

This reply is addressed to several posters, not just the first one:

Without bass redirection the Audigy will send bass to the subwoofer ONLY if the format you are playing contains a separate low frequency channel. So, if for example you are listening to a CD then it is logical that you will not be getting any signal sent to the subwoofer. If on the other hand you are playing a DVD that does have one (the .1 channel) you will be getting it.
So, depending to your source material you need to set it accordingly...

This leads to an important observation that is relative to something that the majority of users are not aware of:

The signal that is sent to the speakers is in most cases a full range signal (20Hz to 20Khz). The majority of satelite speaker sets sold for computer users cannot accurately reproduce that range (especially anything lower than 300Khz) simply because they are too small. So, when someone listens to a Dolby Digital or DTS or whatever other multi-channel encoded signal they are not listening to that part of the signal encoded in the 5 channels simply because their speakers can't get that low.

This is where the importance of the crossover frequency kicks in:
By adjusting it so that the part of the signal that your satelites can't reproduce is sent instead to the sub (provided that the sub is of enough quality to reproduce low/mid frequences instead of just 'low'), you get the full range of the original signal. This can be most important even for dialogs in the critical low/mid frequency range (listen to the voice in Lion king for example).
Thing is, the majority of the sets that are widely sold to the masses do not offer manual adjustment of the crossover frequency for the subwoofer. That's because they are meant to be used ONLY with those satelites : It's pre-set to a frequency that best matches the satelites' range. That means that signals that are above the crossover frequency are sent to the satelites but they are still not reproduced accurately (most at much lower levels). That design is adapted only because it's the cheapest for an ok all-around solution, not one based on quality reproduction.

So, for those of you with a system like that, depending on the quality of your speakers and in this case MOSTLY of your subwoofer, you have a turnaround: you can improve the situation from within your card's settings. If you choose bass redirection you will get a fuller all around sound reproduction even when listening to a DD or DTS soundtrack. That's because the low-mid signals that your card would normally be sending to your satelites not to be reproduced correctly, will be redirected to your subwoofer instead, that is (SHOULD be) more equipped to do it better.

If you are following this far, i need to say that if you can get a quality audiophile sub (with adjustable crossover) and combine it with your small speakers (regardless of their quality) you will most certainly get a MUCH better, fuller sound reproduction.
But don't you go buying an expensive hi-end sub. If you're going to spend a lot of money on it, spend it on quality speakers instead and get a medium quality sub: quality speakers with a good sub offer unparalleled sound compared to low-to-average speakers with a great sub.

Know what you have. Don't kid yourself. Most importantly don't let others kid you. And make the best of it.

I'm not saying that those intergrated speaker systems are junk (although there are sooo many that are). There are some good ones. You can have good sound and fun with games.
You don't have to spend a fortune if you can't really tell the difference between an MP3 file encoded in 128kbps and one in 160Kbps.

On the other hand, if you CAN tell the difference and you care about quality sound then you should start thinking about quality speakers. If you ALSO happen to be a gamer, you should know that a set of only 2 good audiophile speakers combined with a quality (in music, not 'booming' terms) subwoofer and software 3D emulation can make you feel like you've been living underwater all this time you've been using the run-of-the-mill multi-channel set.

So, what am i saying this far? That if you're not an audiophile or really don't listen to a lot of music or if you have confined space then you probably don't need to get anything more than a good set of pc speakers. They are good and fun. Yes, you can improve with several tecniques (bass redirection for example) but you should stop kidding yourself when you think that spending money on a better soundcard will get you better sound. It will not (unless your current card is crap).
If you have a card that's relatively good and you want to spend money because you want better sound DON'T spend it for a new card: spend it on speakers.

I'll say it once again, the weakest link that ever was and ever will be in a sound reproduction system are the speakers. Try to keep that in mind.

As everything else in life, sound is a hugely subjective matter. Two people listening to the most expensive hi-end system will most likely NOT listen to the same sound. It's not only a matter of personal preference but also of each one's hearing (not to mention room characteristics): Our ears are physically not the same... Their ability to perceive the whole frequency range equally degrades over time or lifestyle. A system that is perfect in all aspects might be perceived as worse compared to another incorrect system that happens to compensate for one's unbalanced hearing...
Everything is so subjective... But that does not mean that there is no point in looking for a better soundsystem; if you really followed me this far then you should already know that i've been saying the opposite! I just want to point out that there's a little gray area there too...

So, the best you can do is to listen around you as much as possible and 'taste' many quality speaker systems IF you are really interested in quality sound. Otherwise you're just wasting money. Save yourself the trouble.

Take care...

P.S. #1
Audigy is not the only one with a front bay...

P.S. #2
The hum in your sub is probably EMI or grounding. Try sending that signal through a different sub. If it goes away then there's some problem with the sub you now have.

P.S. #3
Subjective as it might be, there are still RULES that do not fall within any notion of subjectivity. One of them is the fact that when a soundfield is supposed to be reproduced/recreated by three speakers then all three BETTER be the same to maintain correct range and tone reproduction. If one of them is different than the others then when sound 'moves' to/from that speaker it will stand out with different tonal characteristics: Major problem in multichannel environments where the central speaker has to match the main Left & Right ones. If L&R are big then placing a third one of the same model in the middle can be impossible due to screen position (try to match 2 Magnepans). But if they are small then it's absolutely WRONG and unthinkable to place a different one there in the middle unless it is designed to specificaly match the other two. Noone that does that can be talking about quality. My advice in such a situation is to remove the center one completely...
January 31, 2004 7:53:46 AM

Is this an analog connection or digital?

Digital connections don't have a sub woofer channel. A 5.1 signal only have 5 channels. The ".1" means that the LFE is created through redirection.

When you connect digitally to a receiver you have to use the receivers LFE redirection.

(Some Creative Digital Speakers use a 4 pole 3.5mm digital connector with three two channel spdif signals. This is the only instance in which you can have a real sub woofer channel with digital out. But that is completely non standard. Standard SPDIF uses a single 5-6 channel signal. 6th is rear center.)

When you connect via analog you can have a choice between redirecting with your sound card or your receiver. You only want to redirect once. (though some receivers can't redirect LFE when when using multichannel analog inputs).

Also the analog output on the SBLive 5.1, Audigy 2 and possibly the regular Audigy (not sure) use both 3 pole and 4 pole 3.5 mm jacks.

With my Live 5.1 the sub woofer is on the 4th pole. So if I use a standard 3.5mm to 2 RCA adapter I only get the digital out and center channels. Only when I use a special 3.5mm to 3 RCA cable can I use the sub woofer channel.

They sell 4 pole 3.5mm to 3 RCA adapter (if needed) for camcorders and some mack monitors, but I hear the location of the ground is wrong and the need to be rewired for use with a SB card.
February 2, 2004 7:48:10 AM

Quote Codesmith:

'Digital connections don't have a sub woofer channel. A 5.1 signal only have 5 channels. The ".1" means that the LFE is created through redirection'.


Nope, you have a misconception here. It's the exact opposite. AC3 and/or DTS encoded signals DO carry a separate '.1' channel. It's NOT created through redirection. It DOES exist on it's own. It originally contains low frequencies encoded EXCLUSIVELY in that channel, NOT related to any of the others. It's not a full range channel and that is the ONLY reason why the format is not described as '6-channel' but '5.1' instead. The '.1' simply indicates the specialty of the channel. It should be obvious, just think about it for a minute: why is it called a '6-channel digital format' instead of a '5-channel digital format' like you describe?
:-)

I had that analysed in my previous post, which i'm afraid you did not read before you posted. So, anyone that happened to read my last post AND yours should undoubtedly be confused... I'm afraid you have some misconceptions on those matters but you need not worry: from what i understand you're making things more difficult for yourself than they really are. Therefore, i had to clear it out.
Now, after this, if you go back and read my last post things should be clearer to you. I hope.


Take care
February 2, 2004 12:20:28 PM

You are 100% correct.

I guess I should have spent some time at www.DolbyDigital.com. Instead of getting my info from a quick standards summary on some guys web page.

"five full bandwidth channels representing Left, Center, Right, Left-Surround, and Right-Surround; plus a limited bandwidth low-frequency Sub-woofer channel."

.1 = limited bandwidth. Its not called .1 in the theaters, because there the sub-woofer channel has the same bitrate as the other channels.

Sub-woofer Output = Sub-woofer Channel + any LFE redirection the Receiver or sound card deems necessary.

Correct?
February 3, 2004 5:04:11 PM

""You don't have to spend a fortune if you can't really tell the difference between an MP3 file encoded in 128kbps and one in 160Kbps.""

True and not. The thing is that the bitrate itself is not the all over biggestest factor in compressed musik. It very much depends what software was used, what volume load was given, bluh,bluh,bluh some other little things. I can tell you difference even within the same 128 bit song compiled with different software, so as you've said it is all subjective. But all over your post youra da maan.

by the way, .wma is a better sound than .mp3 for playing out of computer musik (just my subjective view on the subject;)

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
February 4, 2004 5:23:26 AM

Quote:

"five full bandwidth channels representing Left, Center, Right, Left-Surround, and Right-Surround; plus a limited bandwidth low-frequency Sub-woofer channel."

Correct.

Quote:

".1 = limited bandwidth. Its not called .1 in the theaters, because there the sub-woofer channel has the same bitrate as the other channels."

You should not be confusing 'limited bandwith' with 'bitrate'. Limited bandwith, simply put, means that the frequency RANGE (bandwith) is NOT full: it's not 20Hz-20Khz like the others are. In this case, it only contains the very low end of the frequency range. It's meant to be reproduced by a subwoofer or a high quality speaker that is able to reproduce such low frequencies. That is why that channel needs a special identification.

Quote:

"Sub-woofer Output = Sub-woofer Channel + any LFE redirection the Receiver or sound card deems necessary".

Yes, it contains the originally encoded Low frequency channel plus any redirection of low frequency originally contained in the other 5 channels that you may decide to activate through your card or receiver (or even your DVD player if it gives you the choice).
February 4, 2004 7:21:04 AM

Naturally, the result WILL depend on the software used, extraction method used, bitrate method used and 'other little things', but in the end, and GENERALLY speaking for the majority of users (and the issues the post was addressing to) it DOES all come down to bitrate. And those bitrates mentioned ARE pretty indicative of a system's reproduction performance being at least somewhat above poor, but MOST importantly indicative of one's listening sensitivity being far from non-existant...
February 5, 2004 5:46:58 AM

""but MOST importantly indicative of one's listening sensitivity being far from non-existant...""

LOL all the way, hehehehe

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
!