Creative Announces Sound Blaster GC7 Gaming DAC and Amp

[R0H1T]

Interesting, audiophile just sounds to me like "PCMR" except louder & more annoying!

 

[Chrispy_]

Creative actually used to have a brand that used to do products like that Behringer, but they apparently weren't making enough money of it, since they pretty much killed it.

I suspect Creative failed in the pro market because they were up against established competition with a history/reputation of high-end, dependable audio products whilst Creative themselves were floundering away as a company that had the Vista/64-bit driver model basically kill off their soundcards.

Their reputation was in tatters and even if the pro kit was actually good, it came with the stigma of a company making cheap MVP crap for entry-level computing that had barely moved on from the internal PC speaker:

Audiophile is indeed a dirty word but it basically applies to anyone who cares about audio quality. Someone upgrading their sound setup to start streaming either as a hobbyist or professionally has to at least have some care for their audio quality....

 

[Supercrit]

Who is the target audience of this thing? Hobbists who want audiophile gear get the real things, those who doesn't care didn't want one in the first place.
It's eerily similar to the earphones with DAC TPU just reviewed a while ago, nobody will buy these.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Rotel 700W 7.1-Ch. 4K Ultra HD A/V Home Theater Receiver Black RAP-1580 BLACK - Best Buy
you're welcome

Thank you. But can this be used as a recognizable sound card for PC, or is basically just an amplifier?

 

[yukinin97]

This product would make more sense being priced at $99. At $219, though? Just get yourself a proper audio interface. It'll also have a DAC/AMP while having more inputs for flexibility. At this price range I would be taking a look at interfaces such as the Focusrite 2i2 and Motu M2 which are less expensive, most likely higher quality overall, and does all of the same things except for surround sound simulation(which always suck) and more. As a bonus, you can also avoid the cringe 'gamer' color theme these 'gaming' products all seem to have. Just my 2c.

 

[Fergutor]

I mean, https://www.google.com/search?q=umc204hd is under $100 and does a lot of the audio lifiting that this does. Different product for a different market, but quality audio and mixing with audiophile-grade inputs/outputs doesn't have to be expensive. Creative intentionally ignored proper inputs/outputs.

This may not be a terrible product, I'm not having a go at that. I'm having a go at Creative for clearly branding this "audiophile" whilst having only mickey-mouse connectivity for beginners and people who don't know better:

View attachment 195089

...
It says "Audiophile-Grad DAC", not simply "audiophile". That has a specific meaning, and the fact that all of you are throwing the word in a general way tells me a lot about your intellectual honesty.

More on that later, but apparently they removed that picture, so probably they received critics. And that's fair because thanks to people like all of you "DAC" now doesn't mean what it should, and also a person that doesn't pay attention (or is purpossedly dishonest) could take that as the whole device is "audiophile grade".

Now, they changed it to a more specific way, so you don't twist the meaning:

"AUDIOPHILE-CLASS DAC​

At the core of the Sound Blaster GC7 is the AKM4377 audiophile-grade DAC which offers low noise floor at < -120 dB, low distortion, and more distinct individual sound effects. Stream at up to 24-bit / 192 kHz PCM playback and enjoy high-quality audio regardless of which source you're using."

So when they said "audiophile grad DAC" they were (obviously) talking about the "Digital-Analog Converter" inside the device, not the misnomer for "simplistic and featureless external sound card with USB interface aimed at us, arrogant snobs that can't understand anything beyond stereo...or surround only through a receiver, and everything else is a gimmick"

Sorry, but pisses me off.

 

[dyonoctis]

Thank you. But can this be used as a recognizable sound card for PC, or is basically just an amplifier?

It got a dac (actually several), so it will. Otherwise there would be no point into having an usb input . That brand seems to be the only one to make home-theaters that have an USB input.
RSP-1576 | Rotel

 

[evernessince]

Creative actually used to have a brand that used to do products like that Behringer, but they apparently weren't making enough money of it, since they pretty much killed it.

And again, "audiophile" is just a big word that have nothing to do with being a professional in audio, it just means that you like to listen to music on "quality equipment". There's a lot of "audiophile" brands that are still selling amps (Fiio K5, XDUOO XD-05) and headphone that can't use a balanced plug (Beyer, DT 880,990,770,1990, AKG K702, K712 Sennheiser HD599, HD560s) and a lot of Audio-Technica "audiophile" branded headphones) . Heck, the Schiit stack Wich is among the most popular set up for beginners and budget minded "audiophile" doesn't offer balanced. Over the years I've really come to dislike that word . I have a HD58X that can go balanced, but everything that I read doesn't make it sounds like it's worth to spend the extra money for the cables (especially when balanced still can't make it's mind between 2.5mn, 4,4mn jack and XLR, and there's a huge "audiophile" taxe on those cable/adapters.)
View attachment 195092

Balanced capable DACs aren't important for USB DACs in general. It's only really useful if you are doing long cable runs. For the length of cable you are using with any USB DAC, any decent cable isn't going to have an interference problem. Heck I have a quality 50ft planet audio 1/4" extension cable and that doesn't pick up any interference with very sensitive equipment. You are putting way too much emphasis on balanced cables being a requirement for audiophile gear when it's not even really a factor for anyone sitting on their computer desks. Money would be much wore wisely spend on a higher quality cable instead of specifically going for balanced.

 

[EsaT]

I mean, https://www.google.com/search?q=umc204hd is under $100 and does a lot of the audio lifiting that this does. Different product for a different market, but quality audio and mixing with audiophile-grade inputs/outputs doesn't have to be expensive. Creative intentionally ignored proper inputs/outputs.

This may not be a terrible product, I'm not having a go at that. I'm having a go at Creative for clearly branding this "audiophile" whilst having only mickey-mouse connectivity for beginners and people who don't know better:

And yet you're accepting other brand product instantly without any proof for under the hood quality.
Propably just because it happens to be advertised with correct marketing terms.

Behringer is really very opaque about what's actually behind all those audiofoolery terms and under the hood.
Like only available information about those outputs is fancy schmancy max. "+3 dBu".
Now if that's all what its headphone output has, that sucks harder than black hole:
That's miserably low barely 1,1 Vrms!
And wouldn't wonder any if it has some 100 ohm output impedance...

 

[dyonoctis]

Balanced capable DACs aren't important for USB DACs in general. It's only really useful if you are doing long cable runs. For the length of cable you are using with any USB DAC, any decent cable isn't going to have an interference problem. Heck I have a quality 50ft planet audio 1/4" extension cable and that doesn't pick up any interference with very sensitive equipment. You are putting way too much emphasis on balanced cables being a requirement for audiophile gear when it's not even really a factor for anyone sitting on their computer desks. Money would be much wore wisely spend on a higher quality cable instead of specifically going for balanced.

I don't care about balanced dac, chrispy was the one complaining about that I simply pointed out that there's many good and popular product in the "audiophile" community that don't use a balanced plug, and nobody complain about it . If it's there it's nice, but it's not the end of the world if it isn't

 

[Mescalamba]

Want quality? Buy Schiit.

Creative is mainstream more or less. They used to be almost only mainstream long time ago. And decent. Unsure about now and this. But my Audigy 2 still works.

 

[GamerGuy]

There's no mention of it being DSD capable, so that's a pass for me (IF I were looking for a DAC combo that is). I was an audiophile (wannabe) but after taking stock of the amount of money I was throwing into that branch of my hobbies, I'd decided to quit.

I'm enjoying whatever audiophile gear I'd already gotten (which was pretty substantive, a good number of headphones, some DAC stack/combos, 4pin Balanced cables for my cans, even had a couple of my cans modded to with SMC plugs so I can do Balanced Mode) but I'll admit I'm curious about virtual surround sound gaming on my rigs.

Gonna wait for reviews and see if Creative has upped their driver support which wasn't stellar to begin with (had crackling and pops with my Audigy ZS, less on my ZX when I was still using audio cards (now purely external DACs).

 

[evernessince]

There's no mention of it being DSD capable, so that's a pass for me (IF I were looking for a DAC combo that is). I was an audiophile (wannabe) but after taking stock of the amount of money I was throwing into that branch of my hobbies, I'd decided to quit.

I'm enjoying whatever audiophile gear I'd already gotten (which was pretty substantive, a good number of headphones, some DAC stack/combos, 4pin Balanced cables for my cans, even had a couple of my cans modded to with SMC plugs so I can do Balanced Mode) but I'll admit I'm curious about virtual surround sound gaming on my rigs.

Gonna wait for reviews and see if Creative has upped their driver support which wasn't stellar to begin with (had crackling and pops with my Audigy ZS, less on my ZX when I was still using audio cards (now purely external DACs).

Virtual surround sound is mostly a gimmick. You don't need specific hardware, the audio just needs to be recorded binaural. Go listen to virtual barbershop and you'll be wondering why games outside of VR haven't implemented it yet (aside from Senua's sacrifice of course).

 

[micropage7]

the main problem of add on soundcard is when you upgrade your os there no new driver for your hardware, so basically upgrading your os will "kill" your soundcard

 

[dyonoctis]

the main problem of add on soundcard is when you upgrade your os there no new driver for your hardware, so basically upgrading your os will "kill" your soundcard

The driver is only there for some of the DSP effects, but with USB Class 2 Audio you don't need to install any driver to get the sound. because of USB Class 2 Audio, Creative sound cards are also compatible with consoles (except the Xbox series X because Microsoft refused to support USB Class 2 Audio for some reason).

 

[Ravenmaster]

Still gonna get better quality from HDMI eARC to a AV Receiver.

 

[bug]

Still gonna get better quality from HDMI eARC to a AV Receiver.

In theory, yes. In practice, PCs aren't sources of high-quality video (and thus audio) content. But if you do have high-quality audio, digital out (in any form) to your actual audio equipment is the solution I have long advocated for.

 

[stimpy88]

It quite amusing to see Creative Labs reduced to selling this teenage themed plastic junk...

In practice, PCs aren't sources of high-quality video (and thus audio) content.

Erm, what?

 

[bug]

Erm, what?

I mean, you usually need HDMI multichannel audio for streaming stuff like Netflix, Amazon Prime or something like that. And you usually don't need a PC to consume those.

 

[stimpy88]

I mean, you usually need HDMI multichannel audio for streaming stuff like Netflix, Amazon Prime or something like that. And you usually don't need a PC to consume those.

OK... Those services offer garbage video quality, regardless of if you use a PC or not.

But I think many people would loudly disagree that a PC cannot be a source of reference quality video and audio. It depends upon your use case, and hardware, but I'd much rather have a PC streaming a UHD-HDR/DV rip to my OLED than the Netflix app from any other device attempting to show the same thing.

 

[bug]

OK... Those services offer garbage video quality, regardless of if you use a PC or not.

But I think many people would loudly disagree that a PC cannot be a source of reference quality video and audio. It depends upon your use case, and hardware,

Even that is debatable. I have many issues with sound desync because of Windows' spotty DPC latency.

but I'd much rather have a PC streaming a UHD-HDR/DV rip to my OLED than the Netflix app

Of course a BD will offer better quality than streaming. That's not an argument in favor of the PC, it's an argument in favor of physical media.

from any other device attempting to show the same thing.

The thing is, for streaming Netflix&co, you don't need "any other" device. The client is usually built into your TV. And even if it's not, it's much easier and more hassle free to attach a Chromecast than a PC

 

[MarsM4N]

Virtual surround sound is mostly a gimmick. You don't need specific hardware, the audio just needs to be recorded binaural. Go listen to virtual barbershop and you'll be wondering why games outside of VR haven't implemented it yet (aside from Senua's sacrifice of course).

There is quite a huge difference in the "Surround Virtualization" solutions, which I didn't expect myself. Go check out the following comparison, it's quite an ear opener.

My favourite is by far CMSS-3D (Creative), which they sadly dropped years ago. Not quite sure if Super X-Fi can win me over. It's predecessor SBX however sounded like a downgrade to my ears.

I personally like the minimalist design of the Sound Blaster GC7. And you get physical buttons for quick adjustments (really miss the media loudness keys after switching to a TKL keyboard). Should also have enough juice to power AKG K702's. Well thought out, exept the audio & mic jacks at the front of the device. So instead of having all wires at the back for a clean setup, you have 2 cables messing up your desk. Why??? That's not very Creative! Well, I might give it a shot anyways, since there is nothing else out there that fits my needs more.

 

[Fergutor]

Virtual surround sound is mostly a gimmick. You don't need specific hardware, the audio just needs to be recorded binaural. Go listen to virtual barbershop and you'll be wondering why games outside of VR haven't implemented it yet (aside from Senua's sacrifice of course).

See what I said people?

evernessince: you don't know what you are talking about. And clearly evident when you say "the audio just needs to be recorded binaural".
Think: if the audio isn't recorded binaural or in any other special way, then how do you get 3d sound? Answer: processing. A processing into something similar to binaural for example. The multichannel sound signals get processed so presented to our ears, typically through headphones, it tricks our hearing into thinking the sound comes from where it is supposed to (if the processing is good and we are compatible to that processing, usually is not a problem).
Is something that works a gimmick? No, it isn't. And this works. There isn't anything esoteric, anything weird here. No snake oil. Is simply applying what's known and researched from our hearing. Manipulating frequencies, crosstalk, phase, etc depending on how the sound is coming to our ears. When passing through our bodies and head to our ears and depending the shape of those, the sound changes and our ears and brain do the rest. The processing emulates that. Does that sound a gimmick to you? Then I guess to you everything in science is "gimmick".
We could say binaural does mechanically what virtual surround processing does by software, at least with HRTF (there is BRTF too). But virtual surround is better (in the surround or localization sense) just because there's something not quite right with binaural: everything sounds like coming from behind. Hugo Zucarelli samples with his "holophonics" were way better. Listen the matchbox shake sample: in his, there is a front. And in virtual surround there isn't a problem with that but of course it depends on the modelling and the listener (apart form the source, etc).
The big problem with virtual surround is how it ruins the quality. But of course you can't say "see we have to use binaural" because that doesn't make any sense (imagine setting a special room with speakers connected to your PC in another room, the speakers around a dummy head that goes to an amp to your headphones in the room where you are playing so you can hear the sound in binaural and with all the quality totally destroyed hahah absurd).
You can try with HeSuVi (which I still do not recommend as an alternative to sound cards with vitual surround yet). If you install it and use it correctly (which is quite simple but is also very simple to make a mistake with it) and if you have normal hearing then you will experience it and verify for yourself. Or start with what MarsM4N shared but the problem with that is that you can't test it yourself with your own multichannel sources that you know (if you have any...).

So, don't spread missinformation. I read that same phrase, and I mentioned it in a previous comment in this very thread, so many times, when the truth is so easily verifiable and evident, that I can only assume this is due to tribalism.

 

[evernessince]

There is quite a huge difference in the "Surround Virtualization" solutions, which I didn't expect myself. Go check out the following comparison, it's quite an ear opener.

My favourite is by far CMSS-3D (Creative), which they sadly dropped years ago. Not quite sure if Super X-Fi can win me over. It's predecessor SBX however sounded like a downgrade to my ears.

I personally like the minimalist design of the Sound Blaster GC7. And you get physical buttons for quick adjustments (really miss the media loudness keys after switching to a TKL keyboard). Should also have enough juice to power AKG K702's. Well thought out, exept the audio & mic jacks at the front of the device. So instead of having all wires at the back for a clean setup, you have 2 cables messing up your desk. Why??? That's not very Creative! Well, I might give it a shot anyways, since there is nothing else out there that fits my needs more.

You are confusing surround virtualization and 3D spatial audio. Surround virtualization is used on media and audio that doesn't contain HTRFs or other data to indicate the positioning of audio elements present in the media. It attempts to emulate the positioning of audio elements as the audio was never recorded with any data that could assist with positioning and the results are often mixed. For pre-recorded media, it's always best to have recorded the audio with the HTRFs or spatialization data it needs from the onset. Dolby atmos does this (although TBH binuarally recorded audio is superior from the dolby atmos I've heard to date).

3D spatial audio uses data available from the game engine to enable the experience you demonstrated in the video. In fact you can do this with even older titles like Skyrim (of course there's a mod for it). You can do infinitely more sound wise with games simply because you have access to the precise positioning of objects, their material, and their environment. That's not to say you can't do as good with pre-recorded media, it's just that you have to do it at the time of recording. After that point, there's no going back.

Surround virtualization is indeed a gimmick but 3D spatial audio in games is definitely not.

The multichannel sound signals get processed so presented to our ears, typically through headphones, it tricks our hearing into thinking the sound comes from where it is supposed to (if the processing is good and we are compatible to that processing, usually is not a problem).

If you are going to call out someone for not being knowledgeable in a topic, you probably shouldn't make multiple errors with the basics. Headphones are stereo, you can't output multi-channel to them. What you can do is downmix 7.1 and 5.1 audio tracks to them but that would yield subpar results. 5.1 and 7.1 tracks are designed with speaker systems in mind. Those kind of surround sound systems place speakers in specific positions around the room. This works well because you get the effect of HRTFs without actually having to record them. The human brain uses HRTFs to indicate the position of sounds. Head related transfer functions in case you are unware of what that stands for. In short, you can tell the location of a sound source based on the difference in intensity of a sound wave between your two ears. When you downmix that 5.1 or 7.1 track into stereo and play that back though, your ears are no longer getting the positional audio cues you would have gotten from a stereo system. This is why it's a bad idea to downmix 5.1 or 7.1 to stereo, it's going to be worse than any stereo track that was designed from the onset to be played back on headphones. This is why Binaural audio is superior for headphones, it includes those HRTFs that are required by the human brain to locate sound

Is something that works a gimmick? No, it isn't. And this works. There isn't anything esoteric, anything weird here. No snake oil. Is simply applying what's known and researched from our hearing. Manipulating frequencies, crosstalk, phase, etc depending on how the sound is coming to our ears. When passing through our bodies and head to our ears and depending the shape of those, the sound changes and our ears and brain do the rest. The processing emulates that. Does that sound a gimmick to you? Then I guess to you everything in science is "gimmick".

Audio frequency has nothing to do with any form of audio spatialization, virtual or otherwise. You are probably thinking of volume, in that sound coming from the left is going to be of lower volume in the right ear than the left.

Crosstalk is a type of unintended interference in analog signals. You are thinking of HRTFs, which sends a single sound to both ears, with one of them modified by the HTRF coefficient.

We could say binaural does mechanically what virtual surround processing does by software, at least with HRTF (there is BRTF too). But virtual surround is better (in the surround or localization sense) just because there's something not quite right with binaural: everything sounds like coming from behind. Hugo Zucarelli samples with his "holophonics" were way better. Listen the matchbox shake sample: in his, there is a front. And in virtual surround there isn't a problem with that but of course it depends on the modelling and the listener (apart form the source, etc).

Given that there are hundred of thousands of VR videos that contain binaural audio, I'm going to say there's something wrong with either the recordings, your setup, or you if everything sounds like it's coming from behind.

You are referring to this video:

All of their videos are binuaral, which is ironic given your criticism of binaural

Holophonics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So in fact, you do really like Binuaral. I should mention that people often use "3D Audio, Spatialized audio, virtual surround" interchangeably. This is often to grab attention by using buzzwords. Binuaral audio has been around for a long time and it only just recently gained some notoriety. Even then, it doesn't really roll off the tongue.

I also don't see where virtual surround comes into play here. You linked pre-recorded binaural audio. Nothing downmixed via software or middle-ware.

Just in case you are aware I've tried software solutions. WavesNX is currently the best but still not worth IMO. It's also annoying to have to disable it every time you want to play a recording that's already binaural. Audio with one set of real HRTFs and one fake sounds awful.

 

[Fergutor]

Dude your saying so much BS that my head hurts. It is just incredible that after I told you what's wrong with what you said, instead of making a step back an re-consider you double down in idiocy

If you are going to call out someone for not being knowledgeable in a topic, you probably shouldn't make multiple errors with the basics. Headphones are stereo, you can't output multi-channel to them.

See? You can!

What you can do is downmix 7.1 and 5.1 audio tracks to them but that would yield subpar results.

No, not "subpar": you will get no useful results. You will get front, side and rear left sounding the exact same on the left cup, same for rights, and center in the center of your head instead of in front. Some fools that call themselves audiophiles and say the same BS that you do, insist that when doing this you can achieve "perfect spatial positioning due to the spatial image capabilities of the headphones". Talk about being deluded, when they themselves in the next sentence complain that no game or movie have a good "recording" (same idiocy you said, the fact that you think the sound must be recorded in certain pre spatially defined way blows mi mind. Imagine having to record all the sound from infinite probable positions for games HAHA!) because they can't tell where the sound is coming from...
Of course at the same time they insist that virtual surround is a gimmick!! Like you do.
The only way you can achieve sound positioning when outputting multiple channels to stereo is through processing with a virtualization engine. There is no other way (or you could use your room with the surround speaker and the dummy head hahaha).

5.1 and 7.1 tracks are designed with speaker systems in mind. Those kind of surround sound systems place speakers in specific positions around the room.

NOOooooo, really!?!?!

This works well because you get the effect of HRTFs without actually having to record them.

!!!!!!!!
COME ON!!!!!!

The human brain uses HRTFs to indicate the position of sounds.

Eeehh...
Why are you trying to explain what I already know...and explaining in even a shittier way that I already did in the previous comment!!?!?!

Head related transfer functions in case you are unware of what that stands for.

Ooh man...
At least get in a good position before trying sarcasm...

And what are BRTF? I already mentioned them too, so surely, according to your logic, I don't know what they are!! Even if I also proven to know about it. Oh, and you ignored it.

In short

, you can tell the location of a sound source based on the difference in intensity of a sound wave between your two ears.

HAHAHAHAH!!
Dude, at least read ALL my previous comment!!!

" the difference in intensity of a sound wave between your two ears"

HAHAHAHA!! Are you a comedian or what!??! So no cavities? No body deflection, occlusion? No interference? No ears shape? No density? No head shape? No environment properties? No anything else that shapes the sound before it gets into our ears. Just "the difference in intensity of a sound wave between your two ears"? Well dude, you better go and educate all those morons spending thousands with expensive and complicated dummy heads for binaural recordings and investigation and all those others apparently confusing themselves with complicated algorithms to emulated that if our capability to locate sound it's just "the difference in intensity of a sound wave between your two ears"!!!

And you are exactly behaving like all of those that say "virtual surround is a gimmick", being arrogant, ignorant, and reductionist in that same ignorance! Even when I made a simplistic explanation times more complete and accurate than what you are doing!!!! In the previous comment, ans the one you are responding too!! It's like you want to embarass yourself!!

When you downmix that 5.1 or 7.1 track into stereo and play that back though, your ears are no longer getting the positional audio cues you would have gotten from a stereo system.

Oh, oh, it seems you getting to it...!!

This is why it's a bad idea to downmix 5.1 or 7.1 to stereo, it's going to be worse than any stereo track that was designed from the onset to be played back on headphones.

...nope...

...not getting to it...hahah!

This is why Binaural audio is superior for headphones, it includes those HRTFs that are required by the human brain to locate sound

Dude, think for a second.

PLEASE, STOP AND THINK!!!!

How would you achieve binaural in a game?

Do you understand tha binaural is a mechanical method? (next comment the guy will try to explain to me how binaural is a mechanical method haha!)

What you could do is analyse how binaural works, gather the information, put the data into formulas, then into a code which will make an engine, into a software that tries, in total, to mimmick what binaural achieves...What a great idea, right? Do you know what that would be called?
"Virtual surround"

Let's see if I'm right... I am!:
Sound Blaster SBX Pro Studio Surround - YouTube (horribly explained and confusing, just stay on topic, what it says is they used that to research and create SBX, just as the next video)
Virtual reality for your ears - Binaural sound demo (wear your headphones) - BBC Click - YouTube (this video explains what should be obvious of how you can't use binaural for games and instead you have to come with a alternative software method)

Audio frequency has nothing to do with any form of audio spatialization, virtual or otherwise. You are probably thinking of volume, in that sound coming from the left is going to be of lower volume in the right ear than the left.

Dude, please stop. Stop embarassing yourself!!!!!

Make this experiment so simple even you can do it: aim your ear to a constant noise source in a point. Now aim your ear higher. Now lower. What happened? Different FREQUENCIES increase and decrease.
Should I explain what this has to do with how we locate sounds?
I know I should, but I won't bother.

Crosstalk is a type of unintended interference in analog signals. You are thinking of HRTFs, which sends a single sound to both ears, with one of them modified by the HTRF coefficient.

You really couldn't tell what I was saying?! You read without making even the slightess effort to understand.

Given that there are hundred of thousands of VR videos that contain binaural audio, I'm going to say there's something wrong with either the recordings, your setup, or you if everything sounds like it's coming from behind.

Don't know. I use to listen to them more than a decade ago when I had not so good headphones. So listening to it now...same.

Listen to the motorcycle when it first revs.

You are referring to this video:

No, I wasn't reffering to ANY video. I have better quality recordings that the ones youtube destroy. But yes, is the sample that someone used in that video.

All of their videos are binuaral, which is ironic given your criticism of binaural

Holophonics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And did you read that?
If you did it just went over your head.

Just like the fool that wrote that in that video that the sound "is pure, no processing, no special effects". According to Hugo Z. there was a processing. And in that Wikipedia article it says it as well!! So, according to Hugo Zucarelli himself, his method is not simply binaural.
There is a controversy on the legitimacy of his method though. Some say it is actually simply binaural, but given they sound very different, there's something else there. I blame Hugo himself for not being able to clarify and make his technique into product we all could buy. The guy made other stuff like speakers that can reproduce recordings of his "holophonics"...

So in fact, you do really like Binuaral.

I think I clarified this above. Not hoping you would understand anyway...

I should mention that people often use "3D Audio, Spatialized audio, virtual surround" interchangeably.

Yes. So?

This is often to grab attention by using buzzwords.

Dude...

You are hopeless.

Binuaral audio has been around for a long time and it only just recently gained some notoriety.

Now you want to tech me history...

Even then, it doesn't really roll off the tongue.

Dude, shut up and test it yourself. How is it that all people who use it can say where the sounds are coming from?!
My brother is a denialist like you. As he read somewhere he likes (reddit most probably, eww) that virtual surround is a gimmick, then for him is a gimmick. Tribalism. Know nothing about this, just like you, and still say this is a gimmick.
Yet just two months ago I made him play Warzone, a game he doesn't play, with HeSuVi, using SBX at 33% without reverb, both using same model of headphones (yes you can plug many headphones with that software). And he could tell perfectly where the sounds where coming from. Someone was hunting him (contract) just as he got to the ground, entered a house, grabbed a slow firing shotgun, and stayed there for just seconds. We heard the guy get into that house, my brother followed his movements based on the sound, and thanks to that he was able to kill him, shooting at him calculating when he was going to go through a door hole inside a house. First shot surprised the hunter, second killed him (he didn't have armor I guess). ...but is a gimmick...

And again, no you can't, as far as I know, implement "binaural", that actually roll off the tongue better than all the others, without doing it by software wich is precisely what you are complaining about!

I also don't see where virtual surround comes into play here.

Amazing.

Simply amazing.

Now I'm not sure I'm talking with a sane person.

Who introduce "binaural" to the discussion as an alternative to virtual surround?

Virtual surround sound is mostly a gimmick. You don't need specific hardware, the audio just needs to be recorded binaural. Go listen to virtual barbershop and you'll be wondering why games outside of VR haven't implemented it yet (aside from Senua's sacrifice of course).

Who could that person be?


Now, one thing the likes of you get confused with in this discussions is virtual surround in downmixing and upmixing.
All I'm talking about is "downmixing". Surround, multichannel or even object based, into stereo headphones and even stereo speakers (CMSS3D was quite good at doing virtual surround through stereo speakers, or as good as one could expect from such a difficult thing to achieve convincingly).

You linked pre-recorded binaural audio. Nothing downmixed via software or middle-ware.

I linked nothing.

Are you alright?

Ok, I'm not suppossed to mock people like you, you kow. But if you really think you can have a discussion...

Now, if you are referring to what MarsM4N (who is not me) linked to you, that video is not a "pre-recorded binaural audio" (absurd!) and it is a "downmix via software"! What the hell!?!? The video explains how at the beginning and you can test that if you wanted to!

Just in case you are aware I've tried software solutions. WavesNX is currently the best but still not worth IMO.

So in fact, you do really like virtual surround...

"Are you kidding" is what I should say but at this point I can't expect anything serious from you.
You were talking how this is a gimmick how this can't be done...and now there's one virtual surround processing method that you like...

... aaahh...

Anyway, I put Waves NX in youtube search and "snake oil?" "the truth about", etc...See how it is?
I listened to the Waves NX demo in their website and is quite horrible. This is a better one:

. I don't like it, has too much reverb and doesn't play well with distances, but on the other hand never tried most of the games there, only Dirt 2 which I play with surround speakers.
The important part is that you like it. Because it means it adjusts to your hearing (if it's that and not only tribalism and contrarianism that I suspect is what it is...).
Some people like Dolby Headphones for example, which I and many think is simply awful. But if they can get a better sense of localization than SBX, CMSS3D, Razer solution, etc, etc, then fine!
Now, how much they wreck sound quality is the same for everyone. Or should be. And that's a problem of all this methods: all of them destroy the sound.

It's also annoying to have to disable it every time you want to play a recording that's already binaural. Audio with one set of real HRTFs and one fake sounds awful.

Well, it's something you have to get used to do.
And some solutions are more annoying to use than others.
Also there is how you in particular use the system.

But all this isn't that complicated that should confuse people as it does or prevent them to use this methods.
Companies made all an awful job at explaining.
I remember all the years people were confused asking how the hell CMSS3D actually worked, in specifics uses I mean, and Creative never bother explaining correctly.
And then theres people like you who not only refuses to understand and choose to act stubborn, but propagate falsehoods.

And it's so easy to se why one would need virtual surround and test existing solutions for yourself. It is so easy.

Sorry for writting erros, writting fast with a bad keyboard while english not being my language.