Hey, I wanna ask something from the Alien/Zombie shooter thing, Does i have physics or ragdoll?
On Jan 8, 8:03 pm, Nin-lil-izi <[email protected]> wrote: > Human perception is not a perfectly tuned machine. Every person is not > subject to the same qualitative experience. There is no magic > adaptation to finding a certain thing more pleasant. Every ear is > unique as is the neuro circuitry behind it. Different people are > sensitive to different frequency ranges. Some won't tell the > difference. Others will find the sharp edge of treble if its too clean > annoying. Just the same as people vary in so many other ways in > physically. > Listening to the pure source being the best option is your opinion. > Just as listening to a filtered source is the best option according to > somebody else opinion. > If Mad_Dog enjoys' the effect of playing with SRS, then good for him > and I hope it proves an interesting auditory experience. > IMHO, things are not as black & white as you paint them. Just because > somebody has a different opinion to yourself. It does not make it > wrong, it just makes it different. > > Yes, weird bugs can be introduced between media lib's, drivers and > extra filters implanted in the middle. But every setup is different. > Just because it caused problems in your usage scenario. Somebody > else's, they may find it suits just fine. > > On Jan 8, 10:55 am, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > My point is that listening to the source as it was made and meant to > > be listened in the first place is the best option imho. Human ear > > adapts to any situation it's faced with, so would be better to adapt > > to the cleanest it can since it's something it already has available, > > the source at hand. We're not talking about hardware, but software. > > You know that advances in sound really depend on hardware. > > Forgot to say a very important thing, games are badly affected by srs > > audio sandbox, audio crackles, games crash more often, and forget > > about positional cues as it destroys that. > > > People should make the informed choice. > > > On 8 Jan, 09:46, Nin-lil-izi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Those SRS 'enhancement' things? > > > > As I understand it, the difference they create in music versus the > > > source. Is much the same as the difference between a pure digital > > > source and the same thing recorded in vinyl. > > > > They make music sound 'warmer', but less accurate. Essentially > > > throwing away some of the sharper details and smoothing out the wave a > > > bit. > > > > What both cases have in common is they are a lossy conversion. > > > I would not quote anything being fact in relation to which is better. > > > The end result is subjective. > > > The pure source is technically superior. > > > But the filtered output is more pleasing to the ear. But only due to > > > imperfections in the way the average humans ears and brain are wired > > > up. > > > > Which is relevant to a lot of audio technologies over the years. Due > > > to the subjective effect of differences in perception between people. > > > Defining which may be superior given a specific situation is never as > > > clear cut as just adding up the numbers. > > > > Would you say that is fair? > > > > On Jan 8, 9:44 am, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hum. I get the updates too, but I have 9xxssf always open, but I > > > > understand why you weren't following the thread. > > > > I don't take it well when there is a hint of being a fan of this or > > > > that, I merely state the facts, whether I like them or not. That was > > > > the reference I was talking about, not that you were talking about, > > > > which was quite some time ago, and as far as I recall, things were > > > > solved back then. > > > > > I didn't want to come as aggressive, but like I said that I don't > > > > really take it so well when there are insinuations. I like things out > > > > in the open. I'm sorry if I sounded harsh. > > > > > Ok, how about you sharing some thoughts with MAD_BEAST as to why he > > > > shouldn't use SRS Audio Sandbox? :) > > > > > On 8 Jan, 08:36, Nin-lil-izi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I do read all the updates as they reach my inbox. But it is easy to > > > > > get skewed between life and the multi days worth of digests a long > > > > > thread can spam. > > > > > I've not called anybody names. I've been perfectly civil, so am unsure > > > > > what you are referring to. > > > > > If its in reference to the mis-understanding where I jokingly called > > > > > America a third world country in reference to its infrastructure a few > > > > > months back. I already apologised back then. > > > > > > Now please, could you ease up a little on the aggression :-( > > > > > > On Jan 8, 8:53 am, tribaljet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > That's why previous posts are to be read, and not jump in and just > > > > > > start writing. You better think things straight before you start > > > > > > calling other people names. I answered accordingly. But don't worry, > > > > > > like I said, I don't take any merit to the D2X sound quality, just > > > > > > that it's too expensive, and not suited for games at all, overall > > > > > > doesn't seem like a good choice for the matter discussed before all > > > > > > this talk between you and me. > > > > > > > MAD, I tried that thing in the past, but it's really a crutch, and > > > > > > it > > > > > > degrades audio much more than you can imagine, it's just the brain > > > > > > that initially processes the audio changes as being better, but > > > > > > they're far from it. And I don't know where you get that you're old > > > > > > :D > > > > > > Crazy? Yes, but not old ;) We were just discussing about different > > > > > > soundcards. Also, that does take cycles that our 9xx chipsets can't > > > > > > really afford to spare, but mainly the real issue is that is > > > > > > degrades > > > > > > the audio signal in ways that are just not desired. If using only > > > > > > onboard sound, better use the tools your chipset provides as they > > > > > > are > > > > > > already in use, though the less you mess with onboard EQ, the > > > > > > better. > > > > > > > On 8 Jan, 07:46, Nin-lil-izi <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I guess the fanguy really likes his sound card :-) > > > > > > > Chill, there is no need to be so militant. I was just offering my > > > > > > > dissenting opinion not asking for abuse. > > > > > > > I frankly find your attitude offensive. > > > > > > > > I never realised anybody was asking for suggestions for a laptop, > > > > > > > I > > > > > > > thought it was about sound cards in general. > > > > > > > It is hard to keep track of where a thread is going when you only > > > > > > > get > > > > > > > a few posts a time out of a few threads in your inbox. and a > > > > > > > discussion gets fragmented into numerous little blocks split > > > > > > > between > > > > > > > emails over a random period. > > > > > > > > On Jan 8, 8:15 am, MAD_BEAST <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > i dont know what you guys talikng about im TOO OLD to read that > > > > > > > > much > > > > > > > > all i see i sound software and sound cards... correct me if im > > > > > > > > wrong > > > > > > > > > IM GOING TO RECOMMEND TO YOU SRS SANDBOX 5.1 its a virtual > > > > > > > > SOUND CARD > > > > > > > > it really improves the performance and quality of sound of the > > > > > > > > PCI > > -- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
