{"id":105,"date":"2020-06-09T15:01:40","date_gmt":"2020-06-09T15:01:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.hardwarecentral.com\/?p=105"},"modified":"2020-06-09T15:01:40","modified_gmt":"2020-06-09T15:01:40","slug":"creative-labs-sound-blaster-live","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.hardwarecentral.com\/creative-labs-sound-blaster-live\/","title":{"rendered":"Creative Labs Sound Blaster Live!"},"content":{"rendered":"

EAX and 3D Sound<\/h2>\n

With the increasingly popularity of 3D sound support in games and Microsoft’s inclusion of DirectSound 3D in DirectX, Creative Labs decided to develop their own 3D sound API, EAX (Environmental Audio Extensions). Essentially, sound environments are created with the use of sound sources and effects that are processed in real-time using the powerful EMU10K1 SBLive! processor. Using a 4 speaker system, sound sources can be placed in a 3D space with effects such as reverberations added to simulate certain environments (for example a cave, tunnel, auditorium, etc.)<\/p>\n

EAX Realism<\/strong><\/p>\n

For subjective hearing tests, we tested EAX with two games that supported it: Unreal Special Edition and Half-life. With a 4 speaker set-up, the 3D sounds were quite amazing. In both Unreal and Half-Life, we were able to pinpoint the location of the monsters and other sound sources without looking at the screen. In addition, we could quite easily distinguish between different environments.<\/p>\n

EAX vs. A3D<\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the great debates occuring in 3D audio is whether EAX or Aureal’s 3D audio extension, A3D, is better. The philosophies behind A3D and EAX are at 2 different ends of the spectrum. Whereas A3D advocates total accuracy and complexity, EAX backs a simpler “simulation” model. With A3D, a physical model of the environment must be constructed just as with normal visual 3D models in the application. This allows for accurate 3D sounds as the sounds are essentially “rendered” in the environment according to acoustic physics. Hence, reflections off walls that are closer will sound different than reflections that occur further away. EAX, on the other hand, only simulates the effects of environments using real-time effects such as reverberations.<\/p>\n

From the point of view of the game developer, EAX is much simpler to implement. As opposed to constructing a physical model (which takes a great deal of time), EAX just requires the game developer to set the sources of the sounds and apply “effects” to simulate the surrounding environment. But which one sounds better? After closely listening the differences between A3D and EAX, HardwareCentral found that A3D was much more immersive than EAX. While EAX effects sometime sounded “canned”, A3D always sounded very accurate for the physical environment. In addition, while EAX requires the use of 4 speakers to simulate 3D space, A3D only requires 2 speakers. While the 2 speaker A3D setup is slightly inferior to a 4 speaker EAX setup, A3D eclipses EAX when used in conjunction with earphones.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

What You Get<\/h2>\n

Inside the Box<\/b><\/p>\n