Installera Steam
logga in
|
språk
简体中文 (förenklad kinesiska)
繁體中文 (traditionell kinesiska)
日本語 (japanska)
한국어 (koreanska)
ไทย (thailändska)
Български (bulgariska)
Čeština (tjeckiska)
Dansk (danska)
Deutsch (tyska)
English (engelska)
Español - España (Spanska - Spanien)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanska - Latinamerika)
Ελληνικά (grekiska)
Français (franska)
Italiano (italienska)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesiska)
Magyar (ungerska)
Nederlands (nederländska)
Norsk (norska)
Polski (polska)
Português (Portugisiska – Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugisiska - Brasilien)
Română (rumänska)
Русский (ryska)
Suomi (finska)
Türkçe (turkiska)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamesiska)
Українська (Ukrainska)
Rapportera problem med översättningen
Diskussionsregler och -riktlinjer
Anmäl detta inlägg
It's amazing to me that Bethesda... not ID, mind you... has decided that we're not "supposed to" have our system audio fidelity set to "too high" of a level.
Frankly stated, if your system can handle a given resolution, whether audio for video, no program should refuse to work properly at that level.
Yes, it's true. This game simply refuses to work properly on a system which is set up differently than the CONSOLE it was originally designed to run on. Doom 2016 is a "bad console port." For this very reason.
Yes, we can change our sound settings to something "low enough" and then reset them again once we're done with the game. But being that this is one of TWO programs I've encountered where this is an issue, with the other one being an old game from the 1990s (when nobody but professional audio producers used 192 kilohertz sampling, and 48 was considerted "the best anyone normally will run")... well, it's unforgivable.
This game is interesting... but it really is designed for the "console kiddie" audience, it seems. I still enjoy playing the original DooM games (using modern high-res rendering engines), and frankly, I enjoyed Doom 3 a LOT more than I've enjoyed this game, to the limit I've played it (just a few hours, but a few hours filled with annoyance and frustration, and not the least hint of IMMERSION!)
This game was designed along the lines of the typical "multiplayer arena," even in the supposed single-player game. Run, gun, lather-rise-repeat, with almost no feeling that "I'm a person finding myself in this environment, and having to fight for my life." THAT is what I want from a game. Not "oh, kewl, look, I ripped a guy's head off! AWESOME!!!"
The lack of DEPTH in modern game design... it's why I almost never buy new games these days, and only play older stuff (from the 1998-to-2008 era, mainly) and through services like GoG which allow you to run it in perpetuity, even without using their "online service."
Doom 2016 is "underwhelming" to me. Doom64, on the other hand, I'm really enjoying.
If you can't stop and THINK, at any time in the game... if it's all "run here, shoot, run there, shoot, lather-rinse-repeat" without ANY immersion other than "fancy visuals," well... I'm bored.
And yes, this game bores me. I spent enough not to want to walk away just yet... but if it won't even let me play without reconfiguring my audiophile sound subsystem (7.1 speakers through an HTOmega eClaro audio card running at 24bit x 192 Khz) and instead requires me to set it up as a "game console default output" (16bit x 44.1 Khz) in order to play it... I'm more inclined to play other games. And I'm not inclined, at all, to buy the current sequel to this," Doom Eternal," which seems more than anything to be a "console-ized DLC promotion" tool.
It's definitely id, not Bethesda. Eternal has less severe but similar issues.
And it's not only id. About 50% of my Steam library has issues with sampling rates higher than 48kHz. They aren't ubiquitous, and aren't universal, but from hard crashes with nothing in the Event Log to random glitches to crackles to bad mixing, it's an extremely common problem.
You may not even notice them or mentally make the connection to audio being the problem, but it's normal and expected behavior for a lot of games.
First, wrong. Synchronous development != console port. Second, consoles are literally just standard PCs at this point. Xbox even uses the same audio and video APIs. It's not a concession to consoles.
Whether or not people can set 192kHz sampling rate is not relevant. I know maybe ten people that have audio gear even close to being able to discern a difference, and of those none can tel in a double blind. On top of that, the audio in the game isn't stored at 192kHz. You can't create more sound data from nothing - if something is recorded at 48kHz, 192kHz won't improve it. If anything, resampling the output will always have a chance of creating artifacts and may actually decrease the final output quality. Finally, the average hearing range is around 20-20kHz. Most adults can't hear pitches above 12-14kHz. Thanks to the sub-Nyquist sampling theory, we know that a 48kHz sampling rate can reproduce audio tones of up to 24kHz. That's well beyond what you can even her.
Professional audio producers also seldom used 192kHz in the 90s (if something was even mastered digitally, which was not universal at that time). It was too hardware intensive, and the best fidelity that they would have catered to for mass audiences was CD quality.
Doom 3 is an outlier to the franchise. Many consider it to be worst of the series. It's a completely different subgenre of shooters than the originals or D16/Eternal. This is widely known. If you went in expecting any other Doom game to be similar to Doom 3, that's your problem. Doom 3 was also far more focused at casual and console audiences than D16 was. Doom 3 is a slow, plodding, methodical shooter with a 60FPS cap (originally) ideally suited to console and casual play, whereas D16/Eternal can take full advantage of PC hardware and control schemes.
Again, aside from Doom 3, Doom games and classic shooters in general have always been about the power fantasy. If you are dissatisfied because you expected otherwise, you have no one to blame except yourself.
Define what you mean by depth. D16 is indeed shallow compared to Eternal, but the gameplay mechanics are still far deeper than D64, by a wide margin.
Everyone has different tastes. And that's great. But stick to presenting it as an opinion, like you do in this sentence. Don't make up fake objective criteria to justify it.
I don't want to STOP and think in an action game. I want to be required to think on my feet, and progress through combat. Again, you're looking for a Doom 3 experience. Not a "the rest of Doom" experience.
The HTOmega (and any internal sound card, despite what EVGA is trying to tell you these days) is not an audiophile solution. Especially when USB DACs allow 32bit/768kHz output (which, again, is pointless, but many audiophiles revel in the pointless). If the rest of your audio chain isn't up to snuff (which, again, with that card it likely cannot be - especially using the analog outputs for surround), your particular gripe about 48kHz audio is meaningless.
As to consolized Eternal - no. Fully unlocked framerate, insane optimization, support for the newest PC hardware features, and very much dependent on kb/m control for best play, it's literally the exact opposite. But again, since consoles are just PCs - and based on your sound card, the latest gen is likely superior to your PC - it isn't really relevant either way.
Edit: Finally, to be clear - even the last gen consoles fully supported 24bit/192kHz output. I don't know if any games used it, but it was supported.
so nobody (!!!) need to set the windows sound sample rate to a higher value than 48khz unless ur using a special digital multi channel output but also then it will be converted to 48khz/channel.
its just available bcs its cheaper to produce 192khz DAC only instead of producing separate 48khz DAC. nobody need it except the ppl who know what they are doin by changing the sample rate!
Just wait, nVidia will create DLSS for audio that uses machine learning and AI to add all the missing data between 48kHz sources and 192kHz output :D
Oh wait, Creative Crystallizer already tried that, and it sucks.
ull see ;P
I mean, he's using a sound card with a 16-year-old DAC chip that's been considered obsolete for a decade.
Clearly actual signal quality isn't really on his radar.
Consoles have exactly ONE configuration. There is no variety in how a console is set up. Yes, it might have very similar hardware to what a PC might happen to possess, but it is not VARIABLE in any way. An X-Box from a particular generation is identical in configuration to every other X-Box from that generation. And the amount of configuration available to the end-user within that system is extremely limited.
In a console, you play the hardware configuration they've set up for you. And that's pretty much it. Which was my point. PCs have a wide range of settings.
Console ports often have their worst drawbacks based upon the fact that the "console settings" are the only ones they were designed to work with.
A typical example is the "directInput" issue that many games... say, "Dead Space"... have. If you have more than the bare minimum USB devices installed, the game isn't playable. In that case, it's because the game was developed with only those few allowable options installed.
If you have a decent joystick setup installed... or, worse, a 3D controller (like the "Space Navigator" I use for CAD work)... the game will not be able to identify which inputs it ought to use, and will create a "spinning wildly" situation. But that, at least, is "fixable" merely by unplugging those devices, and replugging them afterwards. (There's a more permanent fix, but it's a hack, not provided by the software vendor, which I've installed to avoid that issue.)
So, yeah, the issue with sound in this game is because it was designed, first and foremost, to work on a particular console configuration. The idea of functioning on the entire range of audio settings available to PCs? Not even an afterthought... hence this issue.
Excuse me, but who the hell are you to tell OTHER PEOPLE what is "relevant" to them?
I can tell the difference.
The reason most people can't tell the difference is because they have poor-quality speakers (relatively, at least) or other sound reproduction hardware which is incapable of reproducing the difference.
On hardware capable of reproducing sound to the fidelity level we're talking about, yes, it's pretty obvious in certain situations, and given adequate quality recordings to work from.
If you're playing back on a pair of speakers you bought at Best Buy ten years ago, or on your monitor's built-in speakers... yeah, sure, you won't be able to tell the difference. If the only thing you listen to is MP3 recordings... yep, you won't be able to tell the difference. Because every sound system is limited to whatever the "weakest link" in the chain happens to be. So, yeah, SOME people might have damaged hearing, or otherwise not be especially sensitive, and might also not be able to tell the difference, even given the best possible sound-reproduction hardware.
But that's not really relevant. Some of us DO have excellent sound discrimination, and excellent speakers, and an excellent amplifier, and have audio libraries made up primarily of high-quality FLAC recordings. And we like hearing the fine details which simply can't be reproduced at lower fidelity levels.
If your "double-blind" is given using thirty-year-old Packard Bell bundled speakers, running off an Aztec sound card from the same era, playing grunge rock off of a low-quality MP3... of COURSE no one can really distinguish between 44.1 Khz and 192 Khz. Neither is being reproduced even a remotely acceptable level.
Great job, again, totally missing the point. If the ENTIRE PURPOSE OF MY PC WAS TO PLAY THIS GAME, sure, your "the game isn't recorded at 192 Khz" argument would be meaningful. But it's not. I do a LOT of things on this PC, and shouldn't need to reconfigure it every time I want to do something different. You totally missed that point... seemingly intentionally... and then attempted to use that to create a "straw man" which neither I nor anyone else ever made... that "somehow using higher sampling in playback will improve the quality of the game sound." I can only imagine the smirk on your face as you fabricated that nonsensical "counter-argument."
My system is set to 192 Khz by default... not because I'm the moron you want to pretend I am... but because I USE IT AS AN ENTERTAINMENT CENTER, playing back high-quality FLAC recordings through a high-end pioneer amplifier, with a set of Klipsch Quintet III satellite speakers, a pair of Bose 301 Series 2 front speakers, and a Polk PSW505 subwoofer.
And yes, the difference between 44.1 and 192 is VERY evident, to even the most casual observer, on this system. Even my elderly mom, who has hearing loss, can tell the difference... due to the loss of clarity at lower quality audio playback from high-quality source recordings, where film dialogue is much more distinct at the full quality setting versus the lower quality setting. "Muddy" is how she describes it... and I agree.
Which is meaningful to the conversation for... what reason, again? This game was not created in the 1990s.
Of course, your "nothing mastered digitally in the 1990s" point is false, to begin with... but that's a whole separate issue, and a distraction.
You're correct that CD quality was the best you could get at that time. And it was nice enough (lacking the pops, hiss, etc, of vinyl or even the best metal cassettes tapes) It wasn't "good enough" though. So, quality did improve, and it makes a difference to many recordings. If all you're listening to is distorted electric guitar, I guess maybe not... but for acoustical music, vocals not involving shrieks, etc... yeah, it does.Wow, you really ARE struggling to find "counter-arguments" which are made against straw-men and not what I really said... sure.
I specifically stated that I've played every Doom game, and that this is the least engrossing of all of them, to me. I used Doom 3, the "outlier," as my example that even the "worst" of the prior games is better than this one, more immersive, etc. I specifically stated that I play the original ones (using modernized rendering engines). And yet you INTENTIONALLY ignored that, attempting to mischaracterize my argument as from someone who has "only played Doom3."
That was a sleazy trick.
And your final argument, that "D3 is more suited to console play" versus this... odd, that. Doom3, for all it's "slow and plodding gameplay," was IMMERSIVE. I've yet to meet any console gamer who is really into deep-immersion sims of any kind. They typically like pretty graphics, simple controls, and simple gameplay, requiring quick reflexes and little actual strategy. Nothing WRONG with that, I suppose... but I find it tedious.
The original Doom games... and Hexen, and Heretic, and hell, even Chex Quest... requiring thinking BEFORE "running into a room, guns blazing." It left you with a sense of forboding, each time you turned a corner. That, at least, they share with Doom3.
But this game? The way to play it is to rush into any "arena" and just charge enemies... wait til they flash, then hit "F" to play back a pre-recorded "glory kill" sequence. Stealth? Nah. Advanced planning? Nah. Just "run and gun." You're actually PUNISHED by not "rushing in to get up close and get that 'glory kill' (tm)."Nonsense. They were never games which you could play and win by blindly rushing into every room, before even attempting to "get the lay of the land," without planning. I played Doom 2 for a couple of hours YESTERDAY. So, please don't presume that you can tell me "what other doom games are like."
YOU may enjoy the "power fantasy" style of play. Fine. I don't. I prefer the "immerse myself in a life-and-death struggle where I can't win purely through dumb, blazing force" style of play.
Of course, my all time favorite 1st-person games remain the original Deus Ex and the original Thief... but my introduction to Doom came with the release of the "Aliens Total Conversion" which convinced me to pick it up. And yes, the foreboding of being a lone Colonial Marine wandering through an Alien hive, and the inevitability of death if you just "rush in" to any new area... that's what I like.
You like playing "Quake 3," I'm sure. I personally find that sort of gameplay to be tedious and boring. Just like I find THIS to be. But I LOVED Quake 2. Just like I loved the prior Doom games... ALL of them... and don't care for this one.
I mean the degree to which I can feel like I'm actually in that situation... where it hits an emotional chord, and catches and keeps my attention for hours on end.
This game? It never drew me in with the gameplay. I just played my longest session, ever... and not once did my pulse race, or did I feel the least sense of dread or jeopardy. I KNEW that I could simply "bull-rush" any enemy and win... but if I stood back and sniped, tried to use cover and concealment, or ANY form of tactics... I'd do far, far worse.
THAT, my friend, is "lack of depth." The inability of the game to make me CARE about what's going on in-fiction. The lack of concern with whether my character lives or dies, or anything else in the game world.
Great games do other things. And yes, the original Doom games did this, even given their relatively simply programming. This one... it's clearly just a series of setpieces, without anything more than the slightest hint of a "plot" to connect them, and no sense of jeapardy whatsoever.
An example of a game which did this exceptionally WELL would be the original "Prey." At no point in that game did I ever feel like I could "shut down" and relax and come back in a few days to pick it up again. Which, to me, is the sign of a great game.
The orignal Doom games aren't quite to that level... but they're at least closer to it than this game is.
(continued)
I didn't. Is it REALLY necessary to state that "everything in this post of my opinions is my opinion unless stated explicitly to be a fact?"Nope. I am a wounded-in-action US Army veteran who's actually been in REAL firefights, in several theaters. (And who's been playing games of this type since the early 1990s, as well.)
If you don't want to stop and think in a game... that's fine. But don't ever dream of ever doing anything consequential in reality. You'll get yourself and everyone around you killed.
I'm a strong believer that "rush in blindly, and you get killed." The original Doom games did it that way, as well. Rush into a room blindly, and you'll trigger every enemy at once, get cornered, and die. Scan over the room, find possible cover and concealment positions, find ammo caches, look at avenues of possible retreat... then carefully enter... that's how you beat Doom and Doom 2. Doom 3, frankly, introduced "sneaky teleporting enemies" and "hidden panel sneaky zombies" which were annoying, frankly, but at least were predictable once you knew what to look for (like the secret zombie-pop-out-panels in the walls as you passed them). That mechanic being the one truly annoying element of Doom3 which Doom2016 DID choose to retain. In Doom/Doom2, once you'd cleared out a room, you could rely on it remaining "cleared" unless you'd missed a teleporter location.
Teleporting enemies behind you after you cross a hidden "trigger line" is a cheap trick, and yes, ruins the immersion for me.So, you're an expert on my sound card, are you? Please, do tell me all about its capabilities, then. I think you're "making it up" as you go here, and really don't know anything about what you're discussing. But do feel free to prove me wrong.
As for EVGA, I haven't been listening to what they've been "trying to tell me these days." Perhaps you can elucidate?The problem with "USB DACs" becomes the data throughput over the USB bus... which can work nicely if you only have a couple of devices on that bus sharing bandwidth, I suppose, but generally isn't the case.
Yes, there are some nice ones, though. None of which, except if they're the ONLY device on the system bus, stand a chance of matching the quality over a dedicated PCIe channel. And you're likely correct, fewer people will be able to tell the difference between 768kHz and 192kHz than between lower sound resolutions (especially since almost nothing is recorded at that level at present, so you'd have to be generating your own audio locally for that to be meaningful). But 192 kHz FLAC recordings are not at all uncommon.
Streaming MP3 - typically 64 to 320 Kbps, downloaded MP3 - typically 128 - 320 Kbps. CDs are 16 bit, 44.1kHz (1411 Kbps). FLAC, AIFF, and WAV are typically 24-bit, with either 96kHz or 192kHz sampling rates.
You're thinking SOLELY of games... which, as you say, are typically not at these rates.
But just try playing back "Dark Side of the Moon" on a basic CD pressing versus on a 192Khz FLAC file... and tell me you can't tell the difference. And try playing back a downloaded MP3, and you'll be amazed by how clear the differences are.
And since you have NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, and are simply making ♥♥♥♥ up... starting with how you know nothing about my audio card (and are thus "predicting" that the rest of my hardware "can't be up to snuff"... pure fantasy on your part, but I can't help but notice you ASSERTED this rather than... ya know... ASKING... as anyone actually interested in reality might well have done!)
I've described my setup earlier in this response. And yes, you're simply full of ♥♥♥♥ on this point. Sorry to have to point it out.
By the way... you also assumed I'm "using the analog outputs for surroud." Next time, you just MIGHT want to ASK, rather than "asserting blindly."
In fact, I have both analog and digital coax SPDIF hooked up, and can switch between the two as I see fit. I also have digital optical SPDIF going to my Sennheiser headphones' pre-amp.
Please, stop "asserting" things you simply cannot know (and have been dead wrong on every single time so far).
Okaaaay... that's clearly "marketing-speak." You're either a drone, mindlessly repeating stuff you've been told to mindlessly repeat... or you're an employee of the vendor, using these forums to try to sell your product.
Either way, the mere fact that you can SAY that sort of thing with a straight face and expect to be taken seriously says a lot about you.So, the crop of consoles out when this game was released supported this audio mode, and yet the game DOESN'T have even the capability of running under that audio mode?
If that were true... and I doubt it, frankly, but Okay... wouldn't that be an even WORSE indictment of the programmers? This would mean that they'd not merely failed to properly support the PC base, but they'd also failed to properly support the console base. That's WORSE, not "better."
You can self-stroke yourself to whatever goal you intend to achieve, I suppose... but my opinion stands, and given that most of your "counter-argument" has been based upon a total absence of facts, or logic, and instead have been built upon ideas you're simply fantasizing out of whole cloth... you'll understand if I find your efforts to be laughable.
You want to "discredit" my criticism of why this game's FAILURE TO WORK WITH A COMMONLY AVAILABLE WINDOWS AUDIO SETTING is a big problem. You want to say that this issue is "OK." It's not. It's really, really not.
And you're doing so by inventing bizarre fantasy counter-arguments out of whole cloth, unrelated at any level with reality.
It's almost as if you're the person responsible for this screw-up, and are trying to defend it. But... nah, couldn't be.
That's a common retreat position... if you've been handed your proverbial 4$$ in a dialogue and want to "declare victory" in that exchange, it's common to declare "triggered" as if that somehow "wins by default."
A "trigger" is something where someone desired you to respond in a particular way, and you did so, on cue. One action, inevitably, leading to another. It's something that TROLLS do, just for the record. Trolls set out to try to infuriate and inflame others. That's their goal. So they toss out a series of triggers, hoping to get that response. And if they DO get that response, they see it as having "triggered" that responder.
I'm pretty sure that "Salaman3r" was hoping to "win by assertion" here, and most likely is not happy at having his nonsensical assertions challenged. His "assertions of fact" were wrong on every single point, after all. Had he simply asked "what sort of sound setup do you have, and what sort of media are you playing," he'd have shown he was interested in a conversation... but instead, he just "decided" these things without ever bothering to find out the facts.
So, yeah. He pissed me off, to be sure. But being pissed off is NOT the same thing as being "triggered." Kids, these days... you really need to work harder in your English classes. (sigh)
I'm more certain that was your point, since everything you posted is so riddled with technical nonsense as to be little more than verbose word salad.
Also, it's "Salamand3r". Was that a Freudian error meaning that you want the "D"?
Of course you are. As is apparently every other else on the internet. Anyone told you the Navy Seals copypasta is a dead meme? And again, of course you've been playing since the 1990s. Apparently the entire 35+ gaming population has an account and posts on this forum.
I shall proceed to break it down for you, piece by piece. I'll accept your apology when I'm done, but I also won't be holding my breath.
We'll start with your technical errors, shall we?
Ok, let's start here. No game is recorded at 192kHz. Very few pieces of media are available at 192kHz compared to the total volume of CD quality media available. You may indeed be paying for Qobuz and have access to the majority of them, but it's an incredibly limited amount. The inconvenience of changing sampling rate for a handful of albums available is trivial.
Hardly high end gear. Especially when you're the one who disparaged "speakers you bought at Best Buy ten years ago". All of those are available at Best Buy, and they or their immediate precursors were sold there a decade ago as well.
Equally as amusing is your mention (and you did give the full model, the HTOmega eClaro - they only make one) of a sound card with a DAC from 2004, that has been classed as obsolete by the manufacturer for over ten years. Someone out there may well be using 10-year-old tech. And that someone is you.
I'll remind you what you posted, since you seem to have forgotten:
Now, the specs of the card are freely available. They only make one with that name.
https://www.htomega.com/eclaro.html
The important part for our conversation is the AK4396VF DAC. The manufacturer lists this as discontinued and obsolete. The current alternative, AK4493 has significantly better SNR, supports sampling rates to 768kHz, and overall is build on a smaller process technology with far tighter tolerances.
You further claim that you are running at 24bit/192kHz with 7.1 surround. This is false, and physically impossible using the S/PDIF connections.
That's why I assumed that you were using the analog outputs (which is still almost certainly 100% impossible with that card still, but since I can't get a datasheet on the surround encoder, I'll give the benefit of the doubt).
Regarding surround, S/PDIF, including both coax and TOSLink, can only carry compressed formats - AC3, DD, and DTS.
AC3 carries a maximum of 48kHz sampling rate audio.
https://www.apowersoft.com/what-is-ac3-format.html
DD (Dolby Digital) carries a maximum of 48kHz in surround (stereo can carry up to 192kHz)
http://www.bnoack.com/index.html?http&&&www.bnoack.com/audio/dolbydigital.html
DTS can carry up to 96kHz sampling rate audio, but to a maximum of 5.1 channels.
https://www.lifewire.com/dts-96-24-1846848
Now, the more modern surround formats, Dolby Digital+, TrueHD, DTS Master, sure, those do support 192kHz surround. But they don't work on S/PDIF connectors.
Direct from Dolby, they don't have the bandwidth.
https://developer.dolby.com/blog/dolby-audio-over-hdmi-part-1-codecs/
So the only way you have 24bit/192kHz audio from that sound card to anything is using the analog outputs. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you knew what you were talking about. I'm sorry, I was wrong.
Since you can't read, I'll quote what I actually said -
You're right, it was a tangent - in reply to your tangent of
And herein lies a very, very basic problem - you have zero technical knowledge (shown above) but use words to make you sound smart.
First you claim that somehow S/PDIF with a theoretical bandwidth of 128mbit/s can carry 192kHz 7.1 surround, and then you claim that USB, which has CPU-direct bandwidth (via the PCIe bus or SOC, depending on the port), with a maximum of 10 GIGABIT per second per PORT in the system, bi-directionally for USB 3.2 ports, somehow will be bandwidth starved on a 192kHz audio signal? You can carry almost 80 S/PDIF cables worth of data over a single USB port.
On top of that, you mention a "dedicated PCIe" channel - perhaps you're not aware that's exactly how USB ports interface with the CPU? Depending on the port, not even going through a controller chip but literally directly to the CPU? This isn't 1997 anymore.
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-ryzen-3000-new-block-diagram-about-pcie-4-on-matisse-and-x570-chipset.html
Not to mention that the most common way (because it's the most easy and widely supported) to get surround from your PC is via HDMI, which under the 2.0 spec supports up to 32, 1536KHz channels of audio.
Sure. [www.mixonline.com]
They also lightly cover the reason why as well - read up on Nyquist, might illuminate some things for you.
The XBone supports Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HR/MA, meaning as a compliant device, it actually supports higher quality digital output than your sound card.
https://pureinfotech.com/xbox-one-x-specs/
I have. And then I resampled the 192kHz FLAC file to 48kHz and there was no discernable difference from the 192kHz - on much more analytical gear than you listed. Meaning the failing was in the mastering of the CD, not in the sampling rate. It's the same for a lot of older CD releases. If you look at the discs you'll see a lot of AAD or ADD rather than DDD. A lot were simply recorded from the LP gold masters instead of going back to the original master tapes/source with modern gear and getting a new, high quality transfer. Common in all media of all generations when a new format is released.
EVGA is the only company to have produced an internal sound card with modern top-end components in the last decade or so. They have some very elaborate claims about quality, which haven't been borne out in any testing. Since any internal sound card is going to be shoved inside a Faraday cage alongside some of the most electrically noisy equipment most people will have in their home, it will never match an external solution in terms of SNR and RF pickup.
I'll come back to your gameplay nonsense later.
So how would I be retreating?
No, I'm commenting on the fact that you are flipping out, as evidenced by how you reacted to my comment.
As for your delusional definitions on trigger and the like, you're just insane. Read up on the slang and how it's used in the real world. Truly, it would do you well to take an english class or two.
it's a fricking video game... give it a rest. nothing is worth having to write such a diatribe about audio settings.