The choice of the games I used for testing
are completely personal. These are games I enjoyed playing and I cannot guarantee that you
will gather the same sentiments as me.
Through the demos, they cleverly showed off the potential of A3D 2.0 to
its maximum. But I would surely want all these translated into actual game releases before
I'm convinced of its usefulness. I wouldn't know if that meant real hardwork on the
developer's part and if they think it is worthwhile making a geometry-based sound engine
for a game.
Something you should have realised that I
kept harping on was that the Vortex2 had EXCELLENT headphone support - clearly better than
its 4-speakers output. However, if you dread the less than stellar headphone support in
the Live!, then a Vortex2 card could possibly be your best choice. I want to hear them on
4 speakers though...
Out in the market now are obviously more
EAX enabled titles than A3D 2.0 and this strengthened my belief that A3D 2.0 is probably
more difficult to do. But isn't Aureal promising EAX support? Well good if it happens soon
and if it is without a huge performance penalty.
Then again, Creative just released EAX
2.0 in their latest LiveWare 2.0. So we expect that with support for occlusions,
obstructions, and improvements in the reverb engine, Aureal's technical lead is even
blurer. Add to that Creative's marketing muscle and ultra-low pricing with its Live!
Value, Aureal is facing an uphill battle.
Before I conclude I'll like to point you
the following articles:
The winner between David and Goliath has not
yet been decided. Will David win again or will Goliath crush him? We await the
Meanwhile, if you are in the market
scouring for a Vortex2 soundcard, the SonicVortex2 is certainly not a bad choice with a
high quality build. At S$155, you will be pressed between the MX300 or the SonicVortex2.
Though my logic tells me you'll opt for a more reputable Diamond card, but those of you,
who for some unknown reasons, who want an alternative, will not go wrong with the