3DsoundSurge Special Feature

Aureal vs Qsound - The Great Debate

Qsound: Scott Willing 

Aureal: Toni Shneider 

Date Started: June 22, 1998  Date Ended: July 8, 1998

Scott  Willings From Qsound Responds  Again

I think we have the major points on the table, so I hope this discussion is indeed winding down.

Since this has turned into a debate, I'll try to address Toni's points in the order he presented them.

Listening Experience is No. 1
=============================  

"What matters is the listening experience for the user," says Toni. Since that's exactly what I said, I guess we're in agreement here.

History of 3D Audio
===================  

Toni has an interesting spin on the history of 3D on the PC.

Toni implies that Aureal single-handedly brought 3D audio to the PC, saying " QSound, DirectSound3D and others had been available for many years..." etc.

Aureal was in the right place at the right time with a viable solution for this market. I give full credit both for the technical achievement and some very shrewd marketing. My view is that a good deal of Aureal's success had to do with timing and a unique situation that bears no relevance in today's market. Obviously, this is an opinion and open to debate.

Since we're walking down history lane, let's break this down for the benefit of the readers.

First of all, DirectSound3D hadn't been around "for many years" when the first A3D titles came out. DS3D didn't even have hardware support built into it yet. Full marks to Aureal for leapfrogging the delays in the process, but Toni is sent to his room for taking all the credit for their success.

The A3D 1.x API is nearly pure Microsoft DS3D commands, for Pete's sake; it wouldn't exist without Microsoft. Furthermore, IMHO, denying the critical significance of the high profile that Microsoft brought to 3D audio on the PC is more than a little arrogant. It was, and is, the best thing to happen to 3D on the PC!!

As for QSound, well, we can boast that we introduced 3D audio to gaming. Was it a rocky road? Oh, baby--I've got the scars to prove it! ;-)

Imagine the conditions we faced in the PC arena: DOS and ISA ruled. DSP sound cards were rare, first-generation and could only produce a couple of simple 3D channels at best. There was no universal API or high profile coming from the OS vendor. Nobody had ever heard of 3D audio!

In this difficult environment we still managed to cut the first hardware license deals in the industry.

Software support turned out to be a problem, mostly because of the lack of a universal API. We haven't forgotten that lesson! As an alternative, we developed PC software solutions that worked on any hardware and developers were willing to pay for them. (They still are.) We also developed technologies for consoles and we continue to own that space.

All in all, not bad considering that we built the market from scratch. A competitor put it best at a trade show once when he said "You guys threw yourselves over the barbed wire and made it easier for all of us." At the time it was a very annoying remark, but at least it represented a little recognition. (It hurts a lot less now, since the company he worked for is little more than a ghost.)

Back then Aureal was not on the scene. What was to become Aureal was a company called MediaVision, and a company called Crystal River Engineering.

'Nuff said.

Who's Zoomin' Who?
==================  

Toni has implied that I've invented the issue of Aureal discouraging support of alternate hardware.

Never mind second-hand evidence; I have personally heard this pitch given by Aureal staff at a developer seminar. The company repeatedly recommended to a roomful of developers that they did not use DS3D at all if A3D hardware was not found on the user's system.

Once again, 'nuff said.

What is the Standard?
=====================  

The de facto standard is DS3D. Sure it has it's problems; we've been over this. QSound's API's work with DS3D to solve those problems until such time as Microsoft can address them better. We're in a unique position to do that given our long history of software solutions. This aside, as I've discovered, many developers have already handled the issues themselves.

At the risk of repeating myself, A3D sound cards are already a market minority by a wide margin and by the end of this year the gap will widen further. Some may believe that Aureal is the standard, but again IMHO this is based on an artificial situation that existed in only the past. The numbers do not bear it out today and will not bear it out tomorrow, and that is _not_ an opinion.

Fortunately, sites like 3D Sound Surge one are starting to delve a little deeper, and tend to ask developers about 3D support in general. They will do their readers a service by continuing to gather this information directly from developers, because it's clear the vendors can't always be counted on for the full story.

Stereo Enhancement Again?
=========================  

Toni has dragged out the old "HRTF vs Stereo Enhancement" hack. Let's clear this up for good.

First of all, Aureal doesn't have a stereo enhancement technology, so that should provide some perspective on their opinions of its value. For an audio technology company to ignore this market segment is utterly mystifying, but that's their loss and our gain--literally.

For the official record, QSound has never encouraged the use of stereo enhancement as a replacement for positional 3D audio.

Stereo enhancement is extremely useful for situations where the user is listening to content that hasn't been designed in 3D, e.g. older games and especially pre-recorded music either off CD or via broadcast. It really ought to be part of a complete sound card solution, 'cos I can tell you it sure is cool for listening to tunes while you're writing email...

In this specific application stereo enhancement is quite simply the only solution and it has tremendous value to consumers. Positional 3D has nothing to offer here, so comparing the two is utterly pointless. It's apples and oranges.

Hope we can put that to rest now.

Marketing vs Reality
====================  

Vis-a-vis the question of whether wavetracing is worth the cost, Toni compares the issues I've raised with similar questions about the value of HRTF in the past.

OK, since he mentioned it...

Toni, when you have a minute, please send me a canned demo of two-speaker A3D that will place a sound of your choice under my chair. Or put a bus over my head. (I'm sure you'd love to.) Or place a threatening growl at 37 degrees elevation, 157 degrees azimuth and a range of 0.25 meters, i.e. almost directly behind me hovering just above my cowlick (what's left of it.)

While you're at it, switch over to binaural mode and place a sound at 0 degrees azimuth, 0 degrees elevation and a range of 1 meter, i.e. straight out ahead in front of my nose.

Please use a Monster sound card just like I did. No $10,000 NASA hardware thanks--that has no relevance to my life.

Since A3D Interactive provides the perception of "sounds placed at any distance and position from listener" (I had to pull that off the Aureal web site to be sure I got it right) all this stuff should be a piece of cake.

I must be doing something wrong with my setup, 'cos I've tried all this on a Monster card--and some Vortex thingy too--but I can't get any of these examples to work. I'm sure you can handily disprove my perception that Aureal HRTF isn't really all it's cracked up to be.

Then maybe I'll have some faith that wavetracing is all it's cracked up to be.

Who's Glossing Over What?
=========================  

Toni said that I glossed over occlusions. For the reader's convenience let me quote myself:

"Now, occlusion (a $50 word for "obstruction") effects are far more obvious (i.e. audible) and far more important to providing the game player with useful feedback." (etc.)

I then pointed out that wavetracing was not the only way, but simply the most compute-intensive method of handling occlusions.

Was that "glossing over?" Maybe my writing is subtler than I thought.

All-Platform Support
====================  

A direct quote from Toni: "A3D 2.0 is a single-stop, super-set, next-generation positional audio API that embraces all platforms."

Does this mean that A3D 2.0 will inherently support an Ensoniq or Yamaha sound card? What's his definition of "embrace" here?

And BTW, Toni punted on my question about the Voice Manager.

Writing Code
============  

I pointed out that Aureal has written their sound code into some titles for some developers. Clearly I hit a nerve, because Toni got so excited he somehow extrapolated "everyone" from "some."

Of course lots of developers have chosen to support A3D, and no doubt technical assistance is provided where needed.

My point--made for the benefit of end-users--was that there is a significant difference between a developer actively seeking and chosing a solution for a needed feature and a vendor seeking them out and putting it in for them.

Though I'm no lawyer, I'm sure it's perfectly legal. As I said, I certainly can't fault a developer for taking a freebie, either! In itself, though, it's hardly a glowing endorsement of the technology, is it? I'd call it a paid advertisement.

DS3D Support
============  

Toni has asked for a list of titles that support DS3D.

As I pointed out, anyone can call up developers and ask them what their plans are. If you want to talk publicly about specific titles, I suggest that this is the function of people like the folks who run this site and 3DAI.

They are (hopefully) unbiased, though I do suspect that there are many titles already listed on these sites as supporting A3D that also support DS3D. Perhaps the lads need to dig a little deeper because this is a matter of critical importance in this industry. (Nudge nudge) ;-)

I think that if specific developers wish to participate directly in this debate, that should be up to them. I'm not about to drag them into this without their permission. Sheesh. They'd never talk to me again, so sorry, no dice.

I will say that I started with the developers I most expected to be A3D devotees.

A Word In Closing
=================  

As I've said before, I would much prefer it if people didn't simply take my word as gospel, nor that of Aureal or anyone else! This is a relatively new market and most of the real knowledge is still in the hands of the vendors, so "caveat emptor" should rule the day.

My message and purpose throughout this debate has been to provide another perspective in order to balance some of the hype, and to encourage people to adopt a healthy skepticism with respect to what they're being told in general.

There's nothing more frustrating (to a simple technologist like me) than to see large numbers of people duped by clever marketing because of a near-total lack of independent, unbiased data. I'm dying for the day when the press is better equipped and better educated to evaluate this stuff; with luck we'd see some of the hype banished for good. For now, they don't have much more to go on than end-users.

I'm very lucky to work at QSound, because I have a low tolerance level for... uh, horse cookies... and this is shared throughout the organization. If it wasn't, they would surely have to have had me gagged and killed by now, 'cos I can't work any other way.

For the gamers, I suggest that you get smart, do your own research, and form your own opinions. I hope that this exercise has at least given you something to think about. Try to keep your brain one step ahead of your wallet!

Best regards to all,

Scott Willing
QSL 

All content, design and work is © 2001 - 3D Sound Surge Please respect the copyrights of the articles and writers herein. All copyrights are enforced by 3DSS.  
View the 3DsoundSurge Privacy Statement