That seems to me like a tool Realtek offered at least for ALC888 chips by licensing Creative ALchemy from Creative, hence the trial version meaning it was something you had to buy thanks to Creative holding on to their tech with their teeth. I don't think that deal lasted long, didn't even know Realtek had such a tool.

At any rate don't bother trying to find it, just use DSOAL for DirectSound games and OpenAL Soft for OpenAL games to get EAX effects, or their implementation of them at any rate.

Do note those are only for Windows Vista +, if you are running WinXP or earlier do yourself a favor and just get some Creative soundcard that supports EAX. Preferably an X-Fi.

Generic MB3:
http://files.creative.com/manualdn/Applicatio … WEB-1-11_R7.exe
http://files.creative.com/manualdn/Applicatio … -VDWEB-2-11.exe

You must have a valid Activation Key in order to install it.

Glad I snagged the license generator before mods purged it. I've read there's something newer available these days that's like the old X-Fi MB3, also uses newer driver, supposedly better compatible with newer Windows, which shouldn't need a license. X-Fi MB3 is EOL and you can't activate it legitimately even if you bought it anymore.

I forgot to bookmark the newer alternative and I just can't find it anymore...

If the purpose is to get EAX effects in games, getting an actual physical an X-FI card is possibly an easier option. While motherboard onboard audio has certainly improved in general and had already gotten rather decent by 2008ish (with some very good implementations on some boards), an audio card will often yield audibly (and measurably) better (Iess noise and distortion) than onboard audio of that time frame. Whether that could make an audible difference vs OP's GA-EX58-UD3R specifically, I do not know.

Has anyone made any recordings to do a direct comparison between the various emulated EAX effects setups and an original X-Fi? Seems strange to me that all of the purpose-built tech inside what is a fairly complex audio chip can be emulated perfectly 1:1 in software without it creating a significant CPU load.

The software implementation has to at least sound different, right?

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-06-27, 16:53:

Has anyone made any recordings to do a direct comparison between the various emulated EAX effects setups and an original X-Fi? Seems strange to me that all of the purpose-built tech inside what is a fairly complex audio chip can be emulated perfectly 1:1 in software without it creating a significant CPU load.

The software implementation has to at least sound different, right?

That's a good question. My suspicion/guess is that relatively decent eventual software-only implementations quickly became possible with relatively low CPU load as CPUs got faster and considering that EAX 5.0 was pretty much a fixed target from 2005 (for code optimization). But that's all just speculation on my part.

If test suites exist (or could be made or maybe someone could write a shim to capture API calls while in actual gameplay and "playing" that back on various implementations), it could tested. Capturing unprocessed multiple channel digital output for comparison purposes might be challenging, but capturing unprocessed stereo S/PDIF output is an option. Not sure about how much "what-u-hear" output could be trusted.

darry wrote on 2025-06-27, 17:45:

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-06-27, 16:53:

Has anyone made any recordings to do a direct comparison between the various emulated EAX effects setups and an original X-Fi? Seems strange to me that all of the purpose-built tech inside what is a fairly complex audio chip can be emulated perfectly 1:1 in software without it creating a significant CPU load.

The software implementation has to at least sound different, right?

That's a good question. My suspicion/guess is that relatively decent eventual software-only implementations quickly became possible with relatively low CPU load as CPUs got faster and considering that EAX 5.0 was pretty much a fixed target from 2005 (for code optimization). But that's all just speculation on my part.

If test suites exist (or could be made or maybe someone could write a shim to capture API calls while in actual gameplay and "playing" that back on various implementations), it could tested. Capturing unprocessed multiple channel digital output for comparison purposes might be challenging, but capturing unprocessed stereo S/PDIF output is an option. Not sure about how much "what-u-hear" output could be trusted.

I think for testing audio effects in games it should be sufficient to just use "what-u-hear" saved to lossless stereo audio file. The simplest test suite would be to find an area in a game with repeatable sound effects (same location, same orientation, timing, etc.) where EAX is particularly noticeable or impressive and then save the game there. Then just load that game and record the audio a few times with an X-Fi and a few times with each EAX emulator\wrapper. Make sure there aren't any big differences between each recording on the same device to rule out any game irregularities. Then, as long as the base volume levels are adjusted to be similar at the end it shouldn't be too hard to tell if there are differences between the devices.

I'd be curious about things like Asus' Xonar cards with their "GX" mode. It's funny, I've had the same Xonar DX in my main rig for 17 years and because I'm not into shooters anymore, I just don't really play any games that would utilize EAX these days. I haven't used GX mode to enable hardware audio in probably 15 years. I'd probably just use a dedicated overpowered XP system for hardware audio now, but still... I am curious as to how the quality compares. 😀

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-06-27, 16:53:

Seems strange to me that all of the purpose-built tech inside what is a fairly complex audio chip can be emulated perfectly 1:1 in software without it creating a significant CPU load.

Lets be real for a sec. X-Fi chip was released in 2005, probably on a fairly robust lithography (130-150nm), so nothing bleeding edge even back then. All cards were powered purely by PCI, so TDP was relatively small too, definitely lower than any PCI video card of that era. Apparently a lot of X-Fi DSP speed was reserved for near-lossless audio frequency resampling and is not required for EAX emulation. With that in mind, any Creative claims about X-Fi are probably blown out of proportion. So I imagine that emulating even the latest EAX version in software with modern(ish) instructions (SSE2+) isn't very tasking for a decently clocked Core 2 Quad or later CPU.

The Serpent Rider wrote on 2025-06-27, 19:47:

Ozzuneoj wrote on 2025-06-27, 16:53:

Seems strange to me that all of the purpose-built tech inside what is a fairly complex audio chip can be emulated perfectly 1:1 in software without it creating a significant CPU load.

Lets be real for a sec. X-Fi chip was released in 2005, probably on a fairly robust lithography (130-150nm), so nothing bleeding edge even back then. All cards were powered purely by PCI, so TDP was relatively small too, definitely lower than any PCI video card of that era. Apparently a lot of X-Fi DSP speed was reserved for near-lossless audio frequency resampling and not required for EAX emulation. With that in mind, any Creative claims about X-Fi are probably blown out of proportion. So I imagine that emulating even the latest EAX version in software with modern(ish) instructions (SSE2+) isn't very tasking for a decently clocked Core 2 Quad or later CPU.

I recall reading about a significant amount of silicon real estate being dedicated to SSRC on the CA20K1 . I do wonder how much actual processing capability increased since the 10K1 (EDIT: I mean on CAx0Kx chips) AND how much of it was actually used in practice when doing EAX .

UCyborg wrote on 2025-06-27, 13:19:

I've read there's something newer available these days that's like the old X-Fi MB3, also uses newer driver, supposedly better compatible with newer Windows, which shouldn't need a license.

I forgot to bookmark the newer alternative and I just can't find it anymore...

Found it!

Extigy2 AE - Sound Blaster SBX Pro Studio effects for most sound devices

I haven't tried it yet, can't peek inside installer with 7-Zip to see what's inside. This one supposedly works only on Win10+. The old X-Fi MB3 works on Win7+, but can also be unofficially made to work on Vista, just need to fool the installer.