We only have two ears to hear with anyway. So, yes, given enough data to work with, it's certainly possible to create very realistic 3D effects using two channels, in fact much better than if you were relying on 4-8 channel surround systems (as the latter can actually only produce sound on 2D plane, not in a 3D space).

Listen to the virtual barber and this holophonic audio track (that's holographic, except audial rather than visual). For the best effect, use in-ear earphones and close your eyes, though the effect can be noticed even with speakers.

Both of these are of course recorded and pre-rendered*, but the effect has been used in dynamic environments as well, such as games.

They don't want it, they're afraid you might rip a song off of Zune. That is all.

That's not true. While we do indeed only have 2 ears, it does make a significant difference how it travels through the skull. And that's not something that you can model in a consistent way for each person.

The haircut one sort of worked, but it was a really weak effect. It made small circles around the ear. And even there I'm being charitable, it made small circles next to the ear and at no point did the sound get anywhere near appearing to come from either behind or above the head. Definitely not anywhere near as good as the experiences I had with a genuine surround sound system. It might be that I'm more sensitive than normal, but with real 3D sound I can pinpoint where it's coming from, with this it was a weak effect at best. And definitely not anywhere near as strong as watching Austin Powers in 5.1.

I really do think that you're underestimating the amount of information that a person can get from the distortion applied as sound attempts to pass through the skull and bounces around a bit. I know personally, I can usually locate sounds really well, and as such I'm not surprised that I could tell the difference. For one thing with this you can't cock your ears to try and determine where the sound is coming from and as a result the sound is going to sound really fake, regardless of how much effort one puts into simulating it.

EDIT: I'll have to give it another try, my sound driver seems to be broken.

I could link you to the TechNet documentation about the technology but from what I see you need a paid account to access it.

Also, the fact that you spammed the internet with the exact same post on different forums (including the open portion of technet) doesn't make it any easier for me to find an open source.

It's also funny because you've received an answer to this on other forums as well and this keep going on with your "crusade"

Yet again, that is down right stupid to say, especially after I've brought you more than enough ARGUMENTS to prove the opposite of your quote and after KavazovAngel brought you real world examples of how the new audio stack is better in Windows 7 compared to XP.

Two recent, relevant, and detailed examples of DirectSound3D's superiority have been provided in the form of Crysis and Prince of Persia. Try these games, see for yourself.

Some claim that the new audio solution in Windows 7 is better for reasons such as "per-app volume control." This is hardly revolutionary. For many years, each program has had its own volume control integrated into it. Want to change the volume in media player? Use its slider. Want to change the volume in youtube. It's completely possible. Windows 7 allows this to be done from the sound mixer, but this is a trivial development, especially if sound quality is sacrificed.

Another common opposition to DirectSound3D has been XAudio2, a much delayed successor of sorts. But it is no worthy successor.

XAudio2 has been around since 2008. That's 2-3 years. While some claim it is theoretically better in feature sets, it is not enough to be better in theory. No modern game utilzing it has been able to rival what was accomplished with DirectSound3D. In fact, developers have actually expressed dissatisfaction with it. A quote from Teotl Studios characterizing their experiences with XAudio2 reflects this:

"[The] biggest problem with Xaudio2 in Unreal is how super extremely positional it is though. If you stand in a room, and there is a sound source on your front right, then the front right speaker will play the sound at 100% and all other speakers would play it at 0%. Makes absolutely no sense to me. Sound is suppose to bounce around. We improved that a bit, but it is still noticeable...unfortunately."

DirectSound3D was cut in 2006. That's 5 years of lifeless audio, a technological eternity. If DirectX was cut in 2006 and we still didn't have at the least an on par replacement, people would throw a fit. But because sound is more subtle, people are willing to be more tolerant of it and in effect be "rationally ignorant."

Furthermore in a day and age where everything is being offloaded from the CPU (physics for example, CUDA, and general purpose computing on the GPU), it is a step backward to paralyze discrete audio solutions. While it is possible for the CPU to process audio efficiently, it's not all about speed. It's about quality, and the fact is even games from over three years ago sound better than today. It is a sad and embarrassing step backward for PC audio.

That is why I created this petition.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bringbackds3d/

1. Post some more examples of recent games with "better" sound in DS3D then, and links to reputed articles saying DirectSound3D was better in them than other sound options those games offered.

2. When waas that quote written? If it was recently written then your claim holds water, if it's old then it doesn't as the tech could have improved since it was written.

3. This again is down to your personal preference and not backed by any facts on your end thus far besides questionable quotes.

few words

I had not know that direct3d was abandoned. Still sitting on XP so that might be the reason.

Do you guys mean that if I switch to 7 then I will notice worse sound effects in all my games?

I haven't noticed any difference myself. Also, Audigy or X-Fi users can use the Creative ALchemy OpenAL app for many EAX Directsound3D games.

Wait, wait, wait! So you want to tell me that the fact that for the first time EVER in Windows history there is a default way to interface with the sound hardware isn't revolutionary? Or the fact that all sound operations moved to the user level instead of admin level which means that crashes happen much harder, debug easier and sound drivers can be reset on-the-go? These, including the per-app mixing, sound input delegation per app and a lot of other goodies that THE INDUSTRY LOVES means that the new audio solution in Windows Vista and Windows 7 IS better.

OK, let me be nitpicky here: you use a plural to enforce your case but only provide one example of developer that complained. Another thing is that most of the problems they faced came from not using the API properly.

I will not try these games and see for myself; please provide an ABX test to prove your claim or else this is totally useless. Sound is way too subjective for me to just play the game and say which sounds superior.

You also keep saying that sound now is worse, which is a blanket statement and blatantly false as proven time and time again; please chose a case to argue and argue just on that one.

As for reasons MS switched to the new audio stack, read this and this.

I don't know about that one but the one from Maximum PC was from 2008 and didn't even mention quality at all.

All the audiophiles in our IRC (you know, the guys with FLAC obsessions) that were running Vista+ OS's didn't complain, nor did I see something on the internet besides his petition, so I'd go with no.

People can still have good points without having the time or money to conduct a formal experiment. I have conducted informal experiments with my friends, and they have all agreed that the sound is more accurate, more positional, and fuller. Granted, I do not have the formal proof you are looking for in the form of an ABX test. But I am not trying to mislead or to trick anybody. I have ears to hear as do all of you. The least I can do is provide specific examples that people can find out for themselves. I do not claim to know it all, and readily admit that I do not. That is why you shouldn't just go by what you have "heard" (no pun intended) by me or anyone here. You should find out for yourself.

Second, I do not disagree with the fact that there are benefits to the new audio stack. I do believe that it is a noble attempt at a stride forward, but more than a step forward, it is a step to the side. It may provide a more comfortable environment in some aspects for programmers. But it's not all about comfort and ease. It's about quality. This is why it's a side step. Ease of programming up. Audio Quality down. The fact the audio of today can only hope to match DirectSound3D (a 6 year old API, a technological eternity) is sad. Furthermore, programmers do not need to be programming a sound engine at all. They could be interfacing with DirectSound3D that will do a great deal of the work for, provide them top-notch quality, and free them up to focus on other more important elements of a game.

But don't go by what I say. Read the petition, and find out for yourself.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bringbackds3d/signatures

This doesn't add a lot of credit to the argument.