EFX vs EAX

[Karp Dantax]

Whats the difference between EFX and EAX? Doesnt EAX already do what EFX is supposed to do?

thx,
Karp Dantax

[Garin Hiebert]

Post by Karp Dantax
Whats the difference between EFX and EAX? Doesnt EAX already do what EFX is supposed to do?

Good question.

EFX does provide the same functionality as EAX, but through an interface
which fits in with the OpenAL archictecture much better than EAX. Here
are the main advantages of using the EFX API instead of EAX:

1) Flexible resource discovery -- The EFX API also allows the program
to discover what effects resources are available and use those resources
more flexibly than EAX did. It used to be that a developer had to
develop for a specific version of EAX, and fall back to an earlier
version (or drop support) if that version wasn't found. With EFX, the
program can be written to use whatever effect resources are available,
and scale depending on the capabilities of the audio device being used.

2) Better integration with OpenAL -- The EFX API works in a familiar
fashion for an OpenAL developer -- the code creates objects identified
by "names", makes property changes to those objects, attaches objects to
sources, etc... The old EAX API was a duplicate of the property set API
used with DirectSound 3D.

DS3D is a legacy API and OpenAL is clearly the future for accelerated 3D
audio -- so we decided to do a cleaner and more flexible integration for
effects with OpenAL.

Garin

[Karp Dantax]

So you recommend me to use EFX instead of EAX 4.0 SDK?
Is there anything that EAX can do that EFX cant or wont be able to do?

thx,
Karp Dantax

----- Original Message -----
From: "Garin Hiebert" <***@cheesetoast.net>
To: "Karp Dantax" <***@yahoo.com.br>
Cc: <>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Openal] EFX vs EAX

Post by Garin Hiebert

Post by Karp Dantax
Whats the difference between EFX and EAX? Doesnt EAX already do what
EFX is supposed to do?

Good question.
EFX does provide the same functionality as EAX, but through an interface
which fits in with the OpenAL archictecture much better than EAX. Here
1) Flexible resource discovery -- The EFX API also allows the program
to discover what effects resources are available and use those resources
more flexibly than EAX did. It used to be that a developer had to
develop for a specific version of EAX, and fall back to an earlier
version (or drop support) if that version wasn't found. With EFX, the
program can be written to use whatever effect resources are available,
and scale depending on the capabilities of the audio device being used.
2) Better integration with OpenAL -- The EFX API works in a familiar
fashion for an OpenAL developer -- the code creates objects identified
by "names", makes property changes to those objects, attaches objects to
sources, etc... The old EAX API was a duplicate of the property set API
used with DirectSound 3D.
DS3D is a legacy API and OpenAL is clearly the future for accelerated 3D
audio -- so we decided to do a cleaner and more flexible integration for
effects with OpenAL.
Garin

_______________________________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - Sempre a melhor opção para você!
Experimente já e veja as novidades.
http://br.yahoo.com/mailbeta/tudonovo/

[Garin Hiebert]

Post by Karp Dantax
So you recommend me to use EFX instead of EAX 4.0 SDK?
Is there anything that EAX can do that EFX cant or wont be able to do?

If you have already started using EAX 4.0 through the get/set interface,
then feel free to keep doing so -- support for the extension isn't going
away.

On the other hand... EFX will expose all the functionality of EAX 4.0,
_and_ you'll be able to more elegantly fall back to EAX 2.0
functionality when available (through one of the "Generic" devices).
So, if you don't feel committed to the older interface, EFX is a good
way to go.

Garin

[Brian Matzon]

Post by Garin Hiebert
On the other hand... EFX will expose all the functionality of EAX 4.0,
_and_ you'll be able to more elegantly fall back to EAX 2.0
functionality when available (through one of the "Generic" devices).

Are there any plans to actually make EFX cross-platform, or will it
continue to be Windows only? The API is described as "provide a generic,
cross-platform framework for adding advanced DSP effects to OpenAL." -
yet I can only see an implementation for windows ?

/matzon

[Garin Hiebert]

Post by Brian Matzon
Are there any plans to actually make EFX cross-platform, or will it
continue to be Windows only? The API is described as "provide a
generic, cross-platform framework for adding advanced DSP effects to
OpenAL." - yet I can only see an implementation for windows ?

Creative plans to have EFX support in the upcoming Linux driver release
for X-Fi as well, although it's undecided whether or not that will be
limited to the "native" X-Fi device.

The EFX API itself is public, so other parties are welcome to use it --
it's not strictly tied to Creative (I realize that this statement may be
a mere technicality in the sense that nobody else may wish to put in the
time to do their own EFX-compatible implementation.).

Garin

[d***@oldunreal.com]

I switched my main development OS to Linux now, but currently I'm very
disappointed to see that the Linux release is very old, and no newer
version seems to be availible. Reading through the mailing lists, I
found this topic. Whats the current status ? When will a new Linux
version be ready ? Will it contain EFX then ?

Jochen

Post by Garin Hiebert

Post by Brian Matzon
Are there any plans to actually make EFX cross-platform, or will it
continue to be Windows only? The API is described as "provide a
generic, cross-platform framework for adding advanced DSP effects to
OpenAL." - yet I can only see an implementation for windows ?

Creative plans to have EFX support in the upcoming Linux driver
release for X-Fi as well, although it's undecided whether or not that
will be limited to the "native" X-Fi device.
The EFX API itself is public, so other parties are welcome to use it
-- it's not strictly tied to Creative (I realize that this statement
may be a mere technicality in the sense that nobody else may wish to
put in the time to do their own EFX-compatible implementation.).
Garin
_______________________________________________
Openal mailing list
http://opensource.creative.com/mailman/listinfo/openal

[Jean-Michel TRIVI]

Karp,
The main difference in functionality is probably the support for all the
"auto" flags in EAX, which you can emulate through the EFX parameters.
Jean-Michel.




Garin Hiebert
<***@cheesetoa
st.net> To
Sent by: Karp Dantax
openal-***@op <***@yahoo.com.br>
ensource.creative cc
.com ***@opensource.creative.com
Subject
Re: [Openal] EFX vs EAX
01/05/2007 08:42
PM


Please respond to
***@cheesetoas
t.net

Post by Karp Dantax
So you recommend me to use EFX instead of EAX 4.0 SDK?
Is there anything that EAX can do that EFX cant or wont be able to do?

If you have already started using EAX 4.0 through the get/set interface,
then feel free to keep doing so -- support for the extension isn't going
away.

On the other hand... EFX will expose all the functionality of EAX 4.0,
_and_ you'll be able to more elegantly fall back to EAX 2.0
functionality when available (through one of the "Generic" devices).
So, if you don't feel committed to the older interface, EFX is a good
way to go.

Garin

_______________________________________________
Openal mailing list
***@opensource.creative.com
http://opensource.creative.com/mailman/listinfo/openal

ForwardSourceID:NT0001A672