Best hardware upgrade to improve your ArmA experience? Headphones!

[mordeaniischaos 3]

There are, unsurprisingly, many threads out there on what the best component in your PC is when it comes to ArmA, and who should replace what with what to get the biggest improvement to the ArmA experience. Generally I think it's accepted to say "get a bad ass CPU, and if you already have one of those, get a bad ass CPU cooler and overclock that CPU!" And true enough, you can get significant performance increases from doing this. And video card upgrades can help you push a little more fidelity and detail out of the game. A joystick can bring new depth and much greater control to the piloting gameplay of ArmA 3.

I think there's one immensely beneficial upgrade that no one talks about however. Sound equipment; we all know that sound is a big part of ArmA. Large parts of the ArmA community cares a lot about the quality and realism of the game's sound effects. It's why there are already three sound mods that come to mind immediately for most of us, just for one game. It's why there are people digging through code trying to add interesting and awesome new effects like dynamic reverb from the environment and sound occlusion.

But what good are those sound mods if you're just using cheap Logitech speakers? Even if you have surround sound and live somewhere you can really pump up the volume/bass you still aren't getting very good performance out of your sound system in all likelihood.

I've been waiting for a while now to dive into audiophile quality sound equipment, and today my first pair of expensive headphones arrived: The Beyerdynamic DT-880 Pros (250 ohms). They cost me about $200 (less than most meaningful CPU and certainly video card upgrades would cost you), and they are supposed to be very excellent cans for the money. So far, my experience has been excellent with these headphones.

But this isn't a review of headphones. This is about ArmA, and the incredible experience that just blew my mind when I used these bad boys out for the first time in ArmA 3. I'm running SoS for my sound mod as JSRS got pretty buggy for me as support fell off for it, and I've been reasonably happy with it so far. I used JSRS in the A2 days so I wasn't blown away, but certainly pleased. Even though I had just been using a 5.1 set of logitech speakers that cost me about $90. They do the job, but they are far from amazing.

And then, enter; the 880s. I was going to try them out with Battlefield 4, a safe bet considering how awesome Dice is at sound effects. Unfortunately it wasn't installed so after I set that to downloading I went to my true passion in gaming: ArmA.

I was a little worried, I'll admit. SoS, much like JSRS did, is beginning to show it's age. Changes to how the engine handles sound and some other issues were getting a bit annoying, and I worried that the clarity of these new headphones would make SoS sound effects even more grating at times. Not the fault of the mod, just that the engine was changing in ways that mucked up SoS.

Boy was I wrong. I booted up in the Combined Arms showcase, in order to get a good range of small arms fire and heavy ordnance; as well as infantry, ground vehicle, and aircraft movements. I turned up the volume a bit. And ArmA was completely transformed. The sound of the chopper was pretty annoying (but in the way I expect a military chopper totally is) so I half plugged my ears against the onslaught of rotor and wind noise. Not bad SoS. Not bad at all. We hit the ground and I was impressed at the range of volume I was getting, something previously was a little lacking. Once I had trotted away from the LZ, things were pretty quiet, but the squads moving along side me sounded pretty nice.

But it was when we finally took contact that I realized I had been missing out on a huge aspect of ArmA. Rounds started passing by, ordnance slammed into targets, and I felt the chaos factor quickly coming to a boil. The difference in clarity, quality, and range was so significant I didn't even recognize the sounds I was hearing. It actually sounded like I had installed some fancy new sound mod. The bullet impacts were intimidating, the ballistic crack was harrowing, and the sound of rifle rattling off shots was sharp and potent. And hell, I could actually make out my gun among the chaos, which was pretty impressive, especially with how punchy the effect was through the absolute shit storm brewing around me.

As I moved up, the intensity started to increase, and as I scrambled up behind a rusting junked car, rounds smacking loudly into the hood, I realized I was quickly approaching a crescendo. More and more fire came in as I peaked out occasionally to fire on targets in the open. To call it a target rich environment would be an understatement. And it didn't take long for all of them to start shooting at me. I realized quickly that the game still had more volume to through at me as an absolute cacophony of fire exploded in front of me.

So save your CPU and video card upgrades, gents. Get a nice pair of headphones and a decent amp, download your favored sound mod, and see what a real game changer is like!

Seriously guys, it's like seeing a color TV for the first time. I don't even fully understand how it's possible. Mad props to Speed of Sound and it's creator, Bigpickle (wait, what?) because that was a formative experience for me.

Also convenient? The fancy padding on the very comfy cans I just got actually can take the cheapo TrackIR clip and that is way better than using a freakin' hat. Not an issue for those not too lazy to buy the nicer tracking thingy, but nice for lazies like me :D Theoretically better tracking with this as well as it's not blowing your motions out as much.

Edited July 8, 2014 by MordeaniisChaos

[thedudeabides 40]

I would agree with you. I have a asus xonar essence DAC and some BeyerDynamic 330 and they have effectively changed every game I play for the better. They sound amazing with a huge sound stage. The only other thing I would say for an upgrade that is very noticeable is to get a dedicated SSD for Arma

[artsi 11]

Good headphone setup does really sound amazing if you can't afford or use a proper speaker + subwoofer setup.

When I play on my workstation I use Sennheiser HD 650 cans and DacMagic Plus as a DAC / amplifier and it's great, I get a really immersive experience when playing.

When action starts nothing beats the feeling of bass in your ass from a good subwoofer, but my wife doesn't approve it late at night so... headphones it is.

[Sub-Human 10]

A proper mouse. Mine has +/- keys on them so that I can zoom in without having to slide my arm onto the numpad. And a mouse wheel that doesn't make navigating through the action menu a pain in the ass...

[froggyluv 2130]

+1

Nice headset + SOS is funkin top notch

[mordeaniischaos 3]

I would agree with you. I have a asus xonar essence DAC and some BeyerDynamic 330 and they have effectively changed every game I play for the better. They sound amazing with a huge sound stage. The only other thing I would say for an upgrade that is very noticeable is to get a dedicated SSD for Arma

I've never seen a benefit of using an SSD weirdly. Kind of frustrating because the things it should help with are things that I would really like to improve. Ah well. Maybe I'll pick up a newer SSD soon and see what I can get going.

A proper mouse. Mine has +/- keys on them so that I can zoom in without having to slide my arm onto the numpad. And a mouse wheel that doesn't make navigating through the action menu a pain in the ass...

Is the mouse wheel guided by mystical powers? I can't imagine any other way it'd make navigating a cluttered action menu any easier ;)

Good headphone setup does really sound amazing if you can't afford or use a proper speaker + subwoofer setup.

When I play on my workstation I use Sennheiser HD 650 cans and DacMagic Plus as a DAC / amplifier and it's great, I get a really immersive experience when playing.

When action starts nothing beats the feeling of bass in your ass from a good subwoofer, but my wife doesn't approve it late at night so... headphones it is.

Subs are great, but I feel that ArmA's sound spectrum benefits way more from balanced hardware that has a lot of range. Speakers will always do bass fairly well, but without spending a huge amount of money headphones will sound better in every way. All we really need is a vibrating office chair accessory to bring that rumble from the sub :p

[StrongHarm 13]

Just got these Razer BlackSharks.. and WOW

http://assets.razerzone.com/eeimages/products/5890/razer-blackshark-gallery-4.png

[zhaoyun707 10]

I just got myself sennheiser HD 600s and they sound amazing on ARMA!

[doveman 7]

No need to spend loads though. I got the Samson SR850, which have been called the best cans you can get for under $200, for about £30 http://www.head-fi.org/t/546544/samson-sr850-superlux-oem-review-a-50-budget-champion

They were like a breath of fresh air compared to my Creative Fatality headset and being semi-open, allow for a wider soundstage, which helps with virtual surround from Razer or the like.

[mordeaniischaos 3]

No need to spend loads though. I got the Samson SR850, which have been called the best cans you can get for under $200, for about £30 http://www.head-fi.org/t/546544/samson-sr850-superlux-oem-review-a-50-budget-champion

They were like a breath of fresh air compared to my Creative Fatality headset and being semi-open, allow for a wider soundstage, which helps with virtual surround from Razer or the like.

Obviously there's always a more affordable option, but considering most major upgrades that would matter to playing ArmA better would probably cost around $200-$300 if not more. This is mostly a suggestion for people who have pretty good PCs and are looking for more ways to burn money for the ArmA gods ;)

Personally, I think I'd rather take $200 DT-880s over $50 SR850s, just looking at what I'm seeing about the latter, but ultimately it's up to the user. Regardless of what you spend, if you get awesome headphones you'll get an awesome advantage.

[StrongHarm 13]

Razer Blacksharks are clearly superior.. I use them instead of my Bose. They look like Helo Pilot flight cans.. made of steel.. and the bass is so good I actually had to turn it down! I can't shower because I'd have to take them off.. I'm in love!

[Nexerius 10]

If i could run ARMA 3 better than 10-20 FPS i would probably get some better headsets

[Bee8190 10]

They will get even better when you burn them in OP :cool:

Have you also considered DAC & headphone amp?

[DJankovic 401]

There u go,i am using this ones :) Vibrating headset pretty cool if u want to imerse yourself in game,firing weapon explosions any sound with bass it is pretty cool I realy enjoj playing arma with thiss ones,when bullet wissle by you and your headset vibrate littlebit it is pretty cool. Cheap,i saw there is much more expensive headsets and this one costs mybe 15€.

[stilton 0]

Insanity.

Why do people spend crazy amounts on headphones that contain 2 speakers... Also -- 'virtual' surround sound is bollocks.

If it has 1 jack, You are not getting 5.1 and i don't care how much their marketing sells it as so...

I'd love to get non-biased feedback from people who use all differently types of 'virtual 5.1' but everyone seems to get really defensive once they've spent money on something and instantly claim it's actually really good...

...Yet when they're required to say... Identify what's happening from sound alone, their claims are evidently lacking.

First up, i don't work for, and i dont get anything by saying what i'm about to say. This is of no benefit to me... But it may up your game:

Roccat Kaves are real 5.1 headphones...

Each earphone contains front/centre/back speakers and a sub... They now also do 7.1 headphones but it's 'virtual' i believe. [and i said, previously, above, 'virtual' surround sound is balls ]

These headphones are unarguably better (for gaming) than any headphones that contain just 2 speakers -- Simply on the grounds the extra precision granted by the seperation of the sound sources.

I'm sure you will have people argue 'it doesn't make a difference' ... Probably the same people who would say 'you cant see above 24 fps ' ... Again, it's crap.. You know its crap when you're spectating people and you're predicting where they're about to die from as they're clearly unaware. [Counterstrike - but i'm hopeful with armas reload sound fix it might improve koth too]

Finally, the clincher for me is, these headphones are less expensive than most other 'quality' or 'gaming' brands....

I can't vouch for the build quality because I've been through about 4 pairs but then i abuse them.

[vegeta897 13]

Silton, virtual surround may not work for you (it simply doesn't for some people) but it is absolutely not bollocks. For most people, there is real seperation between front and back. There is no magic involved. It's not pure marketing, it's simply science. You know you only have 2 ears, right? That's why people spend money on headphones with 2 speakers. So how do people hear front/back sound in real life with 2 ears? The shape of your ear causes subtle manipulations to the sound waves depending on what direction they come from, and that is interpreted by your brain as a directional sound. Virtual surround algorithms emulate these subtle manipulations. What's bollocks about that? It doesn't work (or work well enough) for some people, but it does for many.

There is plenty of non-biased feedback from people who have tested several different virtual surround algorithms and headphones. I am one of those people. You don't even need to spend money to try virtual surround yourself, there are youtube videos demonstrating and comparing the different algorithms currently out there. Razer also offers a free application that lets you process surround sound game audio into virtual surround, with any stereo headphones.

Whose claims are lacking? I can jump into Arma 3 right now and do a blind test with my Creative SBX virtual surround, and identify front from rear.

If you want to talk quality, jamming 2 drivers into each headphone cup generally results in lower quality than having one in each cup. The drivers have to be smaller since you have to fit more than one in there for "real" 5.1. (really just quadraphonic, technically speaking). I've also seen claims that having the drivers that close to your ears diminishes the surround effect, but apparently it works for you.

I won't argue that an actual 5.1 or 7.1 speaker setup will always beat headphone surround, virtual or otherwise.

[stilton 0]

I also only have two eyes...

..But simply by the act of turning my head... I'm able to observe so much more... And depth perception.. Whats up with that?

Simply, i disagree...

You can choose to be a proponent of the technology but I'll choose to keep my opinion until i try some 'virtual surround sound' first hand that isn't shite.

I know there's a difference... Because i've used stereo speakers... Ive used virtual 5.1.. and i've used real 5.1 headphones...

Yes, a 'real 5.1 speaker setup' is better still... But not when you have to turn it down low or when you're using a microphone lol.

...The difference when you place actual 5.1 headphones with the extra physical speakers... Or 'drivers' as you call them is quite clear first-hand..

Note that i'm not saying 'virtual 5.1 doesnt work' -- Because if you think about it... You'd have to be a complete moron to be unable to implement 'any form of working surround sound' through 2 speakers...

...I mean you could simply mash all the sound together... seperate it by stereo and lower the volume on the front and back channels by 80%.

Viola, 'virtual' surround sound... But it's still shite... ?

[vegeta897 13]

Your post ignores large parts of what I'm saying.

Your comparison to having 2 eyes makes no sense at all. What do eyes have to do with my explanation of how our ears can differentiate forward and rear sound sources?

I'm not a "proponent" of the technology, I'm an informer of simple facts. I already said several times that VS doesn't work for everyone, and if you think all the algorithms you've tried are shite, then you can choose not to use them. But that doesn't permit you to claim that it's bollocks, or that people who claim it works are fooling themselves because they spent money on it. What if I claimed the same thing about your 5.1 headphones? You certainly spent money on them, whereas virtual surround can be heard for free. But I would not be so presumptuous and insulting.

I'm not sure what point the last part of your post is trying to make. This isn't a case of lowering volume or some other arbitrary factor. There is genuine perception of surround. I and many others can vouch for this. I guess I'll repeat myself again. Lots of people find virtual 5.1 to be both realistic and enjoyable. You are not one of those people, so kindly accept that and stop attacking the technology simply because it doesn't work for you. It's a good solution for many people who don't want to compromise on headphone quality by buying phones with multiple drivers, or severely limit their buying selection.

Edited July 15, 2014 by vegeta897

[stilton 0]

Your post ignores ... Your comparison to having 2 eyes makes no sense at all. ... I'm not a "proponent" of the technology.

No.

I tried to ignore it. Your talking about ears.. The receiver.. I'm talking about the source... The speakers. I understand how the concept of 'hearing' works thanks and I never said virtual 5.1 doesn't work for me, i said it does but it's shite...

That means: ' not-as-good ' (from first hand experience) as actual 5.1 surround sound..

Which you agreed with apparently, from your talk of 'real 5.1 speaker setup being the pinnacle' .

Lastly i can 'claim' what i want on the basis of first hand experience... You're welcome to dispute that... that's the nature of discussion.

Though i don't understand why you think on one hand you can claim: 'i have experienced working virtual 5.1 therefore that invalidates any criticism you have of the technology'

whilst at the sametime claiming that a 'real' 5.1 speakers setup is objectively indeed better.

That's flawed logic right there, and since you say you are actively using the technology, i'll choose to assume you're just one of those people i previously mentioned who has bought into something, and now defends it for whatever reason.... Pride?

I'd love to hear from someone who's bought actual 5.1 headphones, put them on and then thought " Wow - no difference over those 'virtual 5.1 headphones' i'm going to refund these ..."

... But i've yet to meet any convert who has said that :) Perhaps there's something to that...

[vegeta897 13]

This is getting pretty tiresome. You continue to misunderstand almost everything I'm saying, and put words in my mouth.

Your talking about ears.. The receiver.. I'm talking about the source... The speakers.

I explained why virtual surround is capable of producing a genuine impression of surround sound that your brain interprets as such. This was in direct response to your claim that it was "bollocks". Not a claim that it didn't work well for you, but that the entire technology was marketing and bollocks.

I never said virtual 5.1 doesn't work for me, i said it does but it's shite...

So then it doesn't work for you as well as it seems to work for others, because many people do not have the complaints you have. To assume that every one of those people, including me, are fooling themselves or buying into marketing hype is incredibly insulting.

Lastly i can 'claim' what i want on the basis of first hand experience... You're welcome to dispute that... that's the nature of discussion.

I did not dispute your claim that your 5.1 headphones didn't give you a good surround experience, or a better surround experience than virtual. I'm sure it does. I wouldn't doubt something that I haven't tried myself. What you cannot do is give faulty reasoning as to why VS is bollocks, and that's where I'm challenging you.

Though i don't understand why you think on one hand you can claim: 'i have experienced working virtual 5.1 therefore that invalidates any criticism you have of the technology'

whilst at the sametime claiming that a 'real' 5.1 speakers setup is objectively indeed better.

Nice quote there, except I said nothing of the sort. I think I pretty clearly, and often, explained that virtual 5.1 doesn't work for everyone. If it sounds shit to you, I believe you. But it doesn't sound shit to everyone, so I'm not going to let you claim that it's bollocks technology, or that people are fooling themselves or are biased. Why are you incapable of understanding that I claim VS is a good emulation of surround sound, while also saying that a real 5.1 setup is better? I think 256kbit MP3s sound great, but I understand that FLAC is better. Where is the flawed logic here?

and since you say you are actively using the technology, i'll choose to assume you're just one of those people i previously mentioned who has bought into something, and now defends it for whatever reason.... Pride?

Thanks for the incredibly insulting remark. "You use this thing that I think is crap, so you're obviously delusioned and everything you say is invalid".

I'd love to hear from someone who's bought actual 5.1 headphones, put them on and then thought " Wow - no difference over those 'virtual 5.1 headphones' i'm going to refund these ..."

Another instance of you misunderstanding me. I never said 5.1 headphones had no difference over virtual. I even said in my first reply to you that I believed you in that your 5.1 headphones sound better than the virtual algorithms you've tried.

[stilton 0]

Tiresome indeed, but I'm opinionated - it's from experience, I'm not here to hurt anyones feelings or spread misinformation. :)

I'm actually slightly worried Vegeta that you think i work for Roccat or (that i) don't understand virtual surround lol. I have used it.. it worked fine... I have sincerely have nothing against it... 'shite' is just a bit of fun, if you will.

[To anyone else reading] If you're more into music than games... and 'quality of sound' is more important to you, perhaps you should listen to what everyone else is saying, perhaps this guy (me) is a fucking idiot... I've been called it before.

But I'd still argue, in a nutshell that 'real' 5.1 is more accurate. Perhaps i should stop using the word: 'shite' i don't mean it in a mean way :D

Really all i should have said was:

If you're spending more than £80 on a 'Virtual 5.1 surround setup.. And your goal is to get the 'Best' implementation of 5.1 for Gaming. You're doing it wrong.

It's like FreeTrack over TrackIR...

They both do the same thing, one is arguably 'better' than the other... But one [tir] costs more and doesn't leave you with a DIY electrical kit on your head. It doesn't mean the other [ft] doesn't work... It doesn't mean in specific instances... Freetrack might actually even be better for you individually or in specific circumstances...

But i'd _still_ argue that 'physical' 5.1 is more accurate, with there being multiple sources for each ear. From personal experience.

-- I could be talking balls.. Perhaps i'm one of the very people i'm talking about... experiencing a placebo from the 'marketing' of 'extra sound sources per ear'.

But I'm pretty sure i could hear a difference first-hand. Furthermore, I'm not just judging this from my own experience. People often ask: "How did you know/hear that? ", in competitive games, etc.

Another friend of mine who also has the Roccat Kaves is always 'spotting' guys (with sound) for the guys with 'virtual 5.1' on our team... When you spectate them it's always clear they're unaware of the guy literally running around behind them...

...Personally i put this down to an inherent problem with the virtual 5.1 technology:

People /sounds behind you are indeed at a diminished volume, Therefore harder to hear.

With physical 5.1, they're not at a diminished volume, they just come from a source behind your ears... ? As they should. That seems like a more 'realistic' implementation to me.

Finally the pride comment - lol. It's kind of a recurring theme in my posts if you didn't pick up on it... I guess i just don't presume I'm perfect and understand that people will defend something they've bought or others have bought for them. It's more a poke of fun at everyone, including myself. Sorry if you found it 'incredibly insulting' :)

Although i'm starting to wonder what this entire exchange has been about... Perhaps i should've just said 'virtual 5.1 is not as accurate as physical 5.1' -- wouldn't want to say 'real 5.1' shite that might offend someone. :D

Edited July 15, 2014 by Stilton

[vegeta897 13]

Thank you for being more reasonable.

If what you said about the technology being "bollocks" was indeed just exaggeration, then I begin to find your posts easier to digest :P

I don't think you work for Roccat. I 100% take your opinion of those cans you own in good faith. I believe you when you say they're better for surround than VS. I've considered buying headphones with multiple drivers in the past, but was too satisfied with my virtual solution to bother risking the sacrifice of audio quality for other applications such as music, and bass response.

Your TrackIR analogy makes sense and definitely applies to this situation.

I never argued that real 5.1, be it headphones or speakers, wasn't more accurate. At the very least, it sounds less muddy than the side effects of virtual surround processing.

What you're saying about lower volume for rear sounds in VS algorithms may be true for some, but I'm not sure it's true for all of them. There are at least half a dozen different algorithms out there. You can look up comparison videos on youtube, like I said. But again, if I could buy a headset that had real 5.1 and also good overall soundquality, I would. I'm sure they're better than my Creative SBX software. I'm pretty finnicky about headphone comfort though, and I love my current Sennheisers.

My main problem with your post was the claim that people who find VS to be good enough are lying to themselves, or buying into marketing. Some VS is better than others, and some people's experience are better than others. It's a totally viable path for a gamer though, who either doesn't want the limited selection of 5.1 headphones or the problems of using speakers when gaming. Your dismissive post I felt was harmful to anyone reading this thread and looking for an affordable surround sound gaming solution.

[stilton 0]

Oh whats this 2 strangers finding a reasonable compromise on the internet. *world explodes*

Also vegeta...

I'd say i'm not really qualified to 'argue' with you about how virtual 3d surround works. I just tried it and decided almost immediately it wasn't 'as good' as 'the real thing'

Everything i've said is really 'how i've personally (my brain) has interpreted virtual 5.1, when i experienced it years ago'

I'm not a neuroscientist.. Or an ear-doctor :D My brain and memories are slowly dying through neglect and so it could've been hawesome and i'm just mis-remembering... ...Also, the technology could've advanced incredibly over the last.. 15 years?

But my opinion comes from:

*In my personal experience, My brain is able to differentiate between multiple positional sound sources per ear... (i.e the different speakers, per ear.)

Whereas... with 'virtual' surround sound.. You have one, per ear. Even with software 'trickery' you're still compressing down all the sources into one per ear, you can add auditorial 'cues' maybe? to signify to the listening that its coming from behind (the only thing i can think of that would make any sense is lowered volume, but again, i'm just 'a guy' i'm not a sound engineer or educated to the level one would hope someone developing this technology would be ).

I'm not saying it doesn't work, and if i did say that... I'm not trying to say it's not 'better than stereo' ...It could be.

But i still don't see how its doing anything other than 'faking' it. I know that has a negative connotation, but it's not implied here, it's just the most suitable description. You're also 'bottlenecking' it here, at the source where people end up spending the money...

Again, you could say 'but you only have 2 ears' -- and i'd reply with... Yes but i'm not a neroscientist or an ear doctor.. and see * And we're going around :D

Also to the OP :D

I apologise for totally derailing your thread

[StrongHarm 13]

Did I mention that Razer Blacksharks are clearly superior..

[mecharius 2]

I can agree with headphones being a great upgrade... I changed from a half broken 10 year old set of stereo headphones to a pretty cheap 25 quid Plantronics 5.1 Virtual set off ebay and what a revolution it was! I don't have the cash to compare it to a real 5.1 surround sound system so can't comment on that debate, but the headphones I have are brilliant for the money. I can often hear vehicle noises long before other players and can tell the direction of sounds with a good degree of accuracy.