srynznfyra
Standard Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
- Messages
- 23
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 5
I'm looking at upgrading my PC's sound system. First, let's get out of the way the fact that my *absolute maximum* budget for this is £460.
I will mainly use this for listening to music, and playing *some* games. However I would sacrifice gaming performance for music fidelity. Ie. the goal is to have all three ranges (bass, mid, treble) in equal clarity (of course I know this isn't completely possible with my budget), rather than concentrate on, for example, bass performance at the expense of the mids.
Also, I do like to listen to music fairly loud, and all different kinds (rap, folk, death metal, rock, electronic, Jimi Hendrix (a category of his own ), etc.). Games too. This thing has got to be able to make some noise, shake the walls a bit, annoy the neighbours - you get the picture.
Okay, so I've decided on two bookshelf speakers and a subwoofer, connected to a surround sound AV receiver. I formulated a few positives and negatives of this approach, as opposed to what I was originally looking at (the Logitech Z-5500 all-in-one PC speakers):
Positives:
1. Bookshelf speakers apparently have a better dynamic range, especially in the mids (important for music).
2. Upgrades (e.g. more speakers) can be added at a later date.
3. More power is potentially available.
4. If one component fails, the whole system isn't necessarily dead.
Negatives:
1. Costs more.
2. The AV receiver contains a multitude of non-required features that would go to waste, such as all the video throughput, array of inputs and different settings.
So please tell me if you think this whole approach is flawed, or if you think it's okay to use a full-blown AV receiver just for a PC. I do actually think that being able to connect more devices can only be a good thing in the long run, but on the other hand, more components equals less reliability.
Assuming I do go with this method, here are the specific products I have my eye on (tempted to buy at any moment to be honest ):
Receiver: ONKYO TX-SR309 5.1 channel. Rated for 100W @ 6 Ohms, 1 channel driven at 1kHz. Not exactly sure how loud this would be able to go before clipping. Remember I'm incorporating a sub-woofer, so the actual amps in the receiver wouldn't need to pack a serious bass punch, as the sub would take care of that on its own (hopefully).
Bookshelf speakers: 2x Wharfedale Diamond 9.1. Rated 20-100W, 6 Ohm nominal impedance, with a 25mm tweeter and 130mm midrange driver. What Hifi? give them five stars, so they must be good.
Sub-woofer: Wharfedale SW150. Rated 150W, 25cm (10in) driver.
Obviously, this would be a simple 2.1 system, which can later be expanded with more speakers into a 5.1 system. As far as the PC's concerned, I would be using the integrated TOSLINK (digital optical) output from the motherboard, going into the receiver.
How does all this sound to YOU then?
Awaiting all replies with a thankful grin
Cheers
Fela
I will mainly use this for listening to music, and playing *some* games. However I would sacrifice gaming performance for music fidelity. Ie. the goal is to have all three ranges (bass, mid, treble) in equal clarity (of course I know this isn't completely possible with my budget), rather than concentrate on, for example, bass performance at the expense of the mids.
Also, I do like to listen to music fairly loud, and all different kinds (rap, folk, death metal, rock, electronic, Jimi Hendrix (a category of his own ), etc.). Games too. This thing has got to be able to make some noise, shake the walls a bit, annoy the neighbours - you get the picture.
Okay, so I've decided on two bookshelf speakers and a subwoofer, connected to a surround sound AV receiver. I formulated a few positives and negatives of this approach, as opposed to what I was originally looking at (the Logitech Z-5500 all-in-one PC speakers):
Positives:
1. Bookshelf speakers apparently have a better dynamic range, especially in the mids (important for music).
2. Upgrades (e.g. more speakers) can be added at a later date.
3. More power is potentially available.
4. If one component fails, the whole system isn't necessarily dead.
Negatives:
1. Costs more.
2. The AV receiver contains a multitude of non-required features that would go to waste, such as all the video throughput, array of inputs and different settings.
So please tell me if you think this whole approach is flawed, or if you think it's okay to use a full-blown AV receiver just for a PC. I do actually think that being able to connect more devices can only be a good thing in the long run, but on the other hand, more components equals less reliability.
Assuming I do go with this method, here are the specific products I have my eye on (tempted to buy at any moment to be honest ):
Receiver: ONKYO TX-SR309 5.1 channel. Rated for 100W @ 6 Ohms, 1 channel driven at 1kHz. Not exactly sure how loud this would be able to go before clipping. Remember I'm incorporating a sub-woofer, so the actual amps in the receiver wouldn't need to pack a serious bass punch, as the sub would take care of that on its own (hopefully).
Bookshelf speakers: 2x Wharfedale Diamond 9.1. Rated 20-100W, 6 Ohm nominal impedance, with a 25mm tweeter and 130mm midrange driver. What Hifi? give them five stars, so they must be good.
Sub-woofer: Wharfedale SW150. Rated 150W, 25cm (10in) driver.
Obviously, this would be a simple 2.1 system, which can later be expanded with more speakers into a 5.1 system. As far as the PC's concerned, I would be using the integrated TOSLINK (digital optical) output from the motherboard, going into the receiver.
How does all this sound to YOU then?
Awaiting all replies with a thankful grin
Cheers
Fela