Alright. So say I go for the M-audio BX8A monitors and the Asus Sonar dx. What cables will I need from Belmont and anywhere else?
You'll need a 3.5mm stereo plug (Xonar end) to 2x 6.3mm mono plugs. Make sure that it's one mono plug per channel, not just a stereo plug that gives you two mono plugs with mono in them. You could get away with a 3.5mm stereo plug -> 2x 3.5mm mono plug if you buy 6.3mm -> 3.5mm connectors (the kind you always get with your headphones). There shouldn't be anything on top of that. Perhaps power cables for the speakers, but I'd be surprised if you didn't get those with the speakers.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
So this
Die Hard 3.5mm stereo jack - 2x6.3mm mono jack cable
(google it, can't link from Zune - sold at decks.co.uk)
Is what I want?
There is no Belmont equivalent...
Die Hard 3.5mm stereo jack - 2x6.3mm mono jack cable
(google it, can't link from Zune - sold at decks.co.uk)
Is what I want?
There is no Belmont equivalent...
Yep, it's exactly what you need. (Link)
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
Alright. But it's only 1.8 meters long. Not very long if you ask me.
1.8 meters is just fine. Even 18 meters is just fine as it's got all the shielding and stuff done according to the book.
Last edited by Freezer7Pro (2010-01-13 06:23:32)
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
I meant in terms of length and where i'm putting them.
Just get a 3.5mm extension cord of decent quality if you can't find a longer 3.5~2x6.3 cable.Zimmer wrote:
I meant in terms of length and where i'm putting them.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
For balanced cables this works, not for the unbalanced 1/4" TS plugs you told him to use.Freezer7Pro wrote:
1.8 meters is just fine. Even 18 meters is just fine as it's got all the shielding and stuff done according to the book.
EE (hats
yeah, but 1.8m should be fine for unbalanced. Dedicated DACs are ridiculously expensive.
No, it works just fine for unbalanced cables too.Morpheus wrote:
For balanced cables this works, not for the unbalanced 1/4" TS plugs you told him to use.Freezer7Pro wrote:
1.8 meters is just fine. Even 18 meters is just fine as it's got all the shielding and stuff done according to the book.
Balancing line-level stuff is by no means a bad thing, but it's overrated. It makes sense on ultra-low-level stuff like mics and turntables, which are extremely noise-sensitive, but when you've got signals of a Volt or so (which you do with a PC sound card), they'll do just fine as long as you've got an aluminium foil shield. If we were talking about a simple 'ground-conductor-shielde'd (as in, some really thin wires just twisted around the signal conductor), you'd be correct. But only really cheap cables are made like that, and those they sell in that store have that as well as an aluminium shield.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
What about this http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/AUNE-HIFIDIY-NET- … 3ca4de62b8 that looks pretty damn good and isn't that expensive. Is that all I would need, plus the monitors, so get them set up? Cabling of course, but that is basically it, yes?
Nah, that thing is specced worse than a Xonar DX. The chip that does the work in it is mainly just old and outdated.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
Will I get a DAC that's better than a Xonar DX for around that price (give or take £30)?Freezer7Pro wrote:
Nah, that thing is specced worse than a Xonar DX. The chip that does the work in it is mainly just old and outdated.
I find it hard to believe the Xonar DX is only £50 and is better than the DAC. But as you said, the chip is outdated, so there must be a DAC that is worth the price for around £100-130, right?
Not really, unless you build it yourself. The thing with external DACs is that they need a lot more stuff to work. The power supply and filtering as well as the case are the biggest money-eaters. A good power supply alone can cost £15 in parts.
Getting that DAC you linked probably won't give you much noticeable loss in performance compared to a Xonar, but you'd still be kind of paying more for less.
Getting that DAC you linked probably won't give you much noticeable loss in performance compared to a Xonar, but you'd still be kind of paying more for less.
The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP
That's what I'd do.Varegg wrote:
Haven't seen any tests on it but you can get Sony STR-DH100 for roughly £200 in Norway so it should be cheaper where you are ... it's ready for digital media like MP3 players, cellphones and even got bluetooth ...
That and the Wharfedale Diamond 10s. That'd be lovely and would probably come in just under the £400 mark. No need for sound card, since it's a digital amp, which is likely (haven't checked) to outperform your average soundcard DAC anyway.
That'd be nice.
Active monitors are all well and good and I'm sure they are very well spec'd and do their job very well - but for normal everyday listening, those Wharfedales will be far, far better.
Then you've also got more room for expansion later.
But that wouldn't be the whole system, I'd need a subwoofer then, and that would cost another £230. That's over £600.Bertster7 wrote:
That's what I'd do.Varegg wrote:
Haven't seen any tests on it but you can get Sony STR-DH100 for roughly £200 in Norway so it should be cheaper where you are ... it's ready for digital media like MP3 players, cellphones and even got bluetooth ...
That and the Wharfedale Diamond 10s. That'd be lovely and would probably come in just under the £400 mark. No need for sound card, since it's a digital amp, which is likely (haven't checked) to outperform your average soundcard DAC anyway.
That'd be nice.
Active monitors are all well and good and I'm sure they are very well spec'd and do their job very well - but for normal everyday listening, those Wharfedales will be far, far better.
Then you've also got more room for expansion later.
The EMU0202 USB is around 100€ and is better than 95% soundcards that cost under 200€.
No you wouldn't.Zimmer wrote:
But that wouldn't be the whole system, I'd need a subwoofer then, and that would cost another £230. That's over £600.Bertster7 wrote:
That's what I'd do.Varegg wrote:
Haven't seen any tests on it but you can get Sony STR-DH100 for roughly £200 in Norway so it should be cheaper where you are ... it's ready for digital media like MP3 players, cellphones and even got bluetooth ...
That and the Wharfedale Diamond 10s. That'd be lovely and would probably come in just under the £400 mark. No need for sound card, since it's a digital amp, which is likely (haven't checked) to outperform your average soundcard DAC anyway.
That'd be nice.
Active monitors are all well and good and I'm sure they are very well spec'd and do their job very well - but for normal everyday listening, those Wharfedales will be far, far better.
Then you've also got more room for expansion later.
You don't need to have a sub. You're not getting a sub currently, just monitors. The Wharfedales are equivalent to them, but will sound nicer.
Wharfedales don't go as low as a decent sub.Bertster7 wrote:
No you wouldn't.Zimmer wrote:
But that wouldn't be the whole system, I'd need a subwoofer then, and that would cost another £230. That's over £600.Bertster7 wrote:
That's what I'd do.
That and the Wharfedale Diamond 10s. That'd be lovely and would probably come in just under the £400 mark. No need for sound card, since it's a digital amp, which is likely (haven't checked) to outperform your average soundcard DAC anyway.
That'd be nice.
Active monitors are all well and good and I'm sure they are very well spec'd and do their job very well - but for normal everyday listening, those Wharfedales will be far, far better.
Then you've also got more room for expansion later.
You don't need to have a sub. You're not getting a sub currently, just monitors. The Wharfedales are equivalent to them, but will sound nicer.
Nor would those monitors - and I suspect the Wharfedales will go as low as them..Sup wrote:
Wharfedales don't go as low as a decent sub.Bertster7 wrote:
No you wouldn't.Zimmer wrote:
But that wouldn't be the whole system, I'd need a subwoofer then, and that would cost another £230. That's over £600.
You don't need to have a sub. You're not getting a sub currently, just monitors. The Wharfedales are equivalent to them, but will sound nicer.
Bertster -
Wharfedale Nominal Frequency Range 48-24kHz
M-Audio frequency response: 40Hz-22kHz
Wharfedale Nominal Frequency Range 48-24kHz
M-Audio frequency response: 40Hz-22kHz
Well you said you don't need to have a sub which is true - you don't but personally I love subs and can't listen to music without them. I have mine set on very low level but you can really feel the lower frequencies. I'd certainly recommend one unless you get a pair of those floorstanders with dual bass speakers but even those don't go as low as subs can.Bertster7 wrote:
Nor would those monitors - and I suspect the Wharfedales will go as low as them..Sup wrote:
Wharfedales don't go as low as a decent sub.Bertster7 wrote:
No you wouldn't.
You don't need to have a sub. You're not getting a sub currently, just monitors. The Wharfedales are equivalent to them, but will sound nicer.
That's the plan. Forget about subs for now, please, you're just making this more complex than it has to be..Sup wrote:
Well you said you don't need to have a sub which is true - you don't but personally I love subs and can't listen to music without them. I have mine set on very low level but you can really feel the lower frequencies. I'd certainly recommend one unless you get a pair of those floorstanders with dual bass speakers but even those don't go as low as subs can.Bertster7 wrote:
Nor would those monitors - and I suspect the Wharfedales will go as low as them..Sup wrote:
Wharfedales don't go as low as a decent sub.
The plan is to start off the system now, and get the sub in about 1-3 months. So I want a good good system now, and I'm getting mixed feelings from all of you! Active monitors or the wharfedales?
I'm surprised.Zimmer wrote:
Bertster -
Wharfedale Nominal Frequency Range 48-24kHz
M-Audio frequency response: 40Hz-22kHz
All the critics seem to be raving about the brilliant bass extension and tone on the Wharfedales. I had assumed they'd go pretty low.
I still think they'd be a far better buy. With monitors you are limiting your future options horribly and they never sound quite right.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-01-13 12:58:11)