Gamers, What's Your Audio Set Up?
- Thread starter Random Guy Esq.
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 13,841
It's kind of amusing in a not so amusing way, my gaming PC with a 4090 is using less power than the amp powering my speakers in any given full-day of use
Tri amp your speakers with Class A 6000W Krells
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 1,464
- Location
- location,location
I haven't read all the way through the thread although I did skim a few pages back. I was wondering whether people bothered with surround systems for gaming any more, ie 5.1 etc. It seems most of the posters here are going for higher end components and hifi sound quality. Is there any point in surround sound systems for gaming. I don't know what sound design is common in games now.
I have some surround speakers from an old 5.1 dvd system. At the moment I just run two of the satellites through a mini amp as PC sound. I need to replace the amp and I have been looking at getting a 2.1 amp so that I can start using the sub as well. I was wondering whether it is worth getting a 5.1 amp and using all the speakers. the 5.1 amp would be quite a bit more expensive and setting up the speakers would be possible but obviously more awkward. I am leaning towards sticking with 2.1 but wonder if I will be missing out by doing so.
Also how does the positional sound compare between headphones and a surround speaker system? Can headphones provide just as good an experience?
I have some surround speakers from an old 5.1 dvd system. At the moment I just run two of the satellites through a mini amp as PC sound. I need to replace the amp and I have been looking at getting a 2.1 amp so that I can start using the sub as well. I was wondering whether it is worth getting a 5.1 amp and using all the speakers. the 5.1 amp would be quite a bit more expensive and setting up the speakers would be possible but obviously more awkward. I am leaning towards sticking with 2.1 but wonder if I will be missing out by doing so.
Also how does the positional sound compare between headphones and a surround speaker system? Can headphones provide just as good an experience?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,842
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Not for my Mac but my Xbox/PS5/Switch when plugged into the TV is on a 5.1. I could dock my Steam Deck into the TV but seldom do.
There is no simple answer - generally surround and/or positional audio is in a less than ideal place in games - some games process sound to 4+ speaker setups or have some kind of HRTF or virtual surround for headphones but a lot don't. Most audio devices have dropped things like CMSS-3D but various software implementations exist including Windows Sonic which is not that amazing. What works best including headphones vs speakers will depend on the individual.
One of the reasons I've kept my Creative AE-5 as it does the best of a bad job when it comes to surround audio in games.
One of the reasons I've kept my Creative AE-5 as it does the best of a bad job when it comes to surround audio in games.
Been a long time since I've used a 5.1 speaker/AV set-up (sixth-gen consoles). These days I use external DAC/AMPS gaming on headphones. Albeit I do have cheap, old pair of edifier speakers.
I use stereo without positional audio; hardware, or software based. The exception being Sony's 3D audio on first-party PlayStation games via the PS5 Pro. But that's it.
In the past I used to love Virtual Surround for Dolby Digital games (which was pretty much everything) and found Creative's SBX to be the best solutions. Used it on the ZxR (my last PC soundcard), X7, G6 and more recently the GC7. For games with a 5.1 soundtrack it's pretty good at extending that depth, giving a greater sense of soundstage. These days I don't own any of these devices any more and I don't think you need to. I think as Rroff mention games themselves and their audio engine are the biggest impact on your audio experience. I think 3D audio can have a bigger impact. However for headphone use the beauty of the current machines for the few games that utilise 3D audio, is that the host PC, PS5, or Series S|X console does the processing.
I have a preference for headphones, but there are advantages to using both.
Aside here, but in the two years I've owned a Steam Deck, I've docked it once. Just once. For me it excels and gaming around the house when not plugged into the TV. Kind of interesting as I didn't expect that when I bought it. Like the Switch I thought I would be docking it more.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,842
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
I docked it to play Baldurs Gate 3 for a day, but running like 800p on a 55" TV looks terrible lol
I did it with a couple of other easier to run games like Vampire Survivor, generally I just don't bother.
I did it with a couple of other easier to run games like Vampire Survivor, generally I just don't bother.
I've recently installed Steam OS on my Minisforum UM480 XT (not as powerful as the SD) and that's fine for Vampire Survivors, Brotato etc. Or I just play those games on the PC.
Not great news for the Cambridge Audio MXW70, whilst the front fascia and general aesthetics are very nice, it falls short in other ways compared to the Topping PA7.
1: The rest of the housing feels cheaper pressed Alu vs the thicker CNC machined thicker housing of the PA7, only the front panel is the standout high quality material on the MXW70. Not a problem as the front panel is what you see the most and touch I guess. The MXW70 does look more "high-end" vs the plastic fascia PA7 though.
2: The power LED is brighter than I expected. It's bright enough to be distracting in dimmer lighting when gaming or watching something. In standby mode it gets dimmer and is about the same brightness as the PA7 LED when that is in normal active mode.
3: The speaker binding posts on the PA7 look and feel more expensive.
4: MXW70 is smaller than I expected, but still much larger than the PA7 in depth.
5: The sound signature between both is noticeably different and immediately obvious. Midrange vocals on the PA7 have more of a natural timbre and the soundstage is a bit wider in this region of the FR as well. PA7 is more musical/alive if that makes sense which is exactly why I like the PA7, the MXW70 by comparison has that Cambridge Audio house-sound that I am now reminded of when I had a CA integrated amp back in the day and years later tried out a pair of the brand's 3-way floortsanders. both of which I returned some time later for these same reasons compared to my then Tannoy M3 Cherry speakers and NAD C320 Bee amp.
So at its original price of £500, the PA7 sounds better and is built nicer than the MXW70, now at its £350 it's an even better bargain.
I will just have to tolerate the massive power brick and route my cabling around this annoyance lol.
Some pics:
I did some further looking up on why these differences might be so obvious between 2 class D amps that offer power not a million miles apart and on speakers that are relatively easy going at 8 ohms and 90W, this brought me to this video:
1: The rest of the housing feels cheaper pressed Alu vs the thicker CNC machined thicker housing of the PA7, only the front panel is the standout high quality material on the MXW70. Not a problem as the front panel is what you see the most and touch I guess. The MXW70 does look more "high-end" vs the plastic fascia PA7 though.
2: The power LED is brighter than I expected. It's bright enough to be distracting in dimmer lighting when gaming or watching something. In standby mode it gets dimmer and is about the same brightness as the PA7 LED when that is in normal active mode.
3: The speaker binding posts on the PA7 look and feel more expensive.
4: MXW70 is smaller than I expected, but still much larger than the PA7 in depth.
5: The sound signature between both is noticeably different and immediately obvious. Midrange vocals on the PA7 have more of a natural timbre and the soundstage is a bit wider in this region of the FR as well. PA7 is more musical/alive if that makes sense which is exactly why I like the PA7, the MXW70 by comparison has that Cambridge Audio house-sound that I am now reminded of when I had a CA integrated amp back in the day and years later tried out a pair of the brand's 3-way floortsanders. both of which I returned some time later for these same reasons compared to my then Tannoy M3 Cherry speakers and NAD C320 Bee amp.
So at its original price of £500, the PA7 sounds better and is built nicer than the MXW70, now at its £350 it's an even better bargain.
I will just have to tolerate the massive power brick and route my cabling around this annoyance lol.
Some pics:
I did some further looking up on why these differences might be so obvious between 2 class D amps that offer power not a million miles apart and on speakers that are relatively easy going at 8 ohms and 90W, this brought me to this video:
Last edited:
Regarding steam deck docking, mines rarely undocked, It works so seamlessly to play on the tv. I do feel I should i have maybe bought a mini PC like a miniforum instead but you can't beat the steam decks value.
Last edited:
MX is going back! Topping is staying. I won't ever be changing my speakers so unless the PA7 dies one day, then this combo is for the long haul now.
Tbh the Minisforum I have was a present and wasn't available that long, it was generation behind when it launched (Vega-based GPU). I just used it as a Linux desktop/scratchpad for two years. The main benefit I can see to using a mini PC/own hardware for a Steam OS build is that you can be much, much more powerful than a Steam Deck, but then I assume you lose some of the benefits like no-Shader Caching. And as you say the SD is such value for money it's hard to argue with. Alkthough it is impressive that Steam OS works so well on 'unsupported hardware' (I've yet to experience any problems).
OK, that makes sense.
Associate
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 1,464
- Location
- location,location
Thanks for the replies. I think for what I want and ease of setup I will go for the 2.1 option.