Updated my setup.. now including PS3 :D

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 651465
  • Start date Start date
Stag said:
The sound still gets processed from the iPod, so will still never appease a true audiophile. :p
Click to expand...

only .wav files would appeal to a audiophile.
Only DAT quality beats .wav files (so ive heard)
 
photoshop said:
only .wav files would appeal to a audiophile.
Only DAT quality beats .wav files (so ive heard)
Click to expand...

Wav and pcm are uncompressed so completley pure, and monkeys and flac are lossless, so they would all be the same quality anyway. Anyone who uses an uncompressed format must be insane!
 
denon said:
would you not be better linking the middle cone and tweeter together and using the other amp on the bottom cone as it seems a waste using one amp for the tweeter as it uses a lot less power than the cones.

unless ive read what you said wrong?
Click to expand...
By having the tweeter on it's own dedicated amp I find the treble is a lot cleaner, crisper and improves the space between instruments.

..by running the two cones on the same amp I'm only relying on the crossover to do the work of sepearting mid and bass :cool:
 
If only I had the space!!

Imagine how much rack space that'd take up! :eek:
 
I must admit.. I keep my music in AAC 192kbps just purely for storage reasons :(

Within the next week I will be re-ripping all my tracks in Lossless so I don't have to worry about the loss in quality over listening to CDs (which really annoys me at the moment.. just so apparent!)
 
Energize said:
Yeah but lossless is the same quality and half the space.
Click to expand...

this is one thing i've never understood.
How can you still have the same quality when you have compressed the file down by half?

Surely there must be some loss in quality :confused:
 
photoshop said:
this is one thing i've never understood.
How can you still have the same quality when you have compressed the file down by half?

Surely there must be some loss in quality :confused:
Click to expand...

FLAC is basically a WAV file, but uses better compression algorithms to achieve the same data in a smaller space. Remember WAV is a very old format, and as such, has been able to be built upon.
 
this is one thing i've never understood.
How can you still have the same quality when you have compressed the file down by half?

Surely there must be some loss in quality
Click to expand...

Nice little explanation of the theory on the Monkey's Audio page here. Digital audio is a digital representation of an analogue sound wave. The data on an audio CD is essentially the magnitude of that soundwave sampled 44.1k times a second. The aim of lossless compression is to store that information as economically as possible taking advantage of more complicated mathematical algorithms. It's still the same data.

To the OP. As I'm guessing your speakers are 2.5 way I'd be doing the same as you and linking the two mid/bass drivers together. Are you using speaker wire to link the binding posts rather than the stamped links I assume the speakers came with? If not, it's essential if you ask me. Also, are they rear ported? If they are, try getting them out into the room a good bit - they will love you for it.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I'm using speaker cable to join the middle/lower cones (slightly different to the cable that joins it (the speakers) to the amp) :)

Yes, the speakers are rear-ported so I've made sure that they were a good 4 inches from the wall (Luckily, I have a solid brick wall). I've tried further distances (9-18 inches) but I didn't find the sound to my taste* (waaay too much boom, for one of a technical term ;)) and it was neither practical having the speakers a foot n' a half into the room (the missus went mental!)

*The living room is open plan and thus ajoined to the kitchen, so the acoustics of the room don't let me play with too much bass at volume (resonates like you wouldn't believe). I've sat the couch opposite the speakers to act as a bass trap, and usually draw the curtains if I'm listening seriously, which does help a lot but I'm limited to this setup until I bother to treat the surfaces.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doppleganger said:
Lovely set-up mate. :) However, are you like me and wishing you had went for the 46W now? :p
Click to expand...
Sort of.

At first the TV seemed massive, but it just seems 'normal' now :( I also think that 46 would have been the sweet spot, and i'm kicking myself because I had the money at the time of purchase to get the bigger 46!!
 
photoshop said:
not when there are 1TB drives out :)

Personally i keep my best tracks in .wav format
Click to expand...

if you like to waste money on uneccesary drive space go ahead and keep using wav files.

or discover the same quality experience with lossless in FLAC/APE.

to be honest 99.5% of people won't be able to tell the difference between a 192kbit-224kbit VBR Lame encoded file and it's wav version anyway even with pretty high end gear on most tracks.
 
photoshop said:
EVH

How much did all that setup set you back?
Click to expand...

Roughly...

Audiolab seperates = £2000
Audiovector Mi3 Speakers = £1200
Apollo Hi-Fi Rack = £200
AV Cabling, Stereo interconnects and accessories = £250
Sony KDL40W2000 TV = £1799 (with free stand)
PS3 = £425

Total = £5,874

...not including iPod, dock or mains surge protector :eek:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EVH said:
Roughly...

Audiolab seperates = £2000
Audiovector Mi3 Speakers = £1200
Apollo Hi-Fi Rack = £200
AV Cabling, Stereo interconnects and accessories = £250
Sony KDL40W2000 TV = £1799 (with free stand)
PS3 = £425

Total = £5,874

...not including iPod, dock or mains surge protector :eek:
Click to expand...



hmmmmm what car do you drive out of curiousity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom