Agozer Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Some people prefer Foobar over Winamp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdy Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Some people prefer Foobar over Winamp.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I like both but I use winamp because of jammix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agozer Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Some people prefer Foobar over Winamp.I like both but I use winamp because of jammix I use Winamp because of SNESAmp. Although Foobar does have it's own SPC plugin, SNESAmp has more features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shibathedog Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Thats not necesarily true, plus if you notice with surround sound its a bunch of tiny speakers instead of 2 more powerful ones. Its just not going to sound as good, it does what its supposed to do very well, but that doesnt include accurate sounding music, especially if you want loud. And whatever you do dont go Bose, Bose is poop, being surrounded in like 35 tweeters with a fancy EQ effect applied to the amp to make them sound like big speakers is just dumb I dont even like the idea of a subwoofer too much, two 3-way floorstanding speakers and a decent amp should be all you need. But ive heard some decent stereo setups that use them. I think a really good stereo setup, that would blow most setups out of the water is a pair of Klipsche KF-7 floorstanding speakers, a Denon DRA-685 Amplifier, and of course, wire it up with monster cable , as for a CD Player, Denon also offers some high quality products there. of course if you want REALLY good sounding stuff, you gotta buy a Pre-amp, Poweramp, and EQ instead of just an all in one receiver, and if your goin to do that you can probably do better than KF-7s too (although they are VERY nice speakers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdy Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 IMO, it's better with pc's because all you need is a pci or usb sound card in order to get good sound + decent speakers or headphones btw, I just tried DFX for winamp again and I must say...just...ew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shibathedog Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 yeah, but its not going to sound as good as a real stereo. Its definitley easier to go surround sound on a PC than a home theatre system though. You can get surround sound cards that sound amazing for like 50 bucks, and speakers for like 300-500 (actually you probably could for like 200 but meh) With a home theatre system it would be like 500 for a really good amp at LEAST, and can be like tons of money per speaker if your buying something really good, like 500+, even if you went with something moderate all the speakers would be like 500 together. I remember even when i upgraded my sound card from whatever it came with just to some 30 dollar card the difference was amazing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 For a complete surround sound system you can spend anywhere from $200 for a complete system to $200,000 for a set of speakers. The price can go as high as your wallet. As for music in surround sound, it's amazing. Yes from and audience perspective stereo is the way to go, but if you want an in the music perspective then surround is the way to go especially for orchestral. Orchestral music is about setting a mood and when you are surrounded by the music you feel eveloshed in it, and it is just an amazing feeling. I also love listening to the Blue Man Group in surround sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now