Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Those Z-680's...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by fiLa
    my room is 3x6meters i hope that the cables are long enough. 7feet is about 2meters :/ as far as im correct...
    RedShadow has an agenda, and others seem misinformed, or misunderstanding.

    Ignore the bs, and enjoy your speakers.

    Comment


      #32
      the wires that come with the z680 are 3 meters for the front speakers and 4 meters for the rears. Which is far too short and I'm gonna have to get some longer ones to be able to route the cables via wall and ceiling

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by psh1ft
        Methinks there's some bias in what you say, RedShadow. You want to justify the overspend, go ahead, but don't expect me to buy it. Phrases like, 'absolute joke', 'lame wattage', and 'look like ***' betray the bs you're pedalling.

        Neither system, as you put it, is 'high-end'. I'm quite the audiophile, and have an eclectric range of speakers ranging in the thousands of dollars. They are 'high-end' - a whole set of speakers for a few hundred dollars are just entertaining.

        I've had plenty of experience with both systems. The satellites are identically capable, equally competent at the whole range. The subwoofer on the z-680 is 'muddy' - it sounds like a BOSE to me (!) - there's no getting around that; the z-5300 is a much more refined sound I'd genuinely compare to something worth the entire set's price. Regarding cabling, for this type of system, quite frankly you're wasting your money going for gold-threaded, but both would benefit from some improved cabling - however, for what they are, it's my opinion that they're adequately fitted out-the-box.

        Since that is all that affects the sound quality where these are concerned, the z-5300 is the better sounding system. If not, they're equal. To say the z-680 sounds 'FAR better' is a joke, and makes your position sound biased and inexperienced.

        The rest of the positives expounded in favour of the z-680 are merely superficial.

        The wattage on the z-5300 is more than sufficient - once again, you will probably never turn them to full volume as even half volume is overpowering - and they're just as rich at the so-called 'lower' volumes. Also, the z-5300 is just as distortion-free as the z-680 at the higher volumes (which you seem unaware of, RedShadow, yet you've apparently compared both). The extra power in the z-680 could have improved the quality, but it just hasn't been well utilized.

        The wireless remote is a gimmick. If you're sat at your desk, I fail to see the difference between wired and wireless.

        The onboard decoding is only really necessary if you're going to hook the speakers up to a dvd player, or something. Connected to a computer, the soundcard should be taking care of the decoding. Speakers should not be making up for inadequacies elsewhere, as I see it; first and foremost they are speakers: nothing more, nothing less.

        The physical appearance of the actual things couldn't be any more superficial. However, both sets look very good, but the z-680 has the edge with the improved 'control centre', the shiny feet and the grilled sub.

        Oh, and for your information, RedShadow, as THX-certified speakers, your z-680 will almost certainly need some equalizing on the bass. You seem to tout this as validation that the z-680 has the better subwoofer, but the fact is that all THX-certified systems are prone to this (due to the requirements that must be fulfilled for the certification) - and the z-5300 is no different. Again I have to question your claim to having validly compared both.

        --

        @PHaTASS - I didn't mean to word it in such a way as to say dual-chamber is the reason for z-5300's superiority. Also, to say for music you're better with the z-680 over the z-5300, I just don't understand. The satellites are very much equally capable of representing the full range, giving the same 'detail'. The z-5300 is not limited to games - it'll do anything the z-680 will, provided your soundcard isn't lacking.
        Hmm...as there are multiple others on this forum who will vouch for my argument that the Z-680's are worth 60 dollars more than a Z-5300, I'm inclined to think that YOU are the one who's "slightly" bias. Methinks indeed that, as you implied above, you don't actually HAVE a Z-680 and, as of thus, I'm obligated to be keen towards a slight feeling of inadequacy you must feel with your current PC set-up (which I'm very curious to hear about, as you have, apparently an "eclectric" range of speakers ranging in thousadns of dollars") I find it funny that you accuse me of overspending, yet you yourself spend a resounding "thousands" on speakers, being the awe-inspiring audiophile you are. As to why anybody would opt for a "range" of speakers (a range of immensely expensive speakers, as well), instead of maybe a couple speakers for a PC and home theater set-up confounds me.

        I don't see how my phrases like "absolute joke" betray the so-called bulls**t I'm trying to pull. I'm trying to "mistakenly manipulate", using my pre-aligned "agenda" (beware folks!!! once my perpetual reign of terror begins it shall never end) everyone at these threads that, in comparison to the Z-680, the Z-5300 is not worth precious money. Maybe the mere puerile quality of my online language might have belittled your sophisticated argument, so I'll take it up a notch as I see you've conferred with a thesarus since your last post . My description does the contrast justice, the Z-680's do sound FAR better. I underestimated the differntiation in sound quality between the speakers before trying both out, and was thoroughly surprised. Trust me, if I had honestly thought the Z-680 wasn't better than the Z-5300 for my previously mentioned reasons, I wouldn't have purchased it .

        And yes, both systems are high-end in the PC speaker system field, for your information. I'd really love to see you provide us with information as to more qualified PC speakers. As DarKnyt has exclaimed many times, it's simply not fair nor logical to compare PC speakers with those available to a home theater system consumer. And um...aren't all speakers supposed to be "entertaining," providing as powerful, realistic sound as possible?

        No, no, no NO. The satellites of the Z-5300 are not "indentically capable" to that of a Z-680 satellite. Wattage is power, and power determines the amount of pure, unadulterated a speaker is able to produce and output. The Z-5300 satellites maintain around 36 watts each, whereas the Z-680 sattleites maintain around 62 watts each. The Z-680's have much more potential, and your false, insufficient cliam that the satellites of our two systems are identically capable is absolute blasphemy. I'm beginning to doubt that you've apparently tested the speakers yourself, as you can arrive at such a pretentious conclusion by contradicting facts. Read any review online and you'll find that it'll probably concur with me on that specific matter.

        Without proper tweaking and configuration of the bass, the Z-680's subwoofer may sound overpowering, as you say, but it still retains it ominous and separation of bass outputs. This acclaimed subwoofer of the 5300, which you praise as "refined," is far too weak. It's as competent as a subwoofer I tested for the Altec Lansing 4.1's in the same store. It's too weak and it has a "treble-y" feel to it, as if I'm not attaining true bass with it, even at high volumes. Better to have too powerful of a subwoofer, than too weak of a subwoofer. I've compared the speakers myself, and, if you'd read numerous reviews, you'd come to see that I'm not the only one with that viewpoint. As a matter of fact, you're the only person I've heard to go so stubbornly far as to defiantly claim that the Z-5300's have BETTER soudn quality than the Z-680's. That implies as much bias and inexperience as me stating that the Z-680's are "FAR better," for in essence, both are simply different methods of exerting a similiar connotation.

        And in terms of the wiring, I meant to say that the Z-5300 comes with such short wires that attempting to set-up a surround sound experience with them will prove futile for most environments. And I'm surprised that an "audiophile" like yourself would classify gold-threaded wires as a waste of money. This invokes some serious doubt as to your credentials as an audiophile...

        It's funny how you say that, either the Z-5300's are better or equal to the Z-680's. Obviously, you can't conjure a clear thesis to your argument which tries to justify, quite erroneously, a Z-5300 over a Z-680. This furthuer proves how fallacious of an argument you are trying to present, impeded probably by your bias of Z-5300s.

        And, also, for most people's standards the wattage of the Z-5300 isn't sufficient. At high volumes, (which, if you're going to purchase high-end speakers like these, yes, high-end, you are definitely going to play sound at high volumes), the Z-680 maintains a substantially more crisp sound than the Z-5300. This is simply because of the mere power and force the Z-680's can exert. Again, read any reviews or consut people who ACTUALLY compared the two systems. I don't know how else to prove it to you, but it IS true. I'm not sure how you can exactly "waste" power that's already been measured through extensive sound tests, thus I'm not sure how your accusation of wasted power in the speakers exactly works out...

        And, have you ever heard of somebody ever listening to music without sitting behind their computer? I frequently put on some Bach and read on my bed, while the music plays. It's a very feasible concept and, therefore, a wireless remote (note the definition of "remote") isn't quite a gimmick. A wired remote? That's just a hilarious oxymoron. I'm not justifying this as making the Z-680 drastically better, I'm just contradicting your accustaion.

        And how can you claim a negative of the Z-680's as the onboard decoding, just because you say "tis the job of the sound card." I'm willing to wager that at least 75% of computer owners have a soudn card incapable of such DTS and Dolby decoding. Saying something liek "Speakers should not be making up for inadequacies elsewhere" is as ridiculous and plausbile as saying "homes should not compensate for inadequacies in the weather." So, if it's really cold outside, a GOOD house wouldn't provide heating alternatives, according to your logic.

        And the apperance of the speakers isn't as trivial as you claim. It shouldn't be a major factor in purchasing a product, but it does make an obvious difference to one's computing, gaming, movie-wathcing, etc. environment.

        I'm not forcing anyone to purchase the speakers. I'll surely recommend it to people and I'll give my reasons as to why it's a better investment than so-and-so speakers. Hell, I began this thread to simply clear up a couple irksome questions I had, but when people come on and, out of PURE bias and blind fanaticism, try to claim something that is quite simply INCORRECT, I'm going to point it out.

        EDIT: Wow, this is a very long post. I apologize....

        Comment


          #34
          You people actualy claim that it's worth the price of a top of the range CPU to get "ubar pwnage" sound?.. I got some semi cheap Creative 2.1 speakers.. "Creative Inspire 2800 2.1" Sure they are far from top of the line.. but when do you actualy tell the difference?... Most music nowdays is 128<->198kbps (or in my case alittle higher...) And remember that I still live with my parents.. (18 soon) so I cant pump up the volume that high before someone shouts at me.. =\

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by KriLL3
            You people actualy claim that it's worth the price of a top of the range CPU to get "ubar pwnage" sound?.. I got some semi cheap Creative 2.1 speakers.. "Creative Inspire 2800 2.1" Sure they are far from top of the line.. but when do you actualy tell the difference?... Most music nowdays is 128<->198kbps (or in my case alittle higher...) And remember that I still live with my parents.. (18 soon) so I cant pump up the volume that high before someone shouts at me.. =\
            I used to think the exact same thing. I had a nice set of those classic Labtech pulse speakers PC Gamer was so fond of back in the day.

            I just didn't realize I how **** they were till I had the Z-680's. Those little labtechs had a nice little woofer and sounded pretty cool. They shouldn't have even been called sound for the difference in quality there is. You really really need to find a set of Z-680's and demo them.

            It's like someone being incredulous that a X800 or 6800 can REALLY be that much better than their Geforce 2 MX. You just can't realize or comprehend until you have experienced it.

            Sound is perhaps the most immersive upgrade you can get - I still remember when I got my nice little pioneer HT system. We watched Monsters Inc. on a measly 27" tv but how sweet it was. I kept thinking someone was at the door behind me when it was just the rear surround. I now have that paired with a 50" Mitsubishi widescreen and I can honestly say that the surround sound made a much bigger improvement in my viewing enjoyment than the screen real estate. Sound has the capacity to truly immerse you and give you the feeling of being there.

            And as far as value compared to that top of the line proc - the CPU can't even compare. (Plus - a top of the line proc is more than DOUBLE what these are) In 6 months you'll be looking wistfully at another CPU and in just a couple years you'll want to vomit on your old dinosaur - not so with these speakers. This isn't the kind of upgrade you regret or become obsolete in 6 months.

            My little old labtechs lasted me almost 7 years - these puppies will do me for a decade I'm sure.

            Comment


              #36
              My CPU is a 2.0 P4 willamette @ 2.6 it's old and the FSB is 333mhz I think...

              And nope here a new 3.2Ghz P4 costs the same as a Z-680 set..

              Thouse labtech speakers you mentioned are hardly worth calling quality.. mines atleast creative and got a quite nice sub...

              I realy think getting good FSP is more immersive than getting cinema standard audio... (who likes a doom 3 slide show anyway?) and remember i'm on a tight budget.. I get 110~ $ a month from the gov becuse i'm a student... =\ so every $ counts

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by KriLL3
                My CPU is a 2.0 P4 willamette @ 2.6 it's old and the FSB is 333mhz I think...

                And nope here a new 3.2Ghz P4 costs the same as a Z-680 set..

                Thouse labtech speakers you mentioned are hardly worth calling quality.. mines atleast creative and got a quite nice sub...

                I realy think getting good FSP is more immersive than getting cinema standard audio... (who likes a doom 3 slide show anyway?) and remember i'm on a tight budget.. I get 110~ $ a month from the gov becuse i'm a student... =\ so every $ counts
                I think about it this way...if I was playing Doom 3 and I ONLY received sound output from my computer and was void of graphics, I would still be absolutely petrified and would most probably soil my pants. Without sound, I don't think the same can be said. But without sound, I could still really enjoy PLAYING THE GAME, instead of sitting there like an absent-minded fool...

                Ultimately, you can't really compare graphics and sound. Sound is, in my opinion, more immersive, but graphics is more satisfying. They both are essential for entertainment. It's ridiculous to try compare the two...

                Comment


                  #38
                  I got sound but not THX certified 5.1

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by KriLL3
                    I got sound but not THX certified 5.1
                    I understand, I was simply trying to provide a perspective from each extreme side of the....graphics/sound spectrum :bulb: .

                    Oh, and try to actually bask in the goodness of THX certified 5.1 sound and then see if you can say that "there is no difference," ESPECIALLY with that 2.1 set-up of yours (which isn't bad at all, but is a major contrast).

                    EDIT: Oh, and I odn't believe "uber pwange!11!" sound is nearly the price of a top-range CPU....That was a very naive statement.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by KriLL3
                      My CPU is a 2.0 P4 willamette @ 2.6 it's old and the FSB is 333mhz I think...

                      And nope here a new 3.2Ghz P4 costs the same as a Z-680 set..

                      Thouse labtech speakers you mentioned are hardly worth calling quality.. mines atleast creative and got a quite nice sub...

                      I realy think getting good FSP is more immersive than getting cinema standard audio... (who likes a doom 3 slide show anyway?) and remember i'm on a tight budget.. I get 110~ $ a month from the gov becuse i'm a student... =\ so every $ counts

                      Sure - depends on what you mean by top of the range. 3.2 ain't top of the range and hasn't been for a while. A 3.4 Prescott is about double the Z-680's and that's not pricing the 3.4 EE or the FX-51 and 53.

                      But now we're just being picky.

                      I'll agree that you need good FPS to enjoy the game - but this isn't multiplayer where FPS is king. My comparison was a little different too - comparing screen size to sound quality. A good balance is probably best and given your limited budget, the Z-680's probably aren't in your price range. That doesn't mean they wouldn't be a good investment, just that you've got more important things to spend your limited money on than just gaming stuff.

                      T

                      Comment


                        #41
                        'scuse the delayed reply, but I've been more than a little busy.

                        Currently, this computer's hooked up with Swans 5.1PHT! I have some Martin Logan Aerius i speakers, too - electrostatics. These are high-end, though not quite B&W Nautilus, eheh. I don't understand the reasoning behind not comparing the z-680 with such speakers. They are simply speakers, and can all be hooked up one way or another to the exact same outputs.

                        Without bothering with your points in that excessively long (and largely nonsensical) post, Redshadow, I'll just restate my point.

                        The z-680 and the z-5300 are very much comparable as regards to sound quality. The satellites really do sound the same (to me, at the very least), and the z-680's sub is not overpowered, but muddy, unclear, indistinct. To my ear, the z-5300's sub is a more refined sound, and as such, preferable - if for you, that means it's lacking in power, so be it.

                        You must at least conceed that they are in the same band of 'entertaining' speaker; better than average 5.1. This is ultimately my point; the z-680 isn't really so far removed from the z-5300, like, say, the Nautilus from the z-680. Given that, it's quite likely some will prefer the z-5300 over the z-680.

                        For almost half the price and a very comparable sound, if you don't want or need the extras of the z-680, the z-5300 is a very attractive alternative.

                        Aside: as for bias and blind fanaticism: hah hah hah. I wouldn't touch either set of speakers with an exceptionally long stick, thank you very much. ;]

                        Also, for me, good FPS is on a par with sound as far as gaming goes. Being enveloped in the sound draws you into the game, and really does make it a more immersive, involving experience. No 2.1 system can pull you in like 5.1. I geniunely pity anyone planning to play Doom 3 on anything less.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X