2.1 or 5.1 For PC? ...>$300
Oct 28, 2008 at 6:09 AM Post #91 of 102
Oct 28, 2008 at 6:20 AM Post #92 of 102
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shizdan /img/forum/go_quote.gif
How would you rate my system ?


who cares how we'd rate it, what matters is how you rate it
beerchug.gif



although, if I had to say one way or another, I'd say thumbs up
esp given your budget
 
Oct 28, 2008 at 6:24 AM Post #93 of 102
Agreed. Your system will rock!

To better answer your pm, you'll use that single sub rca from one of the preamp outputs from the NAD to the white jack on the back of the sub then you'll need to adjust the crossover to where it blends just over the bottom end of your speakers.
 
Oct 28, 2008 at 6:27 AM Post #94 of 102
Upon further review I was just as guilty of forgetting it was vintage. This doesn't have a subwoofer pre-out. You'll want to call/email them and change it to a standard dual rca cable for the sub. Sorry about that. If you set it up like I said above you'd only get bass from 1 side!
redface.gif
 
Oct 28, 2008 at 6:31 AM Post #95 of 102
About the crossover, your speakers bottom out at 65hz which means they really bottom out audibly somewhere around 100hz most likely. I'd set your sub to 90-110hz and adjust from there.
 
Oct 28, 2008 at 6:33 AM Post #96 of 102
Quote:

Originally Posted by Maxvla /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Upon further review I was just as guilty of forgetting it was vintage. This doesn't have a subwoofer pre-out. You'll want to call/email them and change it to a standard dual rca cable for the sub. Sorry about that. If you set it up like I said above you'd only get bass from 1 side!
redface.gif



so this one?
 
Oct 28, 2008 at 6:35 AM Post #97 of 102
Quote:

Originally Posted by Maxvla /img/forum/go_quote.gif
About the crossover, your speakers bottom out at 65hz which means they really bottom out audibly somewhere around 100hz most likely. I'd set your sub to 90-110hz and adjust from there.


For the low pass filter?
 
Oct 28, 2008 at 6:36 AM Post #98 of 102
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shizdan /img/forum/go_quote.gif
so this one?


Yes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shizdan
For the low pass filter?


and Yes
 
Oct 28, 2008 at 5:06 PM Post #99 of 102
He finally ordered everything? Good to hear
biggrin.gif


You owe us some pictures and a review when you get it all hooked up, you hear me
wink.gif


One thing I'd note, is when hooking it up try the bypass through the MKII and directly to the NAD. You shouldn't hear a difference if the MKII is don't right but it's still worth checking in case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by obobskivich
and lol @ the rant on kevlar (i agree, just lol at it, how do you feel about B&W's 802 though?)


Personally, I prefer accuracy. B&W seems to have this philosophy that "we make music sound better". There's other companies believe in accuracy. I agree with the latter over the former.

However, having heard the 802s I can say they are extremely bass reliant for the impression of imaging. The midrange is there, but apparently easy to forget in comparison to the bass and trebles (the trebles of which are extremely well done).

Personally though, I really hate the balance on them. I much rather listen to a good pair of Martin Logans. Though, IMO most speakers are overpriced and redundant compared to a setup with good electronics.
 
Oct 28, 2008 at 5:26 PM Post #100 of 102
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Personally, I prefer accuracy. B&W seems to have this philosophy that "we make music sound better". There's other companies believe in accuracy. I agree with the latter over the former.

However, having heard the 802s I can say they are extremely bass reliant for the impression of imaging. The midrange is there, but apparently easy to forget in comparison to the bass and trebles (the trebles of which are extremely well done).

Personally though, I really hate the balance on them. I much rather listen to a good pair of Martin Logans. Though, IMO most speakers are overpriced and redundant compared to a setup with good electronics.


wow, and I feel exactly the opposite, after hearing the 802's on Classe amplification, I was really taken with them, logans have never seemed to me to be quite in the same league (although, I do feel the 802's are overpriced @ SRP)

but, to each his own, eh? (btw, just to qualify, i'm a complete basshead)
 
Oct 28, 2008 at 7:19 PM Post #101 of 102
Quote:

Originally Posted by obobskivich /img/forum/go_quote.gif
wow, and I feel exactly the opposite, after hearing the 802's on Classe amplification, I was really taken with them, logans have never seemed to me to be quite in the same league (although, I do feel the 802's are overpriced @ SRP)

but, to each his own, eh? (btw, just to qualify, i'm a complete basshead)


I'm sorry, I'm going to have to fix something. I listened to the 800D's, not the 802's so I'm not 100% sure how those sound. Sorry for any confusion
tongue.gif


Either way, I doubt bassheads would like Logans.
wink.gif
 
Oct 28, 2008 at 8:05 PM Post #102 of 102
Quote:

Originally Posted by Shike /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to fix something. I listened to the 800D's, not the 802's so I'm not 100% sure how those sound. Sorry for any confusion
tongue.gif


Either way, I doubt bassheads would like Logans.
wink.gif



the 800's are just everything the 802 is, but bigger and better (at twice-ish the price)

although, the twin 10" vs twin 8" might make enough difference in midrange tone to cause some mixed feelings

tis all good, both are great sounding speakers (B&W and Logans)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top