The Official PC building thread - 4th Edition

The ole X38-DS4 still runs like a champ, and the Q6600 at 3.6GHz really pepped up in some applications and games when I added an 8GB 800MHz CL4 Corsair XMS2 kit last month. It used to hold 3.7GHz but finally degraded a bit. 3.6GHz is rock solid though. With the RAM upgrade it's easily enough to push the GTX760. Like no problems with the newest stuff whatsoever. Not near as fast as my Thuban in full glory, but still by far adequate for a mid range gaming PC. I got the RAM on ebay about the same time I got the GTX970 so it was like Christmas all over again upgrading both PCs, lol.

Everyone who has tried it has been impressed with how well the Q6600 rose to meet the upgrades. My secondary is a very respectable full power gaming PC again. Something of great joy to a certain friend who's been practically living at my house since we were in highschool, lol. The 8800GTS is put away for safe keeping. It will be missed.

Have replaced the old Tuniq 120 with the CM Hyper 212 Evo. Easily a comparable cooler, but more space efficient, quieter with the two Scythe 1600RPM fans, and has a far better mounting method. The Tuniq has a very poor mounting method for AMD. Allows the heatsink to shift all over. Just never move your PC and it's fine though, lol. It also had a hellishly loud 2000RPM fan which made me cringe if it ever ramped up. The two Scythe S-Flex 1600RPM fans at full speed 24/7 are far quieter and more pleasant. The bolt-thru mounting for the 212 Evo is excellent. Very very nice coolers, those.

I run all of my fans at maximum speed 24/7 barring GPU fans. I like to keep the noise tame but my PCs are far from silent or even quiet lol. No roaring blowers or anything, and a very consistent level of noise during all operations keeps it from becoming a bother. The pair of Delta fans I used before the H110 were a trip though, haha. Insane noise, but great performance. Ball bearings, lol. Both of my PCs are currently far from loud.

My case is about 4 years old, upgraded it heavily about a year or so ago. AMD Dragon plexiglass side panel replaced with a welded steel mesh panel. First with a 140mm fan hole then increased to a 250mm when my fans arrived.

 

I ran at 4.12Ghz for the first 2-3 years, then cut it back to 4.0, then 3.8 and now finally 3.6. I could probably still get away with 3.8 just fine, but one BSOD was enough to tempt me to drop it a bit more. If I had a Q6600 system running 4GB that was used regularly, I'd probably have done the same. It's a cheap enough upgrade, and it makes a difference.
I wish I'd bought a huge pile of S-flex fans when they still made them, they're better than almost any other fan I've used for balance of longevity, noise profile and performance. The slipstreams are more powerful but much less reliable. All the case fans in my server are the ones that came with it - there are no other fans in there apart from the PSU and the GPU and although the XFX HD4830 has a dreadful noise profile, it's still pretty quiet and gets drowned out by the case fans, which are fairly broadband and tolerable.

 

The GTX760 is the only card since the X850XT and 8800GTS I have been unwilling to sell. It's simply too good not to use. It's also far more power efficient than either and obviously FAR higher performance. Gave me as good a reason as any to beef up the Intel rig a bit and keep it running.

Also currently experimenting with a Creative Audigy 2 ZS card using analog audio out to the receiver. As expected my homemade cables are unshielded so very noisy at high volumes, but at low to mid volumes they are just fine. The sound card itself is proving far more stable than the X-Fi Fatal1ty Pro. X-Fi series cards simply do not like overclocked systems. Lots of weird issues. I am heavily considering a high clocked Intel whenever I decide to upgrade just to avoid this issue. With a proper set of high quality shielded RCA cables, I should be able to drastically reduce the noise.

I want to try a newer receiver with HDMI and compare that to the X-Fi. The X-Fi may just have a superior DAC and if that's the case, I want to use analog. But if the X-Fi isn't noticeably better, digital via HDMI is otherwise superior, and I don't need a sound card at all. So far the Audigy 2 ZS compares closely to the onboard Realtek HD on my motherboard. A newer receiver will tell more. Right now I'm leaning back to digital via optical until I can get an HDMI receiver. It can still do lossless stereo up to 48khz perfectly, and has much cleaner sound than my very poor homemade cables.

 

Yamaha RX-V663 scored on eBay for $140! This is a $550 MSRP 7.2 channel surround receiver that sells for ~$350-400 open box. A generation or two old now, it still supports all the latest audio/video formats barring 4K, and also offers a bi-amping option using the two side surround channels for power. It was one of the very best receivers in its class about 5 or 6 years ago, and has very good quality hardware. I would struggle to find this receiver's equivalent in more recent offerings having to pay new prices. Would likely pay $500+ to match it in quality.

Lacking are only a few non-essentials like wireless connectivity(available anyway through optional dongle from Yamaha) and it has a limited number of HDMI ports. Easily solved with an HDMI switch. It's by far modern enough for me. Still has Yamaha's newer DAC and amp design so it should sound pretty nice. Many professional reviewers cite its sound quality and power as a selling point despite a lack of other features(which I never intended to use anyway).

Extremely pleased with this purchase as I expected to pay at least twice as much if not more for this receiver or one like it. The used one I was watching on Amazon was $260. I have no doubts about its quality or capability. Its performance exceeds its stature.

 

Well, you have me jealous LOL!

 

Aaaaaaaand it's here! lol. Yamaha RX-V663. Frikking awesome in every way. Condition is a bit worn(my older Yamahas are slightly nicer) but it was in a non-smoking home, and the performance is much better than I could have imagined. The Bi-amp connections allow me to make use of the unused extra channels and really let these Polk Monitors rip. I was thoroughly impressed with them before, and now I'm not sure how to react. I only have so much surprise left in me before I just become numb from the over-stimulation, lol. They take every single drop of juice and just keep getting better.

The Polks also have by far the most noticeable break-in I have ever experienced on a piece of audio equipment. No placebo effect here. They have TRANSFORMED over the past few weeks. When I first tried them out, they were very tinny, empty, and deflated sounding. I was really confused as to why they sounded so bad. Then I discovered Oh WOW!!! TURN UP THE POWER AND THEY SING!!!!! I enjoyed them immensely when cranked, but found them very underwhelming at regular listening levels. After about 40-50 hours of hardcore high volume break-in, I just turned on the receiver one day, and this amazing sound like nothing I've ever heard started to come from these speakers. At low volume, with nothing changed. Simply from the break-in period, they have been drastically opened up, deepened, and sharpened.

They are now exemplary at all volume levels. I never knew the difference could be that huge. I have been made a FIRM believer in breaking in any new speakers now.

With the bi-amp hookups, they have improved even further still. Cleaner, punchier, and FAR more open and transparent sounding. Any color the speakers were adding to my sound is largely reduced. They will require a lot of listening hours before I'll be willing to give them a proper review. Suffice to say, they make the Sony's sound like a joke. Not even a fair comparison. Monitor 70s or a subwoofer seem to be a requirement though. Tight responsive, punchy bass, but not very much of it... I am by no means a bass head, but I simply need more low-end than the Monitor 60s offer on their own.

More watts per channel plus bi-amping means there is over twice as much power available to the front channels as was available from my old receiver. Immense changes to the sound and frequency response. My only complaint with the new Yamaha receiver is that Windows required a bit of fiddling to get proper surround sound out through HDMI, which was really more of a PEBCAK problem than anything, lol. Excellent piece of hardware.

It also deinterlaces 480i video and passes through all formats to HDMI with good results. No upscaling means no ugly issues like similar receivers seem to have. Amazing for DVDs on the PS2 and very nice for most of the games that don't use progressive. Including S-Video from the N64 if it's a 480i game like Rogue Squadron or Zelda. It simply works. Impressed by that. Video processing is usually iffy so that's fantastic.

One last thing, most reviewers say this receiver runs fairly cool. With single leads running to each channel this is very true. It barely gets warm. But when using the bi-amping option, it gets HOT. Easily as hot as the older Yamaha V595 when it was fully strained. I have taken steps to make sure it gets plenty of fresh air! The 595 was easy to overheat and cause a shutdown, but was in a bad spot for ventilation. The 663 is much better placed and more cleanly wired and hasn't skipped a beat so far. I can see why it still demands a high retail price as far as budget receivers are concerned. $140 was an absolute smash and grab. I would have to search far and wide to find a deal like this, and exactly the one I'd been eying for nearly a year. Would have to say I've found my final product for the time being.

 

Sounds like you're pretty happy. I, on the other hand, am jealous My stereo receiver is ~15yrs old :S Powerful, but an oldie LOL!

 

My previous receiver, the RX-V595A is extremely similar to your receiver Omega. Similar age and capabilities as far as connectivity and surround decoding go. Only basic ProLogic, DTS, and Dolby Digital. Awesome for when they were new, but now totally outmoded by DolbyHD, DTS Master Audio, and ProLogic IIz.

BTW proper surround on my Gamecube finally. It sends out an encoded ProLogic surround signal through its stereo RCA jacks. You need ProLogic II to properly decode it, though ProLogic I will still make an attempt at it. Most sources lose quality in ProLogic, but when properly encoded to use it, ProLogic is very comparable to basic Dolby Digital. Not bad at all.

Actual sound quality is hands down better on the newer model, especially optical which can finally play true 24/192 lossless. I am opting for HDMI though due to its ability to play PCM surround ala PC games. Musicality, however, is still very much up in the air. The older Yamaha had a very crisp, punchy quality to it, something to do with the way the frequency crossover curve was handled. It had a little more of everything. It just happens to line up all the right components to sound awesome with music. The newer Yamaha is more neutral sounding, a bit less aggressive. This is a bonus in another direction because you want your equipment to be as neutral as possible in the sound equation. Overall it's a definite improvement, but the older unit will be staying in my collection for the forseeable future. Just about everything can do optical or digital coax and the receiver will effectively decode any surround out there, just in lossy quality.

Another thing I love is that the newer receiver has a dedicated headphone amp mode with its own dedicated power curve and EQ. My headphones require their own low frequency crossover settings so that's appreciated Not particularly great headphones but solidly decent and easily enough to notice the difference. I needed a headset for gaming so a good choice. I use the receiver to run most of my gaming sound but for multiplayer I need a mic so the onboard sound fills that role. It's no slouch either though the Yamaha has obvious advantages.

 

Does anyone have a I5-3570K with windows 7...
I just picked up a cpu that is suppose to be a K...however under windows 7 computer properties it is not showing the K...
Would that be normal?..

 

You can't go wrong with Yamies and I prefer Optical normally, especially with older gear. You are better off staying around flat but you can tweak unit gains slightly if you're careful. Hope your Polks turned out OK too they sure are nice looking fore sure!

I re-ripped my CD music and I get the following however Neutron Player can't handle the high detail of WMA Lossless but my stereo system just loves it. I'm re-ripping to WMA Pro as it is the highest quality that Neutron will play of any format. These resolutions are much higher than FLAC but I did make FLAC backup images of all my CD's which works super.

WMA Lossless 24-bit Stereo 96KHz Songs run at 3300 Kbps to 3900 Kbps with file sizes of 130 MB to over 250 MB
WMA Professional CBR 440 Kbit/s 24-bit Stereo 96KHz file sizes run around 7 MB to 30 MB

Speaking of of CANS I just bought two new sets these for me:

Sennshieser M2 AEBT Momentum Wireless Ivory
http://en-us.sennheiser.com/momentum-wireless-headphones-with-mic

And these for mom:
Sennshieser MM550-X
http://en-us.sennheiser.com/wireless-bluetooth-headset-stereo-mm-550-x-travel

I've played with or bought BOSE, Beats, AKG, Sony's, Pioneer, and Koss mid-high-end cans and Senn's are the best hands down

 

Download and run CPUZ - that should tell you. The only difference with the K is an unlocked multiplier, so you can always find out by trying to overclock it

Mr-Movies: I use really cheap and basic Sennheiser headphones, HD202s. They see a lot of use and as such tend to need replacing every year like clockwork, but they're very comfortable and I personally find the sound quality very good considering - a little bass-heavy perhaps, but fine by me. I don't honestly think I'd get a proportional amount of wear or enjoyment out of anything several times more expensive, so I'm happy to just keep buying replacements, £25/year isn't really all that spendy considering the vast majority of my listening is through headphones rather than speakers.

 

I prefer optical as well now that I know the difference. But sadly it just can't do multi channel PCM from a PC so that's my one killer issue. For stereo sound it does every trick I need it to do. When using PCM surround though, my options are extremely limited due to the artificial limitations placed on optical. Dolby Digital Live software decoding is a poor substitute for DTS-MA or Dolby HD decoded by my receiver, and it can't do PCM surround at all.

Again, if I were using strictly home theater gear for this, none of those limitations would be an issue. Optical for everything would work fine as I don't have the layer of software DRM preventing its use or the need to play multi channel PCM. But because my PC is the main source for 99% of my audio, HDMI or analog out are the only options that offer everything I need. Even with good cabling analog tends to be pretty noisy, so HDMI is the only one I can bear to use.

The Polk Monitors are fantastic. Especially when bi-amping with the unused channels on my receiver. Far above my expectations. Massive power handling capabilities and crisp, life-like sound. I really couldn't have asked for more. I will however mention that the Monitor 60s seem to be a better balanced speaker, and I probably would have gotten slightly better results had I stuck with 4 60s and a subwoofer. 2 60s and 2 70s without a sub seems to get the job done though. Not really a complaint more than a nitpick. Considering selling the 70s and buying another pair of 60s with a sub.

 

Optical became a necessity for me when it was £250 for a receiver that would do 5.1 over optical and twice that for one that would do it over 3.5mm or RCA! More still for one with analog pre-outs, so forget that! It's not perfect, I find very occasionally the sound card and playback devices desync and have to be rebooted to send a signal - the stream pickup isn't instantaneous either so you can sometimes lose the first few dozen ms of a sound, but generally speaking sound quality is excellent so it's a reasonable compromise. If the desync issue was more prominent, I'd probably look at using something else, but the VSX-922 seems less prone to it than the Z-5500 control unit was.

 

Sam, optical is good but it cannot do PCM surround ala PC games. It also can't do anything above basic Dolby Digital from a PC without having licensed decoding software installed. Not entirely sure why this is, but that's the fact. I've found HDMI to be by far my best solution for sound. It has the quality of optical, but the raw sound format output of analog.

Other devices are another story. Say a BluRay player or game console, those will send any kind of surround over Optical due to the lack of the software layer in between.

All these limits I speak of are entirely due to decoding from a PC.

 

When I googled it, it seemed to be more to do with bandwidth, which surprised me with audio as I'd have thought it'd still be tiny compared to video, but there you go.

 

I've read that too but it seems not to be the case. My PS3 can play BluRays with DTS HD Master Audio over optical no problem. The receiver detects the proper bitrate and everything. My PC on the other hand cannot do any of the lossless surround formats through optical, and needs Dolby Digital Live enabled to output anything other than stereo.

I think bandwidth is an excuse for greed and pushing new formats. Even my Xbox has higher quality Dolby Digital audio through optical than the optical port on my PC is supposedly capable of.

Another good point. How is it that optical can handle a 3000+kbps stereo signal but can't handle a 1500kbps surround signal??? That's the case on my PC. It plays lossless music that's a higher bitrate than the surround it supposedly can't do...

 

Sounds more likely

 

Yeah the only reasonable conclusion I've come to is that S/PDIF(Optical and Digital Coax) is artificially limited on PCs, thus forcing our hand when purchasing home theater electronics. Have seen worse things done in the name of pushing newer formats. And we ALL know how against open usage the media companies are. They'd rather force us to buy dedicated hardware than allow us to use a semi-open platform like the PC.

I will note that I could stand to use a shorter HDMI cable. Am currently using a 25 foot cable meant for an earlier project that never went through. It's not great quality cable and the length means I get some video jittering on certain material. A high quality cable less than 10 feet would probably work much better. And if it affects my picture quality noticeably, I imagine it has some affect on sound as well. Testing with a much higher quality 6 foot Monster HDMI cable shows the cause of the video issue plainly, but I don't own that cable lol.

Probably making a trip to town for cables today haha. Also, the Polk Monitor Subwoofer is on sale open box at Best Buy. Heavily considering that.

Movies those headphones both look fantastic. Strongly considering investing in a quality pair of cans. Looking in the range of $200-400 a pair. My headphones don't get a terrible lot of use though. 9/10 times I prefer to use my speakers. Working at night means I usually don't have to be too careful with noise when I'm at home.

 

Ya optical isn't always the best solution and like you state HDMI is normally a better fit if that is an option you can utilize.

I did a little more research on your Polk's but haven't demo'd them so I was curious on your experience glad it worked out to be the best solution for you.

I also tried a $100 pair of Senn's and those were much better than the $170 BOSE and the Son'y's at that price. If I wanted to get by much cheaper I would have bought those but they were not wireless, which I could live with most of the time. Like you I also prefer listening to my speakers over can's but that isn't always an option, one benefit of working nights.

@Sam
The cheaper Senn's are what got me into the mid-high-end that I got. With mine the bass is more true to monitors, flat in other words, so they are not as bassy as the ones you have but the sound quality is much better, in fact very much, but at a magnitude of 14x the expense and being on a budget I don't blame you for going that route, I would do the same in your position. Now my mom's can's have SRS so they have close to the same quality of mid-high range sound but they have a more defined bass but it isn't mushy like Beats and AKG's are. Although I like good bass the whole sound envelope is more important to me and I'm going to use my headsets for bicycle trips so I really didn't want black which would get hot.

I was going to give the same advice as you did to the K version Unlocked Intel, very good advice.