/vr/ - Retro Games

>>5953651
what you personally want, coordinated with what you are willing to pay for and set up

>>5953651
Do your research because if you're looking for a pair without having an amp look for powered bookshelf speakers. The problem with powered bookshelf speakers if you need optical, a remote control, or sometimes even aux. I bought these and have been pretty happy with them: https://www.amazon.com/Edifier-R1280DB-Bluetooth-Bookshelf-Speakers/dp/B0719C132V/ref=zg_bs_3236451011_4/141-5375633-9952602?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=T0N7AZY0AADZPJYZ21R6
Has everything I needed, and sound pretty clear. I'm in an apartment, so these are perfect for me, but they're not very loud.

$300 -$400 self-powered monitors/bookshelf speakers would be the minimum

>people had good audio systems back in the day
Noooooooooooope

>>5953651
The bare minimum is what you can afford. I think bookshelfs sound great compared to just regular computer speakers, but a lot of people just get by with shit like logitech's speaker sets. Some games have support for surround sound, but 2.0 or 2.1 stereo is going to be the bare minimum since that will be beneficial for just about every game. I use these
https://www.amazon.com/Fluance-Bookshelf-Amplifier-Turntable-Bluetooth/dp/B07CLDGXX1/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=fluance+ai40&qid=1571301533&sr=8-3

word of warning, these particular speakers are not magnetically shielded so make sure you have some space between your TV and the speakers if it is a CRT.

>>5953651
Just use headphones.

>>5953697
Granted, but the speakers on CRT tvs were actually much better quality than the ones on modern LCDs.
In favor of a thin bezel-less display, they use tiny speakers that are pointed downwards or sometimes even away from the listener without proper vents for the sound to travel properly.
CRTs on the other hand, had big fucking speakers because the tv was already fuckhuge, so what's a couple of speakers gonna do?

>>5953651
What is the bare maximum information quality that could be accepted by your brain? I can give you all sorts of details but you might not even understand what the words mean.

>>5953651
I set up a cheap technics receiver with some cheap monitor tannoys for like 80$ combined and they work great. Just gotta figure out how to play NES music on both channels

>>5953845
of course I'm talking about a used gear, preferably bought locally on swap meets and craigslists. There are SHITTONS of great sounding amplifiers from 80s and 90s for dirt cheap.

Would you say a subwoofer is essential to a soudsystem?

>>5953941
Depends on what you're listening to. Back in the 90s I knew a guy who liked to use Blast Corps to show off his sound system because the level select screen had this obscene bass drop regular speakers couldn't do justice. You can probably find one for next to nothing if you look at thrift stores.

>>5953941
For a stereo system? Not really. Two good speakers should be everything you need. For a surround system? There's probably more of an argument to be made, since it'll be mixed with one more explicitly in mind.

>>5953845
Split your audio signal and just dump mono into all channels
>>5953846
Any older Sony, Onkyo, Audio Technica, Nakamichi equipment is very solid. Even starting into boutique brands should be just fine like Bose, Wulf etc. you’ll have a good experience regardless if you aren’t looking for something super high fidelity and if you aren’t picky about it. Just stay away from older Yamaha and Panasonic stuff. Not that it’s bad but the good stuff from those brands is exceedingly rare and usually quite expensive or broken in my experience. And it’s usually easier to find the other brands if you’re stateside.

>>5953941
Do you like bass? Just a yes or no to that gives you your answer really. I don’t personally have a subwoofer on any of my TVs but some people like having heavy bass and that’s Ok. I’m also not big on surround sound when watching movies, I just have a little 2.1 onkyo setup on my big screen and something similar in the bedroom and media room. I don’t personally think anything more is ever really necessary

>>5953941
Subs are great, they won't jump out and steal the show but you will recognize it subconsciously and you will feel more immersed.

>>5953697
this, my gaming was done on my 15 inch crt with its built in speakers in my bedroom (unless it was late at night then I used the headphone jack on my tv)

>>5953662
>bluetooth
Dropped

>>5953651
>bare minimum for sound quality that should be accepted for retro gaming?
Is this really how you view your hobbies? Kind of sad.

>>5954359
So anything that has BT should be dropped? Damn, guess I will toss my receivers in my home. Marantz, Sony and Arcam all are being trashed. Also my phone and computers. Fuck my cars too.

MINIMUM standard for good quality audio: two channel line input amp/receiver, FLOOR STANDING speakers spaced 25°-35° apart from viewing position for maximum stereo soundfield.

>>5953651
Good Onboard speakers should be considered the bare minimum.

I have an old Pioneer Rear Projection that has decent sound. That's probably what the developers expected the customers to have.

So pretty much any Two Way speaker with a brand you would recognize would suffice.

>>5954365
You COULD use bluetooth for audio. If you’re an idiot, I mean.

>>5953989
That isn't what subs are for? wtf? You clearly are not an audio person.

>>5953941
Yes. Even my top of the line supertowers don't go as low and clear for reproduction. You need a sub if you expect to have clear audio below 200hz at all volumes. You can avoid the woofer shaking the house too if you want. Spatial and clarity are important, even in headphones. Subs are needed and anyone that thinks otherwise needs to stop comparing a 2.1 HTIAB to respectable audio equipment (even cheaper shit)

>>5954374
BT for sending audio is fine. You are the idiot, sweaty. This isn't BT 2.0 with compression or latency anymore. Educate yourself. Even more, those speakers even have copper and rca connections. If you had half a brain you would have known that BT is an option.

>>5953651
I use the Klipsch THX Ultra2 setup to listen to my 2 channel compressed chiptunes from the 90s. Anything else is pathetic.

>>5954378
Yes and that’s exactly what I’m pointing out. No need to be an asshole. But most people don’t care about the extra bass a sub provides. If you do great, but you won’t miss it if you have good bookshelf speakers. There’s lots of really high end 2.1 sets that don’t have a separate sub. Stop trying to be a snob when you don’t even know what the fuck you’re talking about

>>5954378
Now look at this you little shitheel, a highly rated bookshelf speaker for $30. Speakers aren’t expensive things until you look at stupid high end stuff. You can go to literally any goodwill or Salvation Army and get a nice receiver to clean up and use with these too.

https://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-b652-6-1-2-2-way-bookshelf-speaker-pair--300-652

>>5954382
I mean...if your thing is lossy audio anon, more power to you...

>>5953697
Does it really matter what people had back in the day? It’s the same reason people pick a PVM over a bargain bin CRT with unfixed geometry, it’s just a more pleasant way to play. Also >>5953804 is quite correct. Speakers on older TVs were better because they had much more space to work with. Not that it’s impossible these days to make surprisingly decent thin speakers, but all but the most expensive sets don’t bother. Just look up the size and wattage of old sets versus newer ones if you’re curious. Many nicer CRTs also had built-in subwoofers, which adds a lot to the sound.

Personally I use a pair of JBL satellites I found in the basement when I was a teenager from an unknown surround set with an Acoustic Audio subwoofer I got on the cheap from Amazon. The JBLs especially sound shockingly good, and unless you’re listening to music or cranking the bass, just about any old brand of subwoofer is fine. Just make sure you match up your amp to your speakers properly.

Personally my set doubles for modern systems and movies as well, but if you’re a fancy boy maybe you have separate ones. I will say I’ve found the subwoofer is not especially important just for retro games, but it’s still nice.

>>5954359
Not retro enough for you? Dumbass. The Bluetooth is optional. It has 2 AUX Lines and 1 Optical. The only that it's missing is phono in case you want to hook up a turntable.

>>5954370
This. Anything over a 2.1 system is needless for a console game that isn't a romhack. Go to 5 or 7 if you're putting together something for movies, but you can get a good 2.1 for a nice price.

>>5954591
Even for movies (or 7th gen forward AAA games, which have similar sound mixing), I really consider 3.1 to be the sweet spot, not 5.1. The 3.1 being two stereo speakers, one center channel for dialogue, then the sub. If you’re in a small space where you’ll always be the only person watching from the dead center of the stereo image, the center channel is not necessary, but if there’s any variation in where you’ll sit or potential for multiple people to watch, a center channel will anchor the dialogue to the screen, which makes for a better experience anywhere other than directly in the middle of the two stereo speakers. I’ve got 2.1 in the bedroom and 3.1 in the living room, personally. I never cared much for surround sound, the screen is only in front of me so sounds coming from behind me just seems gimmicky and distracting. I know most people will disagree but it’s a valid option if you feel the same way. Even if you’re indifferent to surround, I’d try 3.1 for your main setup.

>>5953651
>sub 20khz audio quality
>needing good speakers
the only benefit you'll get is tinnitus from pure saw and squarewaves if your system has a good dac

>>5954838
You can’t hear over 20kHz anyway, there is absolutely no difference.

>>5953941
Not essential, but strongly preferred.

>>5954591
>Buy a 2.1
>So you can get a 5/7 later for other stuff
lmfao at you retard.

Thankfully no one really cares about audio equipment any more, so you can get good gear relatively cheaply on the classifieds and build a 2.1 system for 50-100.00 that will demolish onboard tv speakers, soundbars, and hold up to the newest hi-fi gear. .

These were 750.00 new back in the day. Speaker technology/design really hasn't evolved that much, even considering the latest state-of-the-art design methods and philosophies.

People are basically giving away home theater receivers from the 80s-00s. You can find a quality Denon, Onkyo, Pioneer from that era with a beefy power supply for 20-50.00.

My BARE minimum.

Japanese bubble economy amplifiers, like the Pioneer Exclusive line. https://audio-database.com/PIONEER-EXCLUSIVE/amp/m7-e.html

With matching pre-amp: https://audio-database.com/PIONEER-EXCLUSIVE/amp/c7-e.html

Driving a pair of Soundlab Electrostats.

>>5955554
damn nice find

>>5955625
Didn't grab them. Just did a quick search on OfferUp to see what's out there. If you're in SoCal/Riverside area, they're there for the taking.

>>5955541
>I'm a renter so everything I own needs to do 47 different things
>two receivers might just bankrupt me

Lmfao

>>5955639
This is a pathetic reply. Try again, sweaty.

>>5955649

Have property

>>5954838
You know theres like atleast 10 disc based systems?