When it comes to gaming audio, most people are content to either run a gaming headset through their motherboard's in-built DAC, or use the headset's own DAC if it connects via USB. Sennheiser is looking to change that with its GSX series of dedicated gaming amplifiers. We have already looked at the GSX 1000, and it walked away with our ‘worth buying' award. Today we look at the GSX 1200 Pro – specifically designed for competitive eSports gamers.
What sets the Sennheiser GSX 1200 Pro apart from the GSX 1000 that we reviewed in February, is its integrated chat link. This essentially means you can connect up to 8 separate GSX 1200 Pros together for hardwired communication with your teammates – removing the need for Discord or other live-chat programmes. At £219.95, the GSX 1200 Pro is only £20 more than its smaller brother, but it is still a lot of money. Is this cash worth spending? Let's find out.
General specification
- USB standard: USB 2.0 full speed & USB audio 1.0
- Total harmonic distortion: 0.005 % THD @ -3dBFS
- Cable length: USB cable 1.2 m, chat cable 2.0 m
- Connector plugs: mini-USB socket, 3.5 mm headset socket, 3.5 mm microphone socket, 3.5 mm loudspeaker socket, 2.5 mm chat interface socket A, 2.5 mm chat interface socket B
- Compatibility: PC & Mac
- Warranty: 2 years
Audio outputs
- Headphones DC coupled & dual rail power supply
- Frequency response: 0 – 48.0 kHz
- Recommended headphone: 16 – 150 O impedance
- Max. output voltage 1 V RMS @ 32 O
Supported sample rates
- Main Audio 7.1: 44.1 kHz @ 16 bit
- 7.1: 48.0 kHz @ 16 bit
- 2.0: 44.1 kHz @ 16 bit
- 2.0: 48.0 kHz @ 16 bit
- Main Audio HD 2.0: 96.0 kHz @ 24 bit
- Communication Audio 1.0: 16.0 kHz @ 16 bit
Hello there.
Do you have any idea how our brain perceives audio ques?
I would presume not since you are saying that this is “not a real surround solution” because there’s only one driver on each side – that’s completely and utterly wrong.
1 or 100 drivers a side won’t matter, it’s the algorythm used for calculating the shadow of effect of the head that matters, and the implementation hereof.
This mistakes makes me question the validity of the entire review. Surely a reviewer should know this important detail.