Best 2.1 computer speakers for music

[jax360]

I will have to agree with the consensus here and say that the Klipsch Pro Media would be a superior choice. The iFi.... if you have the money.... would be like kicking the Pro Media up a couple of notches. I personally own the Logitech Z680s and they thump. I must say however that it is not in tune with some music. I have the bass all the way down on the controls and it still sounds too "boomy". For bass heavy rap or drum and bass I am loving it..... cant say the same for my neighbors. But for other music I wish the Z680s had a little bit more... finesse. Klipsch... Pro Media or iFi.... will give you the finesse along with the power.

 

[gahleon]

Man I dunno, I have heard some amazing speakers and a decent pair of creative i-trigues I think that they are a great bang for the buck. They sound really good? Every used them with xfi card or are you just saying sound quality sucks?

 

[jax360]

I bought a set of i-Trigues for my sister and I must say they sound great. I was a little disappointed that the bass started to lose itself and the midrange became to pronounced as you turned the volume up. For light listening in a small room... say college dorm.... its perfect. I like it loud.... thats why I got the Z680s. I still will say that the Klipsch are the most well rounded set you can find in 2.1 audio if you got the loot. For the budget minded the Creative i-Trigues are good alternatives. To tell you the truth the only way you will know what you like with audio is to go to a store like Best Buy or Circuit City and listen to the bastards. Forget the specs.... its all about the sound.

 

[astrallite]

not many speakers can compare at that price, especially if your rock fan!!

Yeah well, that was kind of my point. From an objective point of view, hifi is about "accuracy." Klipschs are anything but accurate on their high-end, it's an acquired taste. If you listen only to rock and like how they exaggerate the midrange, all the best to you, sound is subjective. But if you listen to a wider range of music, those exaggerations will create listening fatigue in music with wider dynamic range. Accuracy or flavor, versatile or genre specific. These are all things you need to look at when purchasing loudspeakers.

 

[pharoah]

personally id say crap on computer speakers and get a real sound system
i run a 500 watt suround sound reciever with a home suround speaker package sounds better than any computer specific speakers ive ever heard

 

[astrallite]

personally id say crap on computer speakers and get a real sound system
i run a 500 watt suround sound reciever with a home suround speaker package sounds better than any computer specific speakers ive ever heard

Yeah but no one knows what you are talking about when you shake the "wattage" e-peen because that just walks right with the multimedia speaker lingo--wow 500W! And RMS too, that's the important thing!

More like, things what satellite speakers can't provide, such as
1) wide dispersion (vertical or horizontal...sounds like its coming from a point source rather than from a real "sound stage")

2) large sweetspot (small midrange drivers beam forward like lasers)

3) low distortion (you don't seriously think its playing 110db cleanly do you?)

4) Linearity (your neighbors are annoyed when you turn up your computer speakers...whereas someone else can turn up more accurate home theater speakers (that reaches higher, and digs deeper) to much higher sound pressure levels without annoying the neighbors...because it doesn't have those random +20db upper bass peaks that sound like one note bass knocking through the wall)

 

[Guest]

I gotta agree with that. Dumping megawatts of power means nothing if it is in the form of heat for example since what we care about is acoustic energy. What really matters here is not the total power output but the power that is actually turned into audio and that will depend on the total power out AND the efficiency of the electromechanical transducers, ie the loudspeakers, and whatever is lost in passive filters, interconnects etc.

I think Astrallites point here is valid especially considering the current PC speaker and car audio speaker markets since it is here that marketting depts act nearly criminal in specmanship. The power ratings without some form of qualification regarding the efficiency of the conversion is rather meaningless. In fact when I see power ratings with no further qualifications about the performance my imediate assumption is that the manufacturer has something to hide.

Of course the other part of the story is the accuracy....but that is another matter.

 

[maxxum]

Best 2.1 speakers, will be used in a bed room on a desk. Sound card will be X-Fi Xtreme Music. Almost exclusivly music, some gaming and video, but not enough to wave my decision of going 2.1. Under $150.

I was looking at the Logitech z-2300s or the Klipsch Promedia 2.1. But then I also found a deal for the Klipsch iFi speakers that can be riged for a computer. What should I pick, or is there something else that is better.

Another factor, is that i listen to about 100% mp3 files at a 128 bitrate. What effect does this have on what I should buy? Is there a better way to get better quality music from CDs and torrents?

First, speaker choice is highly individualistic; what may sound good to one person may not to another. There are some general rules though that will help you decide. First, no self respecting professional will recommend Bose. Any company that refuses to publish specs (performance) on their equipment should always be suspect. Next, there is a reason they call their ‘sub’ woofer an Acoustimass – it’s because legally they cannot because it cannot attain the frequencies required of true subwoofers.

Anyway, look for speakers with a dB higher than 89 and typically they start at $300 Pr. and those are not very good. To attain anything really close to what that card is capable of you’ll need to spend at least $500, seriously. That’s why I don’t really understand why people spend 200+ on sound cards when they put cheap 100 speakers on their systems. Buying a set of 100+ headphones is really the way to go if you want anything close to the quality capable by that sound card.

 

[pharoah]

well then lets be more specific pioneer model vsx-d412 reciever and that would be 500 watts rms (laymen terms 500 watts continuous output not peak) and bose surround speakers http://www.crutchfield.com/S-GrIIdHDwe5m/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?g=12700&I=018AM10S3B

i do realize this persons budget is lower than what i listed here but a simple 2 speaker setup with a stereo reciever would still be better and higher quality than just about any speaker system that is computer specific although if i were to buy computer specific speakers get klipsch

 

[jax360]

Pharoah, I must say that is a nice setup you got there. Excellent receiver and great speaker package. Though I am not a diehard fan of Bose I cant deny that they make great sounding products.... sometimes. As for the your receiver being 500 watt of continuous power, I couldnt help but notice the specs and the way the wattage was tested. According to the specs on the Crutchfield website:
--Stereo Mode Power 100 Watt @ 8 ohm, 20 Hz - 20 kHz, THD: 0.2% --Surround Mode Power 100 Watt @ 8 ohm, 1 kHz, THD: 1%

Unfortunately the 100 watts produced in stereo mode is not equal to the same 100 watts in surrond mode. In actuality if the surrond mode was to be tested the same way the stereo mode was test, you will find that the wattage output would be smaller than the listed 500 watts. Though this is a minor thing I will still say that your system is still better than most PC speaker configurations.... more versatile too.

 

[clue69less]

Another factor, is that i listen to about 100% mp3 files at a 128 bitrate. What effect does this have on what I should buy? Is there a better way to get better quality music from CDs and torrents?

I second the recommendation on tha Altec Lansing 2.1's. I got a set a few years ago and you wouldn't believe all the people that comment about how excellent they sound.

WRT ripping CD's, there is a ton of literature out there about the sound vs. bitrate, etc. I know that without VBR, I can hear the difference between 128 and 256 on my Altec Lansings and even more on my big stereo system. With VBR encoding, 128 sounds much better to my ears. I am currently ripping at 192kHz with VBR on. Sounds good to me! If I remember right, you can only buy at 128 through services like itunes, right?

 

[jax360]

Well purchased iTunes tracks are encoded in 128kbs but its AAC format which is more efficient and sounds better at 128kbs than MP3. AAC, though a more superior format to rip CDs to, is not widely supported.... except if you have an iPod. I am starting to see some after market car stereo systems with AAC support however.

 

[clue69less]

Well purchased iTunes tracks are encoded in 128kbs but its AAC format which is more efficient and sounds better at 128kbs than MP3. AAC, though a more superior format to rip CDs to, is not widely supported.... except if you have an iPod.

Sure, but even though 128AAC is a bit more efficient, to my ears it can't compete with 192VBR. With disc space being cheap and MP3 players having huge memory, the additional space required is meaningless to me because if the music sounds noisy, I won't listen as much.

I hear people gripe about AAC and needing itunes but to me it's really no big deal. I've heard of better music software but haven't messed with it much in the last couple of years. Since iTunes allows VBR, it's fine for me!

 

[astrallite]

Interesting Bose info:

http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html

http://liquidtheater.com/editorial_56.html

Disclaimer:

Bose is obviously in a very interesting position in the audio market. They've never followed major audio trends (but the one constant always been accuracy, and they aren't into that either).

However, they are a very good business. They market their speakers against home theater in a boxes against import giants like Sony, Yamaha, Onkyo, etc.

These companies used to actually lead the world in audio design, but partly thanks to the collapse of the world monetary system in the 70s, where the US demanded currency depreciation against the rest of the world so it could be more competitive in the world market (or it would impose massive trade barriers), every other country had to appreciate its currency (hurting US importers). This is part of the reason why the Japanese import giants mostly sell cheap stuff here nowadays, but you'd never see these products in Japan.

On to the more important point, which is these companies dominate the low end, and with the long standing market penetration, everyone (under the age of 50 anyway, who had a clue at some point) thinks these are "normal" for speakers, rather than bookshelves and floorstanders which dominated loudspeakers until the 1980s. Bose today simply sells a slightly better product, and at a marked up price. Comparing the two makes it easy to see Bose is better. Bose is in this position because they achieved market penetration back in the 70s, when they actually had an audio mantra (stereo everwhere) rather than just selling a priced-up "me too" product.

Have I heard Bose? Yeah. Have I owned Bose? Yeah, but only the low end 2.1 Mediamate speakers, and those (as I look back to my foolish days) were horribly overpriced, but had the Bose name.

Do they "suck?" That's a value judgement. Some people buy it for decor (I believe it's called Wife Acceptance Factor). Some buy it because they heard its good, from a friend, on Time magazine, or the Shopping Network. If you are happy with it, your say is the last. If you are trying to achieve audio nirvana, well, I *IMO* think you could do better for the same money or even a lot less.

 

[jax360]

Sure, but even though 128AAC is a bit more efficient, to my ears it can't compete with 192VBR.

Agreed. But what if we did 128VBR with AAC........ would you still be able to hear the difference. I dont think so but I sure would like it if the iTunes music downloads were at least 192kbs AAC.... sounds like over kill but I want to download the best quality (hell I am paying for it) and sync it to my player at a lower bit rate (like transcode it on the fly like it does with the iPod Shuffles).

 

[clue69less]

Sure, but even though 128AAC is a bit more efficient, to my ears it can't compete with 192VBR.

Agreed. But what if we did 128VBR with AAC........ would you still be able to hear the difference. I dont think so but (snip)

About a month ago, I picked the 128VBR AAC from 192VBR non-AAC on four out of five tunes using Sennheiser HD580s. The 192 sounded less edgy, grainy, whatever you wanna call it. I could not reliably tell the diff between 192VBR AAC and 192VBR non-AAC.

 

[wilsonl]

I think it must be difficult, no, impossible to tell another person what speaker is better or `which one is the best for them. Seeing that the audio experience takes place inside of our head and since each person is different, with different ideas, values, perceptions, priorities and way of thinking it has to be an insult to tell another person that what one hears, through their audio experience, that takes place in side of their being is what others should hear from their audio experience that is taking place inside of their being.

Worse, is to say that something is wrong with one person’s value judgment if there audio experience with any given speaker is not the same as someone else’s.

When we collectively talk about speakers, we express our own audio experience, as it occurred/s inside of our own mind. That the other person expresses a different experience is natural, correct and just as valid as everyone else’s. The only person that buy the best speaker for him or her self is that person! No one can hear for them! Yes they can let someone else chose for them, but in that case they will end up with the other persons values, not their own!

Some people may be happy with that, but to me it is like letting someone else chose your
Spouse for you.

 

[clue69less]

I think it must be difficult, no, impossible to tell another person what speaker is better or `which one is the best for them. Seeing that the audio experience takes place inside of our head and since each person is different, with different ideas, values, perceptions, priorities and way of thinking it has to be an insult to tell another person that what one hears, through their audio experience, that takes place in side of their being is what others should hear from their audio experience that is taking place inside of their being.

That's true. Mood is a key component too. Some components can sound different from a competitor without either being necessarily better.

 

[jax360]

About a month ago, I picked the 128VBR AAC from 192VBR non-AAC on four out of five tunes using Sennheiser HD580s.

Now did you test this with all the same tunes encoded in each format from the same source? If not then I dont think that was a fair test. The thing is to have a track encoded in 128VBR ACC and 192VBR non ACC. Non AAC..... I hope you mean MP3 because there are many other audio formats out that that support Variable Bit Rates. Besides thats what we were originally comparing.... right? :?

 

[astrallite]

I think it must be difficult, no, impossible to tell another person what speaker is better or `which one is the best for them. Seeing that the audio experience takes place inside of our head and since each person is different, with different ideas, values, perceptions, priorities and way of thinking it has to be an insult to tell another person that what one hears, through their audio experience, that takes place in side of their being is what others should hear from their audio experience that is taking place inside of their being.

Worse, is to say that something is wrong with one person’s value judgment if there audio experience with any given speaker is not the same as someone else’s.

When we collectively talk about speakers, we express our own audio experience, as it occurred/s inside of our own mind. That the other person expresses a different experience is natural, correct and just as valid as everyone else’s. The only person that buy the best speaker for him or her self is that person! No one can hear for them! Yes they can let someone else chose for them, but in that case they will end up with the other persons values, not their own!

Some people may be happy with that, but to me it is like letting someone else chose your
Spouse for you.

I think you are confusing informed purchases with uninformed ones. Yes, it's anyone's right to buy and enjoy whatever he wants. That goes without saying.

IF they auditioned it against what they have or made side to side comparisons, they are free to believe whatever their mind tells them--that's individual subjectivity. Also, if you purchased it based on a specific need, such as WAF--wife acceptance factor--and it fits your needs, then you've done your homework.

Now the issue here is people who simply buy what they saw in Time Magazine or the Shopping Network "as the best" without any objective comparisons, or heard it from their cousin, pays the premium, and never looks back--now wait, that's your choice too! That's not the problem. The problem is coming onto forums like this parrot the product they bought for the above reasons, not for something that is comparative at all, and throwing down the objective arguments of others, deflecting them as either haters, not knowing what they are talking about, or working for the competition (of the company you bought), while having no objective arguments to support your own. Then, you are just completely delusional, and I (and I think anyone sane) should have a problem with that. Don't need to name any names, but there are a few forum regulars that fit this bill.