Bringing Home The Bass: 2.1-Channel Speaker Roundup

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]clownbaby[/nom]Wow, those freq response graphs are pretty telling that computer speakers are basically all trash. The bass peaks and generally crappiness in the mid range seem to be a common theme. Almost no consideration seems to be given to music listening.2.1 is the ideal setup for a computer imo. 4.1 at most. A center channel just isn't needed for monitor sized screens.You can buy a cheap onkyo receiver, some low end bookshelf speakers and a small sub for a few hundred bucks and have sound that will destroy the best pc speakers. The fact is, pc speakers are toys. There is no high end option. What they market as high end would be laughed out the door by the regular audio comminuty.p.s. Plastic is not an acceptable cabinet material[/citation]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mcLyt3Mo9s - try running some car speakers indoors properly and see what sort of sound comes out :B
 
[citation][nom]cknobman[/nom]Umm.... last thing I want to do with my limited budget is go spend $150-$200 dollars on a 2.1 speaker set!!!!!!!My $80 5.1 Logitech set sounds just fine thank you, and the $70-$100 savings is better spent on gfx and/or cpu horsepower.[/citation]

i can spend $5 for a second hand set of speakers like sony's that stand ~40cm tall and kick the crap out of any of these sets on review here, and use an old car amp + old pc psu to power it - simply amazing levels of sound output
 

fausto

Distinguished
Jan 26, 2005
232
0
18,680
I have a set of logitech z523 speakers which sound greeeeeat. cost me 50 bucks and I've seen them on sale for as low as 40 dollars. If you can get a set then that's all you'll need...you can find setups to try out in some store.

Now one thing about this article i liked was when he says at the end:
"Unfortunately, gamers don't just listen, they talk. Nobody has figured out that gamers need a microphone pass-through jack for our headsets, too. Please—somebody, anybody—make this a standard feature on PC speaker systems!"

I would also add a USB pass-thru with a switch. I hate unplugging my headset when i'm done playing for fear that i'll break the usb jack and all my rear jacks are used up so i can't plug into the back of my pc and the logitech g15 usb connectors introduce an annoying noise during low volume or no volume moments to my USB headset.
 

fausto

Distinguished
Jan 26, 2005
232
0
18,680
I have a set of logitech z523 speakers which sound greeeeeat. cost me 50 bucks and I've seen them on sale for as low as 40 dollars. If you can get a set then that's all you'll need...you can find setups to try out in some store.

Now one thing about this article i liked was when he says at the end:
"Unfortunately, gamers don't just listen, they talk. Nobody has figured out that gamers need a microphone pass-through jack for our headsets, too. Please—somebody, anybody—make this a standard feature on PC speaker systems!"

I would also add a USB pass-thru with a switch. I hate unplugging my headset when i'm done playing for fear that i'll break the usb jack and all my rear jacks are used up so i can't plug into the back of my pc and the logitech g15 usb connectors introduce an annoying noise during low volume or no volume moments to my USB headset.
 

scook9

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2008
826
0
18,980
I have a set of Z-5500s that I got for $200 brand new from TigerDirect on sale in summer 2008. They are amazing (at least I think so!) and give a good rich sound. I bought this set because they Klpisch ProMedia 2.1s I have had a chirp if the bass was turned up too high and bassy music came on. I also smelled hot electronic parts coming off the klipsch sub once when I was blasting some music.....it was not comforting.
 

lazymangaka

Distinguished
Jan 6, 2011
55
0
18,630
I feel that it's fair to say that the majority of people interested in purchasing these speakers are not going to notice an appreciable difference between these and a high-end home theater audio setup. Most people will be happy enough to upgrade from the craptastic 2.0 pack-in speakers or--God forbid--the speakers attached to their monitor.
 
I've always been a fan of Klipsch.
Go to thier website and take a look at the home theater surround systems they offer. I think you will say "WOW".

http://www.klipsch.com/na-en/products/home-theater-system/

I have to say though, I am impressed with the capability of the logitech system. I thought for sure that the Klipsch system would be the clear winner but I guess it's more of a tie. As for the comment made by Toms about the 10khz+ range. Personally I don't care to hear such ultra high pitch tones. Don't get me wrong that range is not just high pitched it's irritatingly high pitched.

Personally, I still use an old Altec Lansing system. It has a digital input, analog input, a remote, an 8-inch boxed down firing subwoofer, 2 way satillites with 1-inch tweeters and 3-inch mid range speakers. The sound is amazing and has very powerful bass.

Infact, when I was in college on the 4th floor of my dorm and had the system near max and someone from the first floor came up to the 4th floor and said they could hear the bass down there. Basically it was loud enough for everyone in the entire dorm to hear it.
 

PostmanPat

Distinguished
Jan 5, 2010
16
0
18,510
I still happily use my Microsoft Digital Sound System 80 which I've had since 1999... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSS80 It's probably one of the earliest 'premium' 2.1 PC speaker setups.
The sound quality is really quite good for a PC speaker setup, but I have to agree with some of the other posts here cos they're nowhere close to the sound quality I get from my floorstanding speakers and amp.
If you're serious about sound quality $250 can buy some decent speakers and a stereo amp that will blow these PC setups out of the water, but you'll lose some of the easy connectibility, ergonomics and aesthetics of a set designed to sit on a desk.
 

miaaron

Distinguished
Feb 11, 2010
5
0
18,510
A few comments:
1) The Creative Gigaworks T3 does have 3 drivers in the sub enclsoure, but two of the drivers are not active/powered. They are more commonly referred to as passive radiators and they just tune an enclosure like a port would. If you want more info on how ports work, search for "helmholtz resonator".

2) Don't knock the speakers for the freq response measurements, or any other speakers measured freq response when someone measures them in a regular room. What those freq measurements are showing is the freq response of the speakers in their room...not your room. That's why all the response curves look alike for the most part, because the acoustic patterns of the room are going to dominate the measurement. So don't look at the measurements themselves, look for deviations from the overall pattern to identify issues, like the dip in the response of the sp2500 between 2k-5k.

I've done a LOT of room measurements and can say the author did a decent job here. If he had no other audio experience before diving into this project, it shows he really did his research...or got really lucky. lol The people with the nasty/mocking/snob comments should actually take the time to do some in-room measurements, they would be suprised.

3) Don't let anyone tell you a PC speaker sucks because it is a PC speaker. I've built dozens of DIY speakers, and I bought a logitech Z-5500 for my bedroom. Why, cause I couldn't build them for the price I paid ($160 AR @ buy.com). I could have built something very similar if I wanted, as the Tang Band driver logitech used in the z-5500 was well known to the DIY community, but it wouldn't have been a nice without a lot of effort & extra money.

4) Plastic enclosures aren't bad. The enclosure material doesn't matter as long as it blocks the rear wave of the cone output and doesn't resonate. Plastic actually has a huge benefit in small speakers like this, as a simple curve or some added thickness can add a lot to strength...something cheap and easy to do in a plastic mold.

5) Don't be afraid to use the EQ built into many sound drivers.
 

Computer_Lots

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2007
189
0
18,680
I have a Pioneer 5.1 receiver I bought for $120, a pair of Polk audio bookshelf speakers I got for $40 and a Yamaha sub I got for around $80. I've seen a Polk 10" sub on Newegg for $50 the past several weeks. Now, the retail price on all of this stuff is double what I paid, but you can find crazy good deals on home theater stuff all the time. In essence, I paid $240 for my setup that will destroy any of these little computer speakers. Plus, I get a remote, AM/FM radio and multiple inputs including fiber, coax digital and HDMI. The only reason to buy a computer speaker set is for space savings. They are much smaller.
 

restatement3dofted

Distinguished
Jan 5, 2010
477
2
18,790
[citation][nom]clownbaby[/nom]Wow, those freq response graphs are pretty telling that computer speakers are basically all trash. The bass peaks and generally crappiness in the mid range seem to be a common theme. Almost no consideration seems to be given to music listening.2.1 is the ideal setup for a computer imo. 4.1 at most. A center channel just isn't needed for monitor sized screens.You can buy a cheap onkyo receiver, some low end bookshelf speakers and a small sub for a few hundred bucks and have sound that will destroy the best pc speakers. The fact is, pc speakers are toys. There is no high end option. What they market as high end would be laughed out the door by the regular audio comminuty.p.s. Plastic is not an acceptable cabinet material[/citation]

It may be true that PC speakers in general can't compete with a component system, but I have a hard time getting behind the suggestion you've made. A decent Onkyo receiver is still going to run you a couple hundred bucks (at a minimum) unless you buy used. A decent pair of bookshelf speakers, unless you're willing to buy some no-name brand, are still going to set you back at least another $100 or so. Add a 10" or 12" subwoofer with enough power to make it worthwhile, and you're adding on another $100-200. Wiring/cables? Toss in a few more bucks.

At the end of it all, you can easily set yourself back $400-500, just for decent, but still fairly "low-end" equipment.

So, yeah - you can put together a better-sounding system for yourself by opting with true home theater equipment, but you're not going to stay anywhere near the price point of most of the "PC-oriented" alternatives. At the end of the day, you've got to keep in mind that value is relative - for a lot of people, the sound quality of the $150 "trashy" PC speakers is enough for what they need. For a lot of others, the sound quality is sub-par, but they lack the resources to put together a worthwhile 2.1 home theater system. Others make the investment to put together a system that will be great for any purpose.

It's all about balancing what you want, what you need, and what you can afford, and for plenty of people, PC speakers provide that balance. No reason to knock it simply because you don't like it.
 

clownbaby

Distinguished
May 6, 2008
264
0
18,780
[citation][nom]Cleeve[/nom]If you know audio, you know that the environment has a *MASSIVE* effect on response recording. Even moving the mic a few inches in the same environment can change the result by a large amount.As we've stressed in the article, we don't have the luxury of a professional-grade anechoic chamber for testing. Our results are likely heavily degraded by comb filtering and phase cancellation, but they can be used to compare speaker output to each other because they were all tested in the same conditions.The bottom line is, don't write these products off based on a response taken in less than ideal conditions.Use these response graphs for what they are good for--not absolute, but relative measurements.[/citation]


I don't think comb filtering should be an issue with the test setup. It can certainly happen if you are recording in extreme nearfield, especially if there are multiple similar drivers in a speaker. But, I would think these speakers would be designed for nearfield listening, and, with simple 2-way 'TM' designs with close diver spacing, it should have been easy for a designer to control. At the most it may emphasize some of the peaks.

As for the test environment effects, Absolutely. But, you don't need a studio to take decent measurements. With the proper mic and a decent sized room you can can get accurate results with a little experimentation. Would you mind posting your measurement methodology? i.e. speaker positioning, horizontal and vert axis, room dimensions.

If the tests really are that flawed, I disagree about using them comparatively. If a room is distorting the sound image that much, you're likely just showing that repeating effect on speakers, and there's very little to gain from those graphs. I doubt that is the case entirely though. Though getting perfect results is very hard, getting decent results isn't, and I'm sure you put some thought into your testing.

As to the comment about audiophiles bashing on the regular guy, that is far from the truth. I'm just pointing out that there are other and better options. I don't understand why no one has put out a decent 2.1 setup. Performance is the the biggest consideration when it comes to pc hardware; why isn't the same applied to peripherals. No one has yet to put out a boxed system that will even touch the low end/budget side of a proper setup.

I know a little about audio, and am a hobbyist, but I am far from a professional, and not really an audiophile either. I'd like to see a test of systems like this against some regularly available speakers on a receiver. Nothing high end. Energy, mirage, even polk would do. Then test the whole set against a high end pair of reference monitors. I think that would give an appropriate scale to performance. Features and appearance could be rated separately.

I could go on for hours, but I'll just leave it at this.

The bar is set too low in pc speakers, and companies take advantage of it. Expecting a little more isn't snobbery, especially when hard earned money is involved.
 

damasvara

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2010
831
0
19,060
[citation][nom]reasonablevoice[/nom]I've been saying this for years. It is 100% true.As per damasvara's comment about audiophiles dissing casual listeners, nothing could be further form the truth. We are not criticizing you, we are criticizing these low end speakers! We are trying to tell you that there are much better products out there for the money. Come, join us, you'll never look back.[/citation]
I'm actually pretty interested. Starting with collecting FLAC audio files.

But the bitter truth is, quality comes at a price. I still can't afford a replacement for my $30 Altec Lansing BXR 1121 due to the all-time, classic reason: Money...
 

cleeve

Illustrious


We're going to have to agree to disagree here.

I saw notable measurement differences when I moved the mic more than a few inches, that's actual experience and not theory.

Here's some interesting info on the subject I came across, it's worth a read:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/believe.html




I have to disagree on that, too.
Not only are the $150 options pretty darn good, but I challenge you to find something better for the price.

To me, suggesting that you have to pay a few times that for anything that's worth listening to does smack of snobbery a little.

It's like saying you can't game with a $150 Radeon 5770 because the $525 GTX 580 is soo much better. :)


 

cleeve

Illustrious


Heheh. I'll take that as a complement! Definitely a lot of research and a ton of experimentation with the equipment. The responses here are the result of a couple days of pure research and maybe a week of testing, tweaking and learning (and more research) before I had confidence in the setup and my ability to calibrate the many aspects of it and create repeatable results.





Absolutely. It's surprising how many people who've never done response measurements are coming out of the woodwork and declaring the speakers to be crap based on real-world measurements.

I'd love to see the look on their faces if they measured their high-end setups at home and saw the lumpy results. :)
 

cleeve

Illustrious


I tried for this test... Bose declined to participate. :(
 

MEgamer

Distinguished
Dec 19, 2009
1,424
0
19,360
ive got both razer mako (pc speakers) and in my living room i got B & W 685 and MK xenon 12 sub connected to denon AVR1910, i dont prefer one over the other, sound quality wise i prefer the B & W. the razer mako do not have a flat frequency response, but neither does my home theatre setup, sometimes i prefer listeing on my Mako, the 'sound' and tone could be similar but soundstage wise mako are quite damn revealing, plus they dissapear much better then the my B&W bookies, since they are omnidirectional.

not everyone prefers flat frequency response, i dont and i also hate U curves too, but the way some speakers produce sound, u just cant ask yourself - how do they do this? :)
 

compton

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2010
197
0
18,680
I like the attention to detail in this review. I still maintain that frequency response measuring is too difficult to do right, and that the results may not be that useful. Still, as long as the testing is consistent from product to product, I wholeheartedly approve. More reviews like this would be welcome.

My suggestion: Next time, if there is one, try adding in one home audio receiver and a set of bookshelf speakers as a point of reference. An entry level receiver and an entry level pair of bookshelf speakers should provide a great comparison to this roundup of 2.1 systems.

Still, its great to see Toms taking audio seriously.
 

Clob

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2003
1,317
0
19,280
Nice article, but I have to say, everyone one of those sets has horrid frequency response... Its just bad! Honestly, the money is better spent on headphones with better response.

I run an older 5.1 receiver, connected to some used Ascends. Total cost is about $250 and it trumps this garbage in every way possible including response. Ascend is known for damn near perfectly flat response. Better power handling. A real good sound stage, imaging... I can go on and on. If I want something for bass, which I don't because they play down to the 50's with no issue, then I can get something cheap.

Overall. Bang for the $ is a cheap AMP/Reciever, and some DIY kit speakers from Parts Express. Same cost. 100x better.
 

Clob

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2003
1,317
0
19,280
[citation][nom]computertech82[/nom]funny how my $40 20 year old 2.1 speakers probably sound just as good as these $200+ things....[/citation]

If "just as good" means "just as bad" Then I may agree. What speakers do you have?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.