Speakers for my computer

[Rinthe]

I need to get some new speakers for listening to music on my PC. I really want good quality sound, my computer does not have a soundcard, but i'm willing to get one if it will help with the sound quality. my budget.. i would say around $100-200? if that's possible. thanks!

forgot to mention, i also like to have surround sound if possible.

[axlgroove]

Check this thread. (http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1340598)

If you don't have a sound card, speakers aren't going to help you at all. Unless your sound is integrated into your motherboard...

[ashmedai]

There are some pretty standard solutions if you look at a few of the threads on the first page or so and in the stickies. Why don't we start with your reactions to those?

[Rinthe]

i'm using onboard sound atm

[Rinthe]

so should i go for 2.1 instead of 5.1? sry i'm new with this stuff :p

[ashmedai]

For a given budget, the speakers you can get will generally be better if there are fewer to buy.

Also, many 5.1 kits or sets fall into the "computer speaker" category, i.e. they are more or less a pile of crap with some copper wire thrown in.

[leetpyro]

All depends if you want surround sound or not :P If you don't want surround sound, pretty much everyone here will recommend a 2.1 bookshelf + sub setup.

[spaceman]

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1328608

HI!!!

[Rinthe]

All depends if you want surround sound or not :P If you don't want surround sound, pretty much everyone here will recommend a 2.1 bookshelf + sub setup.

say i do want surround sound, what do you recommend?

[Rinthe]

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1328608

HI!!!

hi! i read your thread and a few others here on hard forums. so you recommend the Behringer MS20? what about the Swan M200MkII and Swan D1080MkII? help!

[ashmedai]

On that budget? We start getting into kit territory, or even just throwing you to Logitech.

You stated that the primary objective is music. Music, for the most part, is stereo - and you will get MUCH better results by just spending the $100-200 on a stereo setup than you would by going surround. This is less by way of trying to push you in that direction, so much as making sure you realize you are making a sacrifice in order to get 5.1 on that budget. (You may be able to work something out if you're a little nonparticular about the quality of the rear speakers, especially with powered stereo & sub speakers...)

Also...rear sats can be a pain in the arse, in that you have to not only find a place for them but also run wires to them. Make sure you consider placement before you commit to that route.

hi! i read your thread and a few others here on hard forums. so you recommend the Behringer MS20? what about the Swan M200MkII and Swan D1080MkII? help!

All good, and it's somewhat a matter of preference.

Physics tends to favor larger diameter drivers for producing lower frequency sounds, though. Since these are typically 2-way speakers with a small tweeter and a larger mid-low driver, the size of the mid-low driver often can provide a direct means of comparison in the absence of more detailed subjective information.

[Rinthe]

so if i get the Swan M200MkII or Swan D1080MkII, do i also need to get a sound card or a sub? thanks for the fast responses!

[ashmedai]

I wouldn't mess with a sound card. A USB DAC might be worth considering, in that it could be useful later even if you replace this stuff. The main thing worth worrying about is the noise floor of your onboard sound - if it's good, you probably don't need to fuss with it without first upgrading from these speakers, although some people might want to. Going from onboard to a card is usually a minor step (provided the onboard solution isn't total crap) compared to moving to a solution outside of your case.

Any way you look at it, you should leave that until after you audition the new speakers. Upgrade one thing at a time unless you're forced to do otherwise so you can better judge what caused what change and whether you feel further improvements are necessary at this time.

[Rinthe]

spaceman, you also said that the M-autio AV40 will sound better with mp3 filse? is that true? then wouldn't this be the best speakers to go with, for me?

[ashmedai]

spaceman, you also said that the M-autio AV40 will sound better with mp3 filse? is that true? then wouldn't this be the best speakers to go with, for me?

Honestly, fark MP3 files. I always hear this annoying high-pitched crackling sound with them, or something like that anyway...sort of like the static buildup on the glass of an old CRT-based TV. 320br files are usually a bit better, apparently depending on the dynamic complexity of the song...but it doesn't really go away unless I use lossless. It's annoying. :p

Fortunately, a lot of the stuff I listen to is pretty old and has a bad enough S/N that I don't have to keep my whole library in FLAC, but still. As soon as I get time and money I'm switching to a portable audio player that can handle FLAC and re-ripping everything to that. Stupid high-end audio gear is giving sufficient resolution and clarity that this stuff is starting to annoy me and thus making me buy even more expensive audio gear. :(

[Rinthe]

I wouldn't mess with a sound card. A USB DAC might be worth considering, in that it could be useful later even if you replace this stuff. The main thing worth worrying about is the noise floor of your onboard sound - if it's good, you probably don't need to fuss with it without first upgrading from these speakers, although some people might want to. Going from onboard to a card is usually a minor step (provided the onboard solution isn't total crap) compared to moving to a solution outside of your case.

Any way you look at it, you should leave that until after you audition the new speakers. Upgrade one thing at a time unless you're forced to do otherwise so you can better judge what caused what change and whether you feel further improvements are necessary at this time.

alright, i have the Gigabyte P35 DS3R motherboard, any idea if that's good enough?

[ashmedai]

Honestly, I haven't bought from Gigabyte in over 5 years because they used to make some seriously crappy stuff and then price it out like it was a holy relic. They've improved a lot, but I still have them blacklisted and they've never had a product tempting enough to get me to go after it in spite of this when I was in purchasing mode. The ALC889A it uses is supposedly pretty good, as computer-based audio solutions go.

[spaceman]

uh, the new gigabytes are pretty damn solid.

[ashmedai]

Yeah...like I said, no reflection on their current stuff. They've really turned the quality around, but that's why I still won't buy from them and have no clue how it works. :D

[Rinthe]

alright then, no sound card for now.

as for the speakers, i'm deciding between Swan M200MkII, SWD1080MkII and m-audio av40. what do you guys think i should go for?

another newbie question, if i get one of these speakers, i don't need to get any additional cables or whatever, right? i can just plug into my pc and play?

[ashmedai]

That depends on what they come with, really. SOMETHING has to move the electrons from A to B, and if they don't come with it and you don't already have it, then you pretty much have to find somewhere to buy it. But I've gotten perfectly good results out of a stripped 18-gauge electrical extension cord. This should not substantially increase your cost, even if you do turn out to need something.

Of the three you listed, the M-Audio have 4" mid drivers, while the Swans both have 5" mid drivers. Looking at the spec sheets, the M200MKII appear to have several nice improvements like improved S/N and reduced THD. But relying on spec sheets can be somewhat uncertain business.

[spaceman]

alright then, no sound card for now.

as for the speakers, i'm deciding between Swan M200MkII, SWD1080MkII and m-audio av40. what do you guys think i should go for?

another newbie question, if i get one of these speakers, i don't need to get any additional cables or whatever, right? i can just plug into my pc and play?

1080s!! For that price? GO! They will rock your desktop.

Oh wait, you will need to improve the source too. Hmm.

Well, the Av40s have a built in dac. Ok, get the 1080s but also get a soundcard or receiver at some point to improve the sound.

[Rinthe]

1080s!! For that price? GO! They will rock your desktop.

Oh wait, you will need to improve the source too. Hmm.

Well, the Av40s have a built in dac. Ok, get the 1080s but also get a soundcard or receiver at some point to improve the sound.

what does a built in dac do? if i get the av40, i don't have to get a soundcard or receiver?

if i do get 1080s, do i need to get both soundcard and receiver? or just one of those?

1080 is $129 at http://www.theaudioinsider.com/product_info.php/p/swan-d1080mkii/products_id/113 good price?

[ashmedai]

Yes, it's a good price.

The DAC (digital to analog converter) is the chip and supporting circuitry which takes all the 1s and 0s your audio is encoded into and turns them back into analog voltage levels that can be used to make your speakers work. After moving to nicer speakers like the Swans, and possibly improving the quality of the source files you're using (*cough* out with low-bitrate MP3s...), a good future upgrade will be to move to an external DAC in the form of a better sound card, or a receiver, or a USB DAC, et cetera. With the deal on the 1080s, you might be able to do it sooner rather than later - but listen to the new speakers FIRST and then make more upgrades.

[Rinthe]

Yes, it's a good price.

The DAC (digital to analog converter) is the chip and supporting circuitry which takes all the 1s and 0s your audio is encoded into and turns them back into analog voltage levels that can be used to make your speakers work. After moving to nicer speakers like the Swans, and possibly improving the quality of the source files you're using (*cough* out with low-bitrate MP3s...), a good future upgrade will be to move to an external DAC in the form of a better sound card, or a receiver, or a USB DAC, et cetera. With the deal on the 1080s, you might be able to do it sooner rather than later - but listen to the new speakers FIRST and then make more upgrades.

sounds good, i've been digging around more and seeing that the Edifier S330D is also pretty good.

so if i get m-audio av40, i don't have to get a sound card?

im sorry about this, i just want to make sure i get the right speaker for myself, now its down to these 3: 1080, av40, and s330


also, most of my mp3 are V0

[ashmedai]

If you get the M-Audio, you have speakers that aren't as good and can't be upgraded later by adding an external DAC of some sort (or even just a better sound card).

With $200, I would be hitting the 1080s and maybe stretching the budget a bit to fit in a Dayton sub from PartsExpress. The subs are $95 and $110 shipped for 8" and 10" respectively, and will be great for a "low-cost but nice" system like this.

[Rinthe]

alright so with the 1080s i can upgrade by getting a better sound card and a sub, correct?

[ashmedai]

Yeah, although the sub would be nice for any of these 2.0 sets.

[spaceman]

The 1080s are the best speakers. More power, larger drivers, better internal crossover and tweets. Yeah, pretty damn good for $129. So, get those and add to your system as you can. Perfect way to a jamming stereo.

[Rinthe]

what sound card would u guys recommend? I just want to see how much it might cost for future upgrades.

[ashmedai]

I'd go with an external device like a receiver or USB DAC, personally. Any way you cut it, it will be in the neighborhood of $100 for many good sound cards...which is the same neighborhood for a cheap external device that should give much better results. I don't see the point of a sound card if your first priority isn't either games or taking audio input, other than to pass a digital signal to an external device...which many motherboards can already do these days.

[Rinthe]

i do play some video games on my pc, so should i get a sound card instead of a reciver or usb dac because of that?

[ashmedai]

Games, only in the sense that hardware sound may require certain technologies to be supported. This is only really a thing if and only if the SOLE priority is gaming and any use of music is purely coincidental and without respect to sound quality. That is, you are willingly giving up sound quality in exchange for supporting the flavor of the month audio standard for games. Since there is a massive trend towards exclusively software-based audio in gaming since this largely eliminates concerns about who is compatible with what standard (and the modern CPU can more than handle the load), this is really a dodgy trade even if gaming is your primary intent.

So...external = win. But a receiver might be the best move once you do upgrade since it can come with 5.1 or 7.1 support and do things like decode some Dolby standards.

[Rinthe]

alright, so what about sub? i'm reading reviews that are saying that the 1080 has good mid range sound quality, but very poor bass.

[ashmedai]

The Daytons at PartsExpress are a good pick, especially low-budget. They'll do a respectable job compared to most other things without spending much more. I'd go with the 10" personally since it's on sale for $110 at the moment (and may end up getting one promptly if the money doesn't go into my portable audio gear or photographic optics or random computer parts...I'm mostly a headphone listener so I haven't gotten around to it. :D).

[Rinthe]

so it sounds like i'll have to get a sub then? many say 1080 doesnt have good bass

[ashmedai]

Have to, no. Will benefit from getting one, yes. But so would most any 2.0 system.

[Rinthe]

the AV40 has better bass than the 1080 tho, some are saying the 1080 has really poor bass :(

[ashmedai]

Yes, but it sucks in comparison. And anyway, that's why 2.0 systems use a sub and grow up to be 2.1 systems. No 2.0 system has "good" bass without one, until you get into expensive and somewhat unusual tower arrangements that functionally have an integrated sub.

The 1080 is definitely the best choice out of the things we've discussed and given the parameters you gave us. But speaker preferences are ultimately subjective, and it's your money, so you're the one who is going to have to decide.

[K3Fallout]

To give my two cents, when I was researching pc speakers the Klipsch Pro media was the popular it seemed. That was like a year ago so I don't know what's the new fresh thing that everyone likes.

[ashmedai]

To give my two cents, when I was researching pc speakers the Klipsch Pro media was the popular it seemed. That was like a year ago so I don't know what's the new fresh thing that everyone likes.

Also, anything we've discussed thus far would sound better than these. Just FYI since they're a new factor for you.

[K3Fallout]

Wow, really? Damn. I better start reading this thread then.

[Rinthe]

Yes, but it sucks in comparison. And anyway, that's why 2.0 systems use a sub and grow up to be 2.1 systems. No 2.0 system has "good" bass without one, until you get into expensive and somewhat unusual tower arrangements that functionally have an integrated sub.

The 1080 is definitely the best choice out of the things we've discussed and given the parameters you gave us. But speaker preferences are ultimately subjective, and it's your money, so you're the one who is going to have to decide.

so even with the av40s i won't get good bass unless i get a sub?

if i do get a sub, is it hard to hook up?

[ashmedai]

There's been a bit of discussion about Klipsch recently that should turn up in search easily, so I won't go into it much...basically they were targeting a similar market to Logitech's higher end stuff, but are getting out of it since they can't hold as thin a margin on it and have better ways to make profit. Either way, you're putting them up against speakers with - at a quick calculation - somewhere slightly over double their internal volume. It's hardly a fair fight; the physics involved means they can't economically produce as good a sound as you can get from a speaker with a much greater volume and driver surface area. The high-range stuff is probably fine, since it can rely on driver velocity to achieve decent displacement, and there are plenty of resonance modes at higher frequencies even with a small interior volume. However, the mids and especially lows will have no way to stand up to a larger driver and cabinet. Nothing against Klipsch - they're just trying to build a different type of beast.

[ashmedai]

so even with the av40s i won't get good bass unless i get a sub?

if i do get a sub, is it hard to hook up?

Good is relative, but yeah, the bass without a sub is not going to be nearly as good as it will be with one. BUT - It's quite tolerable with a good 2.0 system, so if your budget won't allow it, don't feel compelled to get one just yet. A powered sub is not really any different to hook up than any other speaker. It's simply a matter of connecting its inputs to the right outputs of your source. Plug and play, literally.

There are a few things to adjust with a sub to get optimal sound. The positioning in your room can have a significant effect on exactly how good the bass sounds, and you may need to mess around with what frequencies go to the sub and what frequencies don't (the sub often has a dial on the back to deal with this - it's not hard, you just fiddle with it until you like the result).

[Rinthe]

Good is relative, but yeah, the bass without a sub is not going to be nearly as good as it will be with one. BUT - It's quite tolerable with a good 2.0 system, so if your budget won't allow it, don't feel compelled to get one just yet. A powered sub is not really any different to hook up than any other speaker. It's simply a matter of connecting its inputs to the right outputs of your source. Plug and play, literally.

There are a few things to adjust with a sub to get optimal sound. The positioning in your room can have a significant effect on exactly how good the bass sounds, and you may need to mess around with what frequencies go to the sub and what frequencies don't (the sub often has a dial on the back to deal with this - it's not hard, you just fiddle with it until you like the result).

does the dayton sub come with all the cables needed?

[Coreyk78]

I have the M-audio AV40's and I love them. Also they do not have a built in DAC, thats the Behringer MS20's. The AV40 have analog inputs.

I also just added a Dayton 8" sub this week and I really like it, this setup absolutely blows away my old Klipsch promedia 5.1 setup.

I haven't heard the Swans so I can't give any comparisons between those and the M-Audios, but IMO I don't think you will be disappointed if you get the M-Audio. The bass with the AV40's isn't huge, but its very respectable, I went for over a month without a sub and they sounded very nice without a sub, it just sounds more complete now. I also decided to buy an inexpensive compact TCC TC-754 preamp that I found on ebay to control the volume and be able to add more sources to my system later on. The preamp is here http://www.phonopreamps.com/TC754eb.html if you're interested, it isn't required, but I like having a volume knob handy while I'm gaming without having to change the volume in windows.

[Rinthe]

thanks coreyk!

so anyone here who has heard the 1080s before? how do they do with rock/metal music?

[Rinthe]

I have the M-audio AV40's and I love them. Also they do not have a built in DAC, thats the Behringer MS20's. The AV40 have analog inputs.

I also just added a Dayton 8" sub this week and I really like it, this setup absolutely blows away my old Klipsch promedia 5.1 setup.

I haven't heard the Swans so I can't give any comparisons between those and the M-Audios, but IMO I don't think you will be disappointed if you get the M-Audio. The bass with the AV40's isn't huge, but its very respectable, I went for over a month without a sub and they sounded very nice without a sub, it just sounds more complete now. I also decided to buy an inexpensive compact TCC TC-754 preamp that I found on ebay to control the volume and be able to add more sources to my system later on. The preamp is here http://www.phonopreamps.com/TC754eb.html if you're interested, it isn't required, but I like having a volume knob handy while I'm gaming without having to change the volume in windows.

oh yea, what type of music did you listen to with the m40s without the sub?

[ashmedai]

does the dayton sub come with all the cables needed?

My assumption is not, but they're very cheap if you don't try to get them from Best Buy or Radio Shack. Corey just got one and would know better what extras (if any) it is packaged with.

[Rinthe]

so corey, did it come with all the cables needed? did you get the dayton 8" sub?

[Coreyk78]

Well I listen to mostly rock/classic rock/metal and for that the M-Audios were nice, but with the sub I really hear all the bass guitar and the kick drum, now its really nice :D

The sub didn't come packed with any RCA cables, but they have them for really cheap on the partsexpress site, and they didn't add anything to the shipping cost. I got the 8" sub and 2 six foot RCA cables for about $101 shipped.

[Rinthe]

Well I listen to mostly rock/classic rock/metal and for that the M-Audios were nice, but with the sub I really hear all the bass guitar and the kick drum, now its really nice :D

The sub didn't come packed with any RCA cables, but they have them for really cheap on the partsexpress site, and they didn't add anything to the shipping cost. I got the 8" sub and 2 six foot RCA cables for about $101 shipped.

why do you need 2 cables? can you give me a link to the RCA cable?

[ashmedai]

The sub processes the low-frequency sound from both front channels. Therefore, it needs input from both front channels. The RCA connector for the sub you'll see on many receivers is a stereo connection, which you then split for the L/R inputs on the sub.

Due to the frequencies involved, you can't really place the sound the sub handles very well anyway, so this is fine. OTOH it's not entirely perfect, which is why some tower speakers that cost several times your budget each will have an integrated sub on each channel.

[Coreyk78]

why do you need 2 cables? can you give me a link to the RCA cable?

I needed 2 cables because I'm running the sub and monitors in parallel from the output on the preamp.
1 of these http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=240-530

and 1 of these stacked on top of the other http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=240-027

The sub does have a line-level rca preout, so you could daisy chain the monitors through the sub if you wanted to. I just wanted to do it this way instead. http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=300-631

[Rinthe]

I needed 2 cables because I'm running the sub and monitors in parallel from the output on the preamp.
1 of these http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=240-530

and 1 of these stacked on top of the other http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=240-027

The sub does have a line-level rca preout, so you could daisy chain the monitors through the sub if you wanted to. I just wanted to do it this way instead. http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=300-631

err sorry i didn't really get that, but does that mean i only need 1 cable?

[Coreyk78]

The M-Audios come with a cable to connect from the 3.5mm jack on your motherboard straight to the speakers. To daisy chain them you would just run that 3.5mm to rca cable from your PC to the sub, and then you would need to get 1 more rca cable to run from the sub to the speakers.

[Rinthe]

The M-Audios come with a cable to connect from the 3.5mm jack on your motherboard straight to the speakers. To daisy chain them you would just run that 3.5mm to rca cable from your PC to the sub, and then you would need to get 1 more rca cable to run from the sub to the speakers.

those 2 RCA cables you showed me, are they different?

[Coreyk78]

yeah, the first one has a stacking plug design on one end so you can plug two cables into the same jacks.

[Rinthe]

yeah, the first one has a stacking plug design on one end so you can plug two cables into the same jacks.

alright thanks! also your sound card, does that make a difference in the quality of the sound? ashmedai said that if i get av40's i won't be able to upgrade it even if i get better sound cards.. so i'm a little confused here

[ashmedai]

That was with reference to replacing the DAC. If he's right and they don't have integrated D --> A signal processing, then it's irrelevant.

Your D/A conversion is currently going on in the motherboard. Replacing the DAC later with a higher-quality one that doesn't have the added noise from the other computer components will give you a cleaner signal that better approximates the original recording. BUT, you can only perform the conversion once, so if the speakers have a built in component doing it, you wouldn't be able to do it in a different device of your choosing without also replacing the speakers.

Again, irrelevant if he's right about them. Any time the speakers take digital input, it is performing the D/A conversion. If it's fed analog, then it is not.

[Coreyk78]

alright thanks! also your sound card, does that make a difference in the quality of the sound? ashmedai said that if i get av40's i won't be able to upgrade it even if i get better sound cards.. so i'm a little confused here

I know that I hear a bit more detail in games with the sound card, but honestly didn't hear a big difference in music, but it was better. I got my card on the cheap when there was a rebate on it so I don't regret buying it. However, I don't think there was a huge difference between the soundcard and onboard sound, so if a soundcard isn't in your budget right now you could defiinitely get by without one for a while.

Ashmedai's comment about not being able to upgrade the av40's was based on the assumption that they had a dac built in, but they don't, they have analog inputs so an external dac added later could improve the sound.

edit- One more thought about the soundcard, I'm probably going to be making mine unnecesary sooner or later, since I have some nice new headphones on the way I'm thinking about getting a Zero dac headamp to run my phones off of, and then run the preamp out from the Zero to my speakers. As far as I know a digital signal from the onboard sound or a soundcard will be identical and I could do without the soundcard at all, at least from a sound standpoint. There is still the argument that a soundcard can squeeze that last few fps out of games by taking the sound processing load off the cpu.

[Rinthe]

ahh so now what should i do?? av40 vs 1080!! ahh

[ashmedai]

1080. The only reason the AV40s were a serious thought was because we believed they would also improve your DAC simultaneously, and even then they didn't win...the 1080s for that price are more than worth it.

[Coreyk78]

Yeah, those Swans look like a pretty sweet deal, I didn't even know they existed when I bought my M-Audios or I may have given them serious consideration.

[Rinthe]

hmm alright, i will think about the 1080s, i'm definitely sending back my x-540s tho, i just got them today and wasn't pleased with the results... hopefully the 1080 will do better than the 540s..

[ashmedai]

Easily. Even if the Swans were designed by an idiot, which they most definitely were not, the sheer increase in volume and driver area would trump the tar out of the x540s.

[Rinthe]

Easily. Even if the Swans were designed by an idiot, which they most definitely were not, the sheer increase in volume and driver area would trump the tar out of the x540s.

volume? the x-540s can go pretty loud

[spaceman]

volume? the x-540s can go pretty loud

Yup. Take the sub away and the 1080s will take those titchy little satellites back behind the woodshed and beat the hell out of them. Big, huge difference in overall sound.

[Rinthe]

Yup. Take the sub away and the 1080s will take those titchy little satellites back behind the woodshed and beat the hell out of them. Big, huge difference in overall sound.

did you mean to take the subs away from the x540 or 1080?
what about 1080s with the sub?

[Rinthe]

Yeah, those Swans look like a pretty sweet deal, I didn't even know they existed when I bought my M-Audios or I may have given them serious consideration.

so do you think the 8" sub is good enough? would the 10" be a lot better?

[Coreyk78]

so do you think the 8" sub is good enough? would the 10" be a lot better?

The 8" sub is more than enough for me, it puts out a lot of bass. I have the gain turned up maybe about 3/4 on the sub to match the speakers without the bass being too overpowering, but I'm still tweaking it.

Also I switched my wiring to have the M-Audios run off the preout on the sub because I was getting a nasty pop from the sub when I switched the amp in the speakers on and off, now its gone.

[spaceman]

The Dif b/w the 8" and 10" isn't much. B/w the 8 and 12 there is a noticable diff.

Getting an external dac is the best way of cleaning up the sound.

The 1080s are the best speakers if you can afford a sound card or better external dac or receiver. Yes they could use a subwoofer for optimal carnage but would be ok for awhile without it.

The AV40s are the cheaper way of doing all of the above but REALLY need a sub too.

Kind of a tossup. I would opt for the 1080s and a receiver then get a sub later.

[Rinthe]

The Dif b/w the 8" and 10" isn't much. B/w the 8 and 12 there is a noticable diff.

Getting an external dac is the best way of cleaning up the sound.

The 1080s are the best speakers if you can afford a sound card or better external dac or receiver. Yes they could use a subwoofer for optimal carnage but would be ok for awhile without it.

The AV40s are the cheaper way of doing all of the above but REALLY need a sub too.

Kind of a tossup. I would opt for the 1080s and a receiver then get a sub later.

oh but i wouldn't get enough bass without the sub right?

well if i do get a sound card, which one do you recommend?

[ashmedai]

volume? the x-540s can go pretty loud

Sorry, that would be a bit confusing. I was actually thinking about the volume as in the internal space, L x W x H. With a larger volume, the possible internal modes of vibration increase - most particularly at lower frequencies. For example, a 1kHz pulse has a wavelength of over a foot! And that's not even down to "subwoofer" frequencies. If there isn't enough room inside the cabinet for a pulse of that wavelength to oscillate, my understanding is that it will attenuate the tar out of those frequencies.

I guess the volume LxWxH is part of the physics behind why the volume (sound) produced suffers. Even if you can just shove higher voltages through the Logitech speaker to make it have the same loudness as a larger speaker, it will do so at the cost of distorting the sound very badly.


Spaceman spells out a pretty solid upgrade path that allows for incremental additions as you have more money and a desire for even better sound.


As to the sub sizes: let's pretend for ease of calculation that we're talking about drivers which are flat disks instead of cones (close enough since they have to emit sound through a flat plane). The 8" sub gives us a baseline area of 201 inches squared. The 10" sub increases that to 314 in sq, or 156% of the 8" sub. The 12" sub gives 452 inches squared, or two and a quarter times the surface area of the 8" sub. This is why it works out as described. Also, this is just a rough estimate - in actuality, because of the low frequency problem, the increase in ability with surface area will be larger than this shows (small speakers can't displace enough air when they are not vibrating rapidly to produce useful sound, large speakers can vibrate much more slowly because they have more area to push with).

[spaceman]

damn good ashmedia. you are far less lazy than I in descriptions.

my way: bigger speakers = more sound with less volume needed. aka you do not have to turn it up to hear everything.

However, if we are talking nearfield, aka desktop pc sound, then the 8" will do fine and dandy but more is always better with bass.

Look up line source speakers just for fun lol. I wish!!

[ashmedai]

Line source took me a sec to figure out, but that's a pretty sweet trick for creating a more "ideal" speaker.

[Rinthe]

Sorry, that would be a bit confusing. I was actually thinking about the volume as in the internal space, L x W x H. With a larger volume, the possible internal modes of vibration increase - most particularly at lower frequencies. For example, a 1kHz pulse has a wavelength of over a foot! And that's not even down to "subwoofer" frequencies. If there isn't enough room inside the cabinet for a pulse of that wavelength to oscillate, my understanding is that it will attenuate the tar out of those frequencies.

I guess the volume LxWxH is part of the physics behind why the volume (sound) produced suffers. Even if you can just shove higher voltages through the Logitech speaker to make it have the same loudness as a larger speaker, it will do so at the cost of distorting the sound very badly.


Spaceman spells out a pretty solid upgrade path that allows for incremental additions as you have more money and a desire for even better sound.


As to the sub sizes: let's pretend for ease of calculation that we're talking about drivers which are flat disks instead of cones (close enough since they have to emit sound through a flat plane). The 8" sub gives us a baseline area of 201 inches squared. The 10" sub increases that to 314 in sq, or 156% of the 8" sub. The 12" sub gives 452 inches squared, or two and a quarter times the surface area of the 8" sub. This is why it works out as described. Also, this is just a rough estimate - in actuality, because of the low frequency problem, the increase in ability with surface area will be larger than this shows (small speakers can't displace enough air when they are not vibrating rapidly to produce useful sound, large speakers can vibrate much more slowly because they have more area to push with).

ahhh!! thanks for the detailed description!

spaceman: so for sound card, which do you recommend?

[spaceman]

Space don't like sound cards lol. I would spend the $$ on a receiver first. Just my opinion that the receivers do just fine with optical out from the pc. They have multiple inputs and usually one output all digital. Plus, they have a better amp on them for headphones or speakers. Flexible. That is what you want nowadays.

buuuut if you insist, the cheapest real x-fi aka not xtreme audio x-fi is ok too.

[Rinthe]

Space don't like sound cards lol. I would spend the $$ on a receiver first. Just my opinion that the receivers do just fine with optical out from the pc. They have multiple inputs and usually one output all digital. Plus, they have a better amp on them for headphones or speakers. Flexible. That is what you want nowadays.

buuuut if you insist, the cheapest real x-fi aka not xtreme audio x-fi is ok too.

what is the difference? how much would a receiver cost?

[Rinthe]

yay i just ordered the 1080s, wondering if i need to get any additional cables?

[Axsuul]

If you're not using multiple devices that will use those speakers and only a computer, get a soundcard... especially for gaming.

[Rinthe]

If you're not using multiple devices that will use those speakers and only a computer, get a soundcard... especially for gaming.

is this true? can someone confirm this? i do play some games on my pc :rolleyes:

[excellsior]

I'm considering the 1080's or the MAudio and I have a SB Xtreme Music.

If I buy a Dayton sub do I connect it into my soundcard or does it go directly into these speakers?

Also I know the MAudio has 2 input sources so I can have one to my PC and another device (keyboard/tv/etc). Does anyone know if the 1080 has 2 inputs?

[Rinthe]

I'm considering the 1080's or the MAudio and I have a SB Xtreme Music.

If I buy a Dayton sub do I connect it into my soundcard or does it go directly into these speakers?

Also I know the MAudio has 2 input sources so I can have one to my PC and another device (keyboard/tv/etc). Does anyone know if the 1080 has 2 inputs?

i don't see how this has anything to do with...

[excellsior]

Why not? People are talking about the 1080s and MAudios and rather start a new thread about it why can't I ask my question here?

I don't see posting your opinion about it helped in any way.

[Axsuul]

I'm considering the 1080's or the MAudio and I have a SB Xtreme Music.

If I buy a Dayton sub do I connect it into my soundcard or does it go directly into these speakers?

Also I know the MAudio has 2 input sources so I can have one to my PC and another device (keyboard/tv/etc). Does anyone know if the 1080 has 2 inputs?

You might get a better answer if your start your own thread bro.. also it might help other ppl looking for the same answer locate it better through search.

[Rinthe]

hmm anyone?

[ashmedai]

hmm anyone?

Hmm what?

[Rinthe]

what's the difference between a soundcard and a receiver, is it true that i should get a soundcard if i play games

[ashmedai]

These days, strong maybe leaning towards no. "I play games" is also worlds different from "I want my computer and sound system for games and only games because all I do is play counterstrike all day and all night."

A receiver is a piece of A/V equipment. A sound card is a computer component.

A receiver is intended to take multiple inputs, handle them as necessary (provide amplification, convert digital signals to analog, sometimes convert analog video to HDMI or whatever as a bonus feature) and forward them to a set of speakers and possibly a video display. It generally also has a headphone jack which means it can also act as a DAC/amp for headphones (if not necessarily as good of one as a device designed explicitly for that purpose could be).

A sound card provides a device for software to address in order to generate digital output. It also provides (very poor) DAC functionality and amplification functionality since speakers and headphones can't do anything with a digital signal (analog only) or an unamplified one (the volume would be nonexistent). It also can provide processing for codecs and some audio technologies like EAX which are basically fancy ways of processing multiple sources and environmental conditions in hardware in order to avoid loading the CPU. Since modern CPUs are ridiculously more powerful than they were at the time when we started moving to sound cards, we can easily handle this sort of thing in software now. Usually, games do, often whether you want a sound card to be doing it in hardware or not. Sometimes the games still use technologies that require specific hardware support to hear all the audio, or you want to play older games that similarly can't be made to function fully without specific hardware support. This is usually not worth screwing with because 1) you can usually get most things to work in software and few developers want to tie themselves down to a specific subset of possible computers their game could otherwise be installed on, 2) there are so many different audio standards that chasing hardware support is a losing proposition to start with.

Any questions? What it boils down to is: get a sound card if your motherboard has no digital output. Otherwise, you generally can get an external device (receiver, USB DAC, etc) that will sound better for the same money. Sound cards are stuck with the electrical noise inside the computer and with significant size and power constraints that just are not a factor when designing an external device. It's like the "big speaker, small speaker" issue we were talking about - they *could* make an internal device that gives the same quality as any given external device in your budget range - but it would almost certainly cost much more!

[Rinthe]

These days, strong maybe leaning towards no. "I play games" is also worlds different from "I want my computer and sound system for games and only games because all I do is play counterstrike all day and all night."

A receiver is a piece of A/V equipment. A sound card is a computer component.

A receiver is intended to take multiple inputs, handle them as necessary (provide amplification, convert digital signals to analog, sometimes convert analog video to HDMI or whatever as a bonus feature) and forward them to a set of speakers and possibly a video display. It generally also has a headphone jack which means it can also act as a DAC/amp for headphones (if not necessarily as good of one as a device designed explicitly for that purpose could be).

A sound card provides a device for software to address in order to generate digital output. It also provides (very poor) DAC functionality and amplification functionality since speakers and headphones can't do anything with a digital signal (analog only) or an unamplified one (the volume would be nonexistent). It also can provide processing for codecs and some audio technologies like EAX which are basically fancy ways of processing multiple sources and environmental conditions in hardware in order to avoid loading the CPU. Since modern CPUs are ridiculously more powerful than they were at the time when we started moving to sound cards, we can easily handle this sort of thing in software now. Usually, games do, often whether you want a sound card to be doing it in hardware or not. Sometimes the games still use technologies that require specific hardware support to hear all the audio, or you want to play older games that similarly can't be made to function fully without specific hardware support. This is usually not worth screwing with because 1) you can usually get most things to work in software and few developers want to tie themselves down to a specific subset of possible computers their game could otherwise be installed on, 2) there are so many different audio standards that chasing hardware support is a losing proposition to start with.

Any questions? What it boils down to is: get a sound card if your motherboard has no digital output. Otherwise, you generally can get an external device (receiver, USB DAC, etc) that will sound better for the same money. Sound cards are stuck with the electrical noise inside the computer and with significant size and power constraints that just are not a factor when designing an external device. It's like the "big speaker, small speaker" issue we were talking about - they *could* make an internal device that gives the same quality as any given external device in your budget range - but it would almost certainly cost much more!

Wow ashmedai, thanks for taking the time writing a detailed response! I understand now, thank you! :D I will give myself sometime to think about this, i won't get anything else until my speaker arrives first anyways :p

[ashmedai]

I will give myself sometime to think about this, i won't get anything else until my speaker arrives first anyways :p

Good plan.

Oh, and you don't actually need a digital out on the motherboard with a USB DAC. One of the reasons they're such a nifty option - very flexible.

[Rinthe]

ahh i see. can you recommend me some Receivers and USB DACs? I know a little about soundcards, but nothing about receivers and usb dacs :p

[ashmedai]

The Zero DAC is very popular. It's a little tricky to track down where to buy other than eBay, though, since it's an import job.

USB DACs for the most part are stereo devices (also note that many of them also include an amp circuit). Receivers will be a major upgrade for you, but might not have as high quality a chip in the DAC circuit in order to reduce the build cost (and increase profit margins). Receivers do, however, bring many other abilities to the table that a DAC-only device isn't built to do. Receiver choice is often dependent on what's on sale when you buy, but I'm using an Onkyo unit that I picked up on refurb. There are a few well-known brands like that which will reliably give you solid results. However, any but perhaps the absolute worst will trump any but perhaps the absolute best (or at least much more expensive) sound cards - AND, you cannot run full speakers from a sound card unless they have built-in amps like the 1080 does. There is not really a large upgrade path for you from the 1080s without tossing out the sound card at some point.

One upgrade I'm looking at myself is adding a USB DAC to my current system. I'm using a receiver now, but if I got a USB DAC with a better DAC chip, I could feed it into my receiver as an analog signal and let the receiver only act as the amplifier (provided, of course, that I choose a USB DAC that either does not amplify or has an amplifier that can be disabled). Incremental upgrades are great!

[Rinthe]

Since my speakers are pretty must just for my PC, i don't think i need all the different inputs that i get with the receiver. DAC-only devices are probably my best bet, or a sound card... still debating, not sure which games actually uses the CPU to do all the audio stuff.

anyways, is the Zero DAC a DAC-only device? and i did some searches, seems like it's pretty damn hard to get, any other recommendations?

[ashmedai]

I'm looking at the iBasso (http://www.ibasso.com/) DAC/amp devices right now, myself. The quality looks very high and some models have line-out functionality (i.e. you can choose not to let it amplify) like the just-released D3. It's on $200 though, and the D3 uses batteries that have to be charged externally (only every ~100 hours, though - probably less in DAC-only mode). There are loads of options (http://www.head-fi.org/forums/f7/all-dacs-money-can-buy-197674/), though.

[Rinthe]

Say if i can get a zero dac, is that the best choice? Or is that better for just headphones?

yeah $200 is definitely way too much! :eek:

[ashmedai]

The Zero is something like $150, a large part of which is from the international shipping. The Head-Fi writeup says it can work as a pre-amp, so it should be fine for speaker use too. Apparently it has separate outputs and a toggle switch and everything.

[Rinthe]

hmm so amp is headphone, pre-amp is speakers?

[ashmedai]

The amp in the Zero probably is not be enough for speakers, which are much larger than headphones. Pre-amp functionality allows you to run it through a larger amp afterwards, bypassing the built-in amplification. Double amplification is BAD and will introduce mad noise and attenuate your sound in all sorts of irregular ways. You should NOT run a DAC/amp whose amp cannot be disabled into any other amplifier. Fortunately - the Zero is one that will work with other amps. AND let you use it as a headphone amp without changing any connections or anything - again, nothing but a press of the switch.

[Rinthe]

the review for zero says that i need clean digital source, do i have that?

[ashmedai]

the review for zero says that i need clean digital source, do i have that?

It probably means FLAC or something like that (without seeing the exact paragraph). If you feed crappy overcompressed music into an awesome sound system, it will still sound like crap when it comes out.


Here we go:

"It is designed to take a clean digital source and convert it to really great headphone and pre-amp output."

Yes, it means that your source audio should be good quality, not over-compressed, not full of noise that is inherent to the recording. The best one can hope for is that the DAC will take a high quality digital signal and turn it into a high quality analog signal - it will do that. Turning crap into gold is just magic.

[Rinthe]

It probably means FLAC or something like that (without seeing the exact paragraph). If you feed crappy overcompressed music into an awesome sound system, it will still sound like crap when it comes out.

ah okay, thanks! here's the paragraph if you're interested:

This Zero unit is a monster “Bang for your Buck” unit. It is quality built with HeadFi type audiophiles in mind. Having said that, let me clarify a few things that might help those who are looking for such a unit. Inputs on the Zero are limited to optical and coaxial. No analog line-in. It is designed to take a clean digital source and convert it to really great headphone and pre-amp output. It will drive any type of headphones. It will cleanly drive a dedicated stereo amp (like my Super T-amp) or other separate amps. It is not portable, but works well with portable devices that have optical out. If you are in the market to build a desktop stereo system starting with a clean digital source, then this unit is absolutely worth investigating. It can serve as a clean bridge between portable and desktop, or as a bridge between digital and analog systems.

[Rinthe]

only one person answers the phone calls at audioinsider?

[astrallite]

A good original source with a component encoder is a good start for quality music. I think the MP3 thing is being overblown here, your average Dolby TrueHD movie is only running at 350kbps (per 2 channels). It's a definite improvement over Dolby Digital 5.1's 149.33kbps/2 output though.

I have above average hearing (out to 17KHz) and honestly a high bitrate mp3 and a FLAC file, in general I really can't tell the difference in a blind test. I'm not saying no one can, but even among people with very high end gear (much more expensive that what I have--and my setup is 10k), for the younger and less computer-terrified group, you'll find them much more open to admitting the differences between well-encoded sources at different bitrates not exactly extremely audible, and almost impossible to spot in a DBX. That said, I still use FLAC, not because I can hear the difference, but it just makes me feel more at ease. The same reason I upsample my music to 88.2KHz; I don't have hearing up to the Nyquist sampling frequency (22.05KHz), but it's nice to know even if I could, I wouldn't hear it.

[Rinthe]

cool! i only get mp3s are that V0 now, i'll test out the flac VS v0 thing when the speakers arrive :P i just did a hearing test thing online, i can hear up to 22khz :D

[topdog5050]

Hey,I would get a set of the Logitech they have always been great for me and if you got the money get a sound card not the onboard sound unless thats all you got.:)

[Rinthe]

I originally had logitech, i disliked them. and everyone here thinks that the Swans are A LOT better than logitech.

[Rinthe]

i just received my 1080s!!!!!! i must say, they're pretty damn good! i'm very happy with them right now :) Now if i am to get a DAC, how much improvement will i see? a little or a lot?

[ashmedai]

Probably not as huge a step as going to the 1080s, but still pretty substantial.

Some of these changes e.g. DAC improvements start getting into territory that more "passive" listeners might not notice easily. If you're paying attention to the music, yes, but if you have it on while distracted with other things it can be harder to tell until you get accustomed to the new level of quality.

IMO you need one, and will appreciate it, but will appreciate it more if you wait until you get more used to the 1080s.

[Rinthe]

Probably not as huge a step as going to the 1080s, but still pretty substantial.

Some of these changes e.g. DAC improvements start getting into territory that more "passive" listeners might not notice easily. If you're paying attention to the music, yes, but if you have it on while distracted with other things it can be harder to tell until you get accustomed to the new level of quality.

IMO you need one, and will appreciate it, but will appreciate it more if you wait until you get more used to the 1080s.

thank you! i guess i'll just enjoy my 1080s for awhile then ;P

[ashmedai]

That's what I'd do, anyway. Definitely revisit this in a few months - but for now, it is all kinds of awesome compared to what you're used to, which is what you can appreciate anyway. It will give you plenty of time to research and possibly test a few models in the mean time (Head-Fi account is a good start if you haven't joined there yet...).

[Rinthe]

i have a question about the positioning of my speakers. like how far away from me? infront of me or behind me?

[ashmedai]

Mine are about a meter away from my head at a 60 degree angle, but focused about a meter behind me since I'm not the only one that listens to 'em. You don't want them too close if you can give them a little distance, but bookshelves are decent at short range. You don't want to be too far either, but I don't think you can really get far enough for that to matter in a desk scenario.

[Rinthe]

yea so i was thinking maybe i should put them behind me? about a meter away behind.

[ashmedai]

That could be a little weird.

[spaceman]

better than having them right beside you though. if it is the only way to get distance from the 1080s, try it.

[Rinthe]

i was wondering, do i need to turn off my speakers when i'm not using them? or is it okay to have them on all the time?

[Alai]

Ugh, I hate you for getting the 1080 so cheap... lol. I hope you have lots of fun with them.

[Rinthe]

hehe sorry :P anyone? should i turn them off when not using them

[Rinthe]

noone?

[ashmedai]

It's okay to leave them on, but it's nice to turn them off if you remember. Less for the speakers than because it's nice to conserve power, even if it doesn't use much while dormant.

[Rinthe]

another question about the d1080s, my d1080s have a cover on it, if you look at the screen shots from the audio insider, u can see the tweeters exposed. on mine, it has a black cover over it. any idea?

http://www.theaudioinsider.com/images/D1080%20main%20resized.jpg
and mine:
http://i35.tinypic.com/20f96km.jpg

so the question is, should i take them off?

[Rinthe]

anyone?

[Omegaslast]

another question about the d1080s, my d1080s have a cover on it, if you look at the screen shots from the audio insider, u can see the tweeters exposed. on mine, it has a black cover over it. any idea?

http://www.theaudioinsider.com/images/D1080%20main%20resized.jpg
and mine:
http://i35.tinypic.com/20f96km.jpg

so the question is, should i take them off?

lol wtf. have you tried taking the grill off by chance?!

[Rinthe]

i tried, didn't come off, should i take them off?

[ashmedai]

It's a matter of preference. I usually like to leave mine off.

[phide]

Grills off is almost always preferable, but some speaker designers take grills into consideration (and design good grills), so there's rarely a clear cut answer.

As always, it's "whatever sounds best to you".

[Mr. Wolf]

I've never bought into the notion that grilles on/off really affects the speaker's performance in any appreciable manner. I think it has a lot more to do with aesthetics. If you've got little kids who like to poke their fingers into things, grilles come in rather handy.

[ashmedai]

I've never bought into the notion that grilles on/off really affects the speaker's performance in any appreciable manner.

I tend to be all over some of the more "mystical" aspects of audio...but this isn't one of those cases. The physics here are pretty simple - you put something in front of a sound wave that's not air, it's going to affect it. Grilles have to be designed explicitly to avoid invoking this effect any more than necessary, thus the use of foam (which is air to a high percent, thus minimizes it) or a metal plane with many moderately-large holes. The other problem is diffraction...but even a 20kHz signal is only down to a 1.72cm wavelength, so it's minimized provided the grille aperture remains small enough (you can escape diffraction by either having an aperture large enough to be equivalent to open space, or small enough that the waves can't distinguish individual apertures, with "enough" being relative to the wavelength).

Grilles do change the sound. Proven fact. However, they are designed to do it as little as possible, and whether the change is positive or negative is a matter of taste.

[Mr. Wolf]

Nice dissertation. I'll bet 9 out of 10 couldn't tell the difference between grilles on/off to save their lives.

[Rinthe]

any idea how i can take them off?

[ashmedai]

Usually they just pop off, with a snap-like attachment near each corner. I don't know for certain that yours are built that way, though, so be careful.

Nice dissertation. I'll bet 9 out of 10 couldn't tell the difference between grilles on/off to save their lives.

Did you miss the part where I said they're designed to deliberately minimize the effect of having them on? Or were you just asking me to give a more detailed explanation? I know that was a little short if you're not familiar with basic physics...

[Mr. Wolf]

Did you miss the part where I said they're designed to deliberately minimize the effect of having them on? Or were you just asking me to give a more detailed explanation? I know that was a little short if you're not familiar with basic physics...
Actually, YOU missed the part where I wrote there's not an appreciable difference between on/off. We basically agree. I just didn't break out the physics textbook for my comments.

[spaceman]

Actually, YOU missed the part where I wrote there's not an appreciable difference between on/off. We basically agree. I just didn't break out the physics textbook for my comments.

Easy!

He is still in school and thinking lol.

[ashmedai]

Actually, YOU missed the part where I wrote there's not an appreciable difference between on/off. We basically agree. I just didn't break out the physics textbook for my comments.

Nah, I just disagree on that aspect. :D

Then again maybe I'm the unlucky 1/10. :(


Well, at the least I think it's significant enough that people should try both ways and make sure there isn't a difference to them. A 10% chance of a free upgrade is hard to pass up when you're spending $$ on an audio system already.

[Rinthe]

cool!, they did pop off :D they look so much better off :D

[ashmedai]

cool!, they did pop off :D they look so much better off :D

Pics

[Rinthe]

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/4312/img3227mt3.jpg
http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/5739/img3229ig1.jpg

hehe :D

[ashmedai]

Sweet.

More people leave it off for looks...it's like the people with case windows on their computer, except less tacky. :D

[phide]

hehe :D
Nice lookin' speakers, really. I should probably get some and make my wallet a little sadder :(

[rblews]

I've got the D1080MkII Swans paired with an HT Omega Claro on a second computer in the family room; and they sound as good (for music) as my E-MU 0404USB paired with a more expensive amp/bookshelf speaker set-up.

[Rinthe]

I've got the D1080MkII Swans paired with an HT Omega Claro on a second computer in the family room; and they sound as good (for music) as my E-MU 0404USB paired with a more expensive amp/bookshelf speaker set-up.

im thinking about a Zero DAC for my next upgrade, do you think that the HT Omega Claro might be better?

[ashmedai]

The 0404 would be more of an alternative to look at; the Claro is nice but it's still an internal card.