Five 2.1 Speaker Set Comparison

RishiGuru

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
119
Digging the net if found a comprehensive review & comparison available in the Tom'sHardware website regarding five 2.1 speaker sets.

1) Corsair SP2500
2) Creative Gigaworks T3
3) Klipsch Promedia 2.1
4) Logitech Z623
5) Soundscience Rockus 3D

Tom'sHardware link : 2.1-Channel Speaker Roundup

Corsair SP2500


Klipsch Promedia


Logitech Z-623


I really liked the SP2500. Points to note though:

1) SP2500 have 232W while Z-623 has 200W
2) SP2500 costs $260 while Z-623 costs $140 (amazon.com).
3) Z-623 have THX certification

According to Tom'sHardware sound quality wise SP2500 & Z-623 are identical. Both have the same sonic feel & character in their sound. SP2500 have more options in the wired remote that Z-623 lacks. On the other hand Z-623 is a good $120 cheaper.

Say, I will get the the Z-623 for sure since it gives me same sound quality & sonic feel of SP2500 at $120 less. Or I can spend $20 over SP2500 to get two Z-623. Now I have 400W instead of SP2500's 232W. Just Kidding!!!!!!!!!

Tom'sHarware comments on:

SP2500: "The Corsair SP2500 sounds good to my ear, whether playing back hard-hitting games or all sorts of music. I did notice a kind of hollowness in the mid-range—with vocals particularly—and this does reflect the valley we saw in the frequency response at 3.5 kHz."

Klipsch Promedia : "It rarely shows the highest or lowest response in our tests, and has no obvious weaknesses except a drop-off in the 10 kHz+ range, which is a little surprising when you consider that these speakers are equipped with dedicated tweeters."

Z-623 : "Logitech’s Z-2300 has been the product to beat for years, and the new Z623 has taken its place as Logitech’s premier 2.1-channel offering with THX certification. Without a Z-2300 on hand, I can’t compare these systems to each other, but compared to the rest of the current playing field, the Logitech Z623 certainly holds its own. It boasts a flat frequency response with gobs of bass available for games and music at your command. There’s even a bit of brilliance on the high end."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems having separate midrange drivers & tweeters as in SP2500 & Promedia does not always gives you excellent top end in the frequency spectrum as a single aluminium phase plug full range driver of Z-623 does a much better job.

The audio frequency graph of the five speaker sets:


Note that SP2500 with a separate midrange driver & tweeter takes a dip at 500Hz and also creates a valley between 2-5kHz range where cows can graze. Z-623 with a single full range driver have much better frequency response that SP2500 between 200Hz to 20kHz hands down.

Also after looking at the above graph I cannot find a single place where the Promedia's with separate midrange & tweeters had an advantage over Z-623 in high frequencies. Actually Z-623 is superior to Promedia in producing mids & highs in every respect. Can anybody help me here?

After looking at the graph it gives me some relief as the Z-623 & its predecessor Z-2300 is not that bad after all. And also that THX have some dent on the sound quality of the product it adorns. I can live with the Z-623 having 32W less power at the top & also without the options in the control pod of SP2500.

Comments & discussions on this subject will be highly appreciated.

Regards, RishiGuru

[EDIT: To see the final showdown & to cut the long story short, go to my last post in this page: Five 2.1 PC Speaker Showdown]
 
Last edited:
You really love your Logitech 2.1s don't you? You should make a thread about how great it is.
 
You really love your Logitech 2.1s don't you? You should make a thread about how great it is.

No, no forget about Logitech. Tell me which one you think is the best of the above five & why. There may be something I am missing. I do not know everything. So, I need you guys to help me out here.
 
the audioengine 2 speakers often get over looked. you don't even necessarily need a sub with them.
 
1) SP2500 have 232W while Z-623 has 200W
2) SP2500 costs $260 while Z-623 costs $140 (amazon.com).
3) Z-623 have THX certification

The SP2500 wattage is measured and reported according to FTC spec. Among other things, the FTC spec requires that the system is generating no more than 10% THD at the rated power.

I believe you're the author of this piece:

http://rishiguru2300.blogspot.com/

Where it's written:

Moreover most manufactures quote the peak power which is merely twice the continuous power since the peak of the sine wave using for a test has a value that is mathematically twice the average.

Logitech quoted Z-623 Peak Power = 100W X 2 = 200W

So, now you get the picture. But I do not find Logitech guilty for this reason since every other manufacturer be it Altec Lansing, Sony, Edifier or Creative are all following the same path, Sony being the worst example with their 300W claim for DB-500 speaker set which actually have only 100W according to a much respected website.


Agreed with your sentiments with regard to the liberties that many manufacturers take with quoting wattage, but to be clear, Corsair is *not* in this group. We report the real deal by following the strict FTC reporting guidelines. I believe Logitech's 200W claim is the apple to our 232W orange. Naturally, this is the point where I should mention that wattage isn't just about how loud a system can get, but how it sounds at low volumes.

I'm curious: what value do you believe that THX certification adds?


According to Tom'sHardware sound quality wise SP2500 & Z-623 are identical. Both have the same sonic feel & character in their sound.

Tom's notwithstanding, this isn't a belief generally shared by people who have heard both. I believe the dropout was due to an EQ setting issue during testing; we're talking to Tom about that. Here's a second opinion in the form of two reviews by the same reviewer:

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/logitech_speaker_system_z623_review

And

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/corsair_sp2500_gaming_audio_speakers_review
 
The SP2500 wattage is measured and reported according to FTC spec. Among other things, the FTC spec requires that the system is generating no more than 10% THD at the rated power.

I believe you're the author of this piece:

http://rishiguru2300.blogspot.com/

Where it's written:

Moreover most manufactures quote the peak power which is merely twice the continuous power since the peak of the sine wave using for a test has a value that is mathematically twice the average.

Logitech quoted Z-623 Peak Power = 100W X 2 = 200W

So, now you get the picture. But I do not find Logitech guilty for this reason since every other manufacturer be it Altec Lansing, Sony, Edifier or Creative are all following the same path, Sony being the worst example with their 300W claim for DB-500 speaker set which actually have only 100W according to a much respected website.


Agreed with your sentiments with regard to the liberties that many manufacturers take with quoting wattage, but to be clear, Corsair is *not* in this group. We report the real deal by following the strict FTC reporting guidelines. I believe Logitech's 200W claim is the apple to our 232W orange. Naturally, this is the point where I should mention that wattage isn't just about how loud a system can get, but how it sounds at low volumes.

I'm curious: what value do you believe that THX certification adds?

Tom's notwithstanding, this isn't a belief generally shared by people who have heard both. I believe the dropout was due to an EQ setting issue during testing; we're talking to Tom about that. Here's a second opinion in the form of two reviews by the same reviewer:

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/logitech_speaker_system_z623_review

And

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/corsair_sp2500_gaming_audio_speakers_review

Firstly, thanks for visiting my blog.

Secondly, as mentioned by me the 100W power of Z-623 is continuous power not FTC rated power. For example: Z-2300 had 200W of FTC rated power but its continuous power was only 120W.

I believe THX certification stands for a more optimized and flatter frequency response, better signal-to-noise ratio and distortion level requirements.

I am amazed how the reviewers of Tom'sHardware & Maximum PC can be poles apart in terms of their analysis regarding these sets.

But you have to give more credit to the 10 page review of Tom'sHardware over Maximum PC's since they had the rig to test all five & post frequency charts.

Also Tom'sHardware did both the objective & subjective reviews of the products. Maximum PC just provided their subjective view in four paragraphs.
 
Last edited:
I read this article and I was blown away that they thought the Corsair and the Logitech sounded the same. I find it odd that a speaker with a tweeter and a midrange can sound the same as a satellite with a 2.5" speaker.

I have quite a few friends who have the Logitech systems and they sound good but way too much bass, I personally can't wait to test out the Corsair system as I know the price premium is worth the extra money.
 
I'd like to see find out how these speakers compare to the old ACS48 and ACS621 by Altec Lansing. (I have the ACS621)
 
I'll save you all the read and just say M-Audio AV40's blow all of these out of the water.

Why someone would want to buy a set of speakers from a crappy peripherals company like Logitech or a memory company such as Corsair is beyond me.

Creative? LOL

Klipsch is at least decent.

This is another awesome Tom's Hardware failure.
 
I read this article and I was blown away that they thought the Corsair and the Logitech sounded the same. I find it odd that a speaker with a tweeter and a midrange can sound the same as a satellite with a 2.5" speaker.

I have quite a few friends who have the Logitech systems and they sound good but way too much bass, I personally can't wait to test out the Corsair system as I know the price premium is worth the extra money.

But what do you think about the audio frequency graph? These systems were tested under same test conditions & specifications. And as you know graphs do not lie. They are universal and completely unbiased.
 
But what do you think about the audio frequency graph? These systems were tested under same test conditions & specifications. And as you know graphs do not lie. They are universal and completely unbiased.

Honestly as a consumer I don't care about the audio frequency graph. Every person is different, my father has the Logitech Z-2300 system and it sounds great at low volume but when you push the system while listening to House/Trance/Dance/Hip-Hop which pushed the bass it sounds extremely muddy. I haven't heard the Corsair system in person and I'm hoping that I can soon to make a comparison, it's quite possible it will make the bass sound as muddy or it might be tight and crisp.
 
I'll save you all the read and just say M-Audio AV40's blow all of these out of the water.

Why someone would want to buy a set of speakers from a crappy peripherals company like Logitech or a memory company such as Corsair is beyond me.

Creative? LOL

Klipsch is at least decent.

This is another awesome Tom's Hardware failure.

Because companies never come out of left field and surprise people with new products...

Not saying you're wrong. Just that your reasoning for ignoring them is wrong.
 
Because companies never come out of left field and surprise people with new products...

Not saying you're wrong. Just that your reasoning for ignoring them is wrong.

I agree with this. I have been very happy with my Corsair PSU even though they never made them before this particular one AFAIK.
 
Honestly as a consumer I don't care about the audio frequency graph.

I agree with Dextar. I could care less about the graphs.

So, it seems both of you care less about audio frequency graphs and believe more about what your ears say. But then again, the entire matter becomes subjective because what may be excellent in your ears can just be good or maybe even worse for others.

I respect your personal likings, but I think it will be better to measure a system from a objective point so that it remains identical to all.

I forgot which review of audioholics, but in one of them the author said; "Let me tell you the biggest truth about audio quality. The system with the best audio quality among a heard of similar audio systems may not sound the best in your ears, but a audio system with a factory preset equalizer setting thus compromising the audio quality, may sound the best. That is when the audio frequency graphs are called for."

I just kept this wise comment of his in my PC. So I put it here.
 
Last edited:
I agree with this. I have been very happy with my Corsair PSU even though they never made them before this particular one AFAIK.

PSU's are sort of like LCD panels, few companies actually make them, lots of companies sell them.
 
But what do you think about the audio frequency graph? These systems were tested under same test conditions & specifications. And as you know graphs do not lie. They are universal and completely unbiased.

Graphs don't lie? That's news to me. Because those who do make the graphs do have bias (say, choosing the range and scale of the graphs) and there is no way of assuring that they were produced in a rigorous manner.

Nor do frequency response graphs even begin to tell the whole story... Where's the transient response measurements, for example? Or how about the soundstage measurements? :-/

In this case, I don't think the frequency response measurements are wrong, per se...

But the reviewer clearly is out of touch...

Sub-bass is 20-60 Hz? That's news to me... Last I checked, sub-bass was below 20 Hz, in the often sub-aural range... Below bass sounds; hence, "sub"-bass.

Saying that "bass" continues all the way up to 250 Hz is more than a stretch, too... Middle C is at 261.63 Hz! I'd say 200 Hz maximum; but I'd split it more into "low bass" from 20 Hz to around 50-60 Hz, just plain "bass" from 50-60 Hz to 100 Hz or so, and upper bass from 100 Hz to 200 Hz max.

The names "presence" and "brilliance" are quite laughable, too... "Brilliance" I sort of understand, although why "upper treble" wasn't good enough is beyond me.

I see they took their frequency range names and definitions from a mastering website, so there's some certainly some background for this. Whether other mastering engineers agree, or if this guy is even a decent recording engineer (they seem to be the exception rather than the rule these days) is an unknown.

But anyway, all of them have subs that play way too high of frequencies and speakers that drop off too soon on both ends of the frequency range. Not to mention, we never get any sort of measurement of what their response is like when tuned for as neutral as possible bass...

Compare this:

FR-comparison.png


To this:

195Epsfig4.jpg

Infinity IRS Epsilon Frequency Response,

Actually, there you can see the results when a speaker is properly measured.
http://www.stereophile.com/content/infinity-irs-epsilon-loudspeaker-measurements

Notice the actual logarithmic scale with major and minor lines - not to mention clearer scales.

So as far as your fetish for measurements goes, regardless of their actual accuracy or even significance, I guess I can't help...
 
Your information were quite informative Blackbeard Ben. Thanks for that.

Graphs don't lie? That's news to me. Because those who do make the graphs do have bias (say, choosing the range and scale of the graphs) and there is no way of assuring that they were produced in a rigorous manner.

So do you mean that Tom'sHardware did a biased review preferring one system over the other? Then the question remains as to whom to trust? I mean, now I can say that you are completely wrong & biased and then you say the same to me. And then ten more members join & this topic goes to oblivion. We as responsible members of the forum should stay away from this and make our forum more productive. But, anyway I respect your views & comments.

Speaking about range, they covered the entire audible frequency range. But I could not understand what you meant by "scale of the graphs". Kindly explain.
 
Your information were quite informative Blackbeard Ben. Thanks for that.



So do you mean that Tom'sHardware did a biased review preferring one system over the other? Then the question remains as to whom to trust? I mean, now I can say that you are completely wrong & biased and then you say the same to me. And then ten more members join & this topic goes to oblivion. We as responsible members of the forum should stay away from this and make our forum more productive. But, anyway I respect your views & comments.

Speaking about range, they covered the entire audible frequency range. But I could not understand what you meant by "scale of the graphs". Kindly explain.

Information is usually, but not always, informative! :D

No, I'm not saying they biased it to or against one or another system - although removing the one system from the graph did do that to an extent. What they should have done is created an interactive graph like on headphonia.com, where you can choose which systems to compare.

The scales are the numbers on the sides and bottom - you know, the labels saying "55 dB", "60 dB", or "20 Hz", "30 Hz", etc.? By compressing the vertical scale, you can give the impression that the frequency response is flatter than it really is. The opposite will make it appear more erratic.

For the scale: By leaving out minor lines, it makes it much more difficult to assess the response at a particular frequency - especially with these being logarithmic graphs.

Going beyond the audible range allows you to put the audible range in perspective. Also, in the case of frequencies below 20 Hz, you can most certainly feel those (and hear the individual pulses) even if you can't hear them. Oh, and C0, at 16.25 Hz, is definitely audible (to me at least). It's the lowest note a tuba (and many organs) can play and an octave below the lowest piano note.
 
Information is usually, but not always, informative! :D

No, I'm not saying they biased it to or against one or another system - although removing the one system from the graph did do that to an extent. What they should have done is created an interactive graph like on headphonia.com, where you can choose which systems to compare.

The scales are the numbers on the sides and bottom - you know, the labels saying "55 dB", "60 dB", or "20 Hz", "30 Hz", etc.? By compressing the vertical scale, you can give the impression that the frequency response is flatter than it really is. The opposite will make it appear more erratic.

For the scale: By leaving out minor lines, it makes it much more difficult to assess the response at a particular frequency - especially with these being logarithmic graphs.

Going beyond the audible range allows you to put the audible range in perspective. Also, in the case of frequencies below 20 Hz, you can most certainly feel those (and hear the individual pulses) even if you can't hear them. Oh, and C0, at 16.25 Hz, is definitely audible (to me at least). It's the lowest note a tuba (and many organs) can play and an octave below the lowest piano note.

Thanks for the explaining. I think asking these systems to go well beyond the audible frequency range is to much of an ask.

Also, if you are to believe the published frequency graph, which speaker system do you think have the best frequency response and why?

I know you are quite a master of analyzing, so your answer will be very informative
 
Thanks for the explaining. I think asking these systems to go well beyond the audible frequency range is to much of an ask.

Also, if you are to believe the published frequency graph, which speaker system do you think have the best frequency response and why?

I know you are quite a master of analyzing, so your answer will be very informative

Well, they're all similarly shitty, I don't think I could pick one... and I wouldn't bother with any of them since there's far better performing systems to be had for the same price...
 
Well, they're all similarly shitty, I don't think I could pick one... and I wouldn't bother with any of them since there's far better performing systems to be had for the same price...

Blackbeard Ben, call me crazy if you want to but I was thinking of this scenario: "You have taken part in a contest and won a speaker system. Now when you go to collect the prize, where you are given to choose from the above five boxed "similarly shitty" speaker sets. You have to choose and then only you can open and hear it. Now, since you listen to HiFi's you have no conception about which one is better.

They also provide you the above audio frequency graph as a reference. Which one will you choose? Will you take the graph as a reference and choose?

If so, which set.
If not, which set.

I want you to make a decision and provide the name of the speaker set. It will be very kind of you.
 
IMO, sound is subjective. I agree with your points scientifically, but since is it will be my ears that hear the sound, the rest is irrelevant. What I think sounds great could be pure crap scientifically but does it matter if that is what I prefer.

BTW, I have seen similar situations as this in other topics (not computer related) and there is a big debate in what makes something the best. Is it what the experts that really know say or is it what the market (sales) say. The market usually go for the crap. The point is, what does it matter if you make the best product in the world if no one buys it.

So, according to you let this graphs go to oblivion & buy a set that is good for the listeners ears. But then if a noob without any prior knowledge on sound and its technology buys a system with high distortion, high noise & a frequency response graph that represent a "U" because he likes that, will that be okay?

Also if he is a member of this forum, according to you he may even suggest this set to others as a very good one.

Am I right or wrong. Kindly answer
 
Last edited:
The only review that matters is done with my own ears, and in that respect, the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 still sound better to my own ears than any of the competition, and that's based on demo materials that I've used since 1985 and know precisely what they should sound like when played back from a set of speakers.

Online reviews... seems like a huge waste of space and time to me, personally. I have never in my decades made a purchase based on reviews from other people, and I'm not planning on starting anytime soon.
 
The only review that matters is done with my own ears, and in that respect, the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 still sound better to my own ears than any of the competition, and that's based on demo materials that I've used since 1985 and know precisely what they should sound like when played back from a set of speakers.

Online reviews... seems like a huge waste of space and time to me, personally. I have never in my decades made a purchase based on reviews from other people, and I'm not planning on starting anytime soon.

So, the Klipsch Promedia 2.1 wins in your case. I am guessing here, can the new much lighter & cheaper Promedias be as good as the ones a decade back.

There are 101 threads in 1001 forums that talk about appalling reliability of Promedias. Does this in any means represent that the current model uses cheap materials?
 
Blackbeard Ben, call me crazy if you want to but I was thinking of this scenario: "You have taken part in a contest and won a speaker system. Now when you go to collect the prize, where you are given to choose from the above five boxed "similarly shitty" speaker sets. You have to choose and then only you can open and hear it. Now, since you listen to HiFi's you have no conception about which one is better.

They also provide you the above audio frequency graph as a reference. Which one will you choose? Will you take the graph as a reference and choose?

If so, which set.
If not, which set.

I want you to make a decision and provide the name of the speaker set. It will be very kind of you.

Is it a valid answer to choose to donate the speaker system, which the contest owners can choose from those available, to charity instead, since I don't need more speakers?

Again, without knowing the entire range of possible bass settings, those graphs are absolutely, bona-fide, entirely useless below 300 Hz or so.

Nor do I spend all day looking at frequency response charts and comparing them to their respective speakers, or spend all day working a 20-band EQ.

And again, apparently I didn't emphasize this enough, frequency response is not the only important measurement of a speaker. You can EQ frequency response to some extent - you can't EQ slow transient response. Nor can you EQ harmonic distortion - which in itself gets measured but doesn't tell the whole story. Different distortions sound different - a percentage doesn't tell you the whole story, or even really a meaningful part of it.



Harry Caray: Hey! Now Ken, we all know that the moon is not made of green cheese.
Ken Waller: Yes, that's true Harry.
Harry Caray: But what if it were made of barbeque spare ribs, would you eat it then?
Ken Waller: What?
Harry Caray: I know I would. Heck! I'd have seconds and then polish it off with a tall cool Budweiser. - - - I would do it. Would you?
Ken Waller: I'm confused.
Harry Caray: It's a simple question Dr, would you eat the moon if it were made of ribs?
Ken Waller: I don't know how to answer that.
Harry Caray: It's not rocket science, just say yes and we'll move on.
Ken Waller: Yes.
 
There are 101 threads in 1001 forums that talk about appalling reliability of Promedias. Does this in any means represent that the current model uses cheap materials?

The really important question is: does anyone really give a shit as long as they work and they sound better than the competition?

In my case, it's a no-yes win-win situation, and that's all that matters.
 
I have nothing useful to contribute expect I fucking HATE that chart in the OP.

Thin little lines in nearly the same color are all but impossible for us color blind folks to discern.

I literally can't see the difference between the Logitech and Klipsch on that chart. At least the background color isn't completely white.


I really, really wish tech site would stop using color coding like this. Especially when they are comparing like a dozen different items and using like every shade of the rainbow to represent different data points.

God...my eyes are already starting to hurt just trying to read that damn thing.
 
The only review that matters is done with my own ears

The really important question is: does anyone really give a shit as long as they work and they sound better than the competition?

So, according to your theory : Promedia's sound better to you, not to everyone.

I still choose the Z-623 since:
1) It has the best audio frequency response according to the graph above
2) Z-623 with a single full range beats the midrange & tweeters of SP2500 & Promedia hands down according to the graph above
3) According to your theory : "It sound best in my ears"
4) The best price/ performance ratio

And it seems from now on, every member of this forum should give a shit to the scientific way of measuring sound equipments & also give a shit to what the other members think about, and even if he is a noob, give a shit to others and buy the shit that is best in his ears.

Man my head got fuzzed.
 
Last edited:
I have nothing useful to contribute expect I fucking HATE that chart in the OP.

Thin little lines in nearly the same color are all but impossible for us color blind folks to discern.

I literally can't see the difference between the Logitech and Klipsch on that chart. At least the background color isn't completely white.


I really, really wish tech site would stop using color coding like this. Especially when they are comparing like a dozen different items and using like every shade of the rainbow to represent different data points.

God...my eyes are already starting to hurt just trying to read that damn thing.

The best part is it is supposed to be a 5 speaker comparison with only 4 sets of lines????
It is a useless chart which fails to tell the whole story about a speakers quality or sound. Any one who would try to pick a speaker system from that sort of graph is showing off their total lack of understanding about audio.
 
I have nothing useful to contribute expect I f*****g HATE that chart in the OP.

Thin little lines in nearly the same color are all but impossible for us color blind folks to discern.

I literally can't see the difference between the Logitech and Klipsch on that chart. At least the background color isn't completely white.


I really, really wish tech site would stop using color coding like this. Especially when they are comparing like a dozen different items and using like every shade of the rainbow to represent different data points.

God...my eyes are already starting to hurt just trying to read that damn thing.

Use the zoom button in your browser. It can go upto 300% bigger
 
Yeah well, you'll get used to the fuzzy feeling after a while, or you'll go jump off a building, either way the point still holds:

What sounds best to you may not sound the best to anyone else, hence there is no best for everyone, specs and statistics be damned.

Speakers are effectively impossible to lay claim - any speakers ever made or will be made in the future - to the title of "best" period.

My statements are not theoretical, they are factual. What sounds best to me are the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 setup of the given choices in the OP's selection.

Power output = irrelevant.
Price = irrelevant.
THX certification = irrelevant.

Sound quality to my ears = all that matters.

For all your "numbers on paper," in the long run, are meaningless in a field - such as speakers - where "best" doesn't mean anything on that very same paper or with those very same numbers.

Bumblebees can't fly. Did you know that? They actually can't fly, based on NASA research that was rather voluminous many years ago. Some researcher at NASA decided to do testing based on proven statistical and aerodynamic mathematics, with a lot of effort put into it just because he saw a bumblebee one time outside his kitchen window. His brain kicked into "rocket scientist" mode and thought "Ok, given the body size, the weight distribution, mass, wing density, etc etc... there's no way that huge body should stay in the air given those rather tiny wings in comparison..."

But, alas, even NASA was proven wrong as bumblebees do actually fly.

Numbers... on a page... trying to quantify the unquantifiable... in this case sound quality.

Yeah, I can see where you'd get all fuzzed up over nothing much at all. ;)

"STAND BACK, SOME N00B IS DOING SCIENCE!!! WE'RE ALL DOOMED!!!" :p
 
The best part is it is supposed to be a 5 speaker comparison with only 4 sets of lines????
It is a useless chart which fails to tell the whole story about a speakers quality or sound. Any one who would try to pick a speaker system from that sort of graph is showing off their total lack of understanding about audio.

Snufykat, you are back, welcome.

Which one of the above five sets is the best according to you? Why?
 
Even larger, that god damn chart is hard to read.

Regardless, a frequency response chart plays only a small role in what the speakers end up sounding like. It gives you some ideas of what to expect, but not a crystal clear picture of what the end sound is going to be like. For example, looking at that chart I can see there is a dip in the response on the Corsairs around 3.5 or 4kHz. Most likely the crossover between the tweeter and midbass/midrange in the satellites.


Other factors that influence the sound:

Quality and type of drivers (i.e metal dome tweeters have a different sound characteristic than soft dome tweeters)
Amplifier quality and clean power
Enclosure inertness (no one wants buzzes and rattles coming from the speakers)
Imaging
Equalization (most likely all these sets have some basic eq built into their amp sections to help smooth out their responses, especially in the sub section)
Ability to be driven loud and stay clean (many, many computer speakers completely fall down as soon as you apply any real volume)
Types of music you play (though I honestly believe good speakers can play everything well)


These are just some of the things I can think of off the top of my head. In the end you shouldn't buy speakers based solely off freq charts as audio IS a subjective field. What I like in my speakers, you might dislike.


I like the way Klipschs home speakers sound. I love the horn sound. Others find in hollow and tinny. However I also like Paradigm. Two vastly different sounding speaker companies.

In the end only your own ears and opinion can guide you to audio Nirvana. Don't let those charts be your only guide.
 
Even larger, that god damn chart is hard to read.

Regardless, a frequency response chart plays only a small role in what the speakers end up sounding like. It gives you some ideas of what to expect, but not a crystal clear picture of what the end sound is going to be like. For example, looking at that chart I can see there is a dip in the response on the Corsairs around 3.5 or 4kHz. Most likely the crossover between the tweeter and midbass/midrange in the satellites.


Other factors that influence the sound:

Quality and type of drivers (i.e metal dome tweeters have a different sound characteristic than soft dome tweeters)
Amplifier quality and clean power
Enclosure inertness (no one wants buzzes and rattles coming from the speakers)
Imaging
Equalization (most likely all these sets have some basic eq built into their amp sections to help smooth out their responses, especially in the sub section)
Ability to be driven loud and stay clean (many, many computer speakers completely fall down as soon as you apply any real volume)
Types of music you play (though I honestly believe good speakers can play everything well)


These are just some of the things I can think of off the top of my head. In the end you shouldn't buy speakers based solely off freq charts as audio IS a subjective field. What I like in my speakers, you might dislike.


I like the way Klipschs home speakers sound. I love the horn sound. Others find in hollow and tinny. However I also like Paradigm. Two vastly different sounding speaker companies.

In the end only your own ears and opinion can guide you to audio Nirvana. Don't let those charts be your only guide.

Very informative, in depth and clear perspective to choose a speaker set. What I liked the best in your post is that you have stressed both objective & subjective analysis of a speaker set is important.

It means both the audio frequency graph [objective view] & the listeners ears [subjective view] are both important.

You easily win from me : "THE BEST POST OF THE THREAD AWARD"
 
Last edited:
Back
Top