Why there isn't any revolution in PC Speakers

B00nie · May 7, 2014

Fenris_Ulf said:
Dipoles are nice, but I've got 2, 4, and 5 year old kids at home and those just wouldn't last long. As it is, every exposed dome tweeter and dust cap gets pushed in, toys go into bass ports, etc. It's not difficult or expensive to DIY your own speakers to get something better/cheaper/more personalized that what's otherwise available. My current computer speakers are DIY cornu spiral horns:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...k-building-cornu-spiral-horn-now-you-can.html
Mine can be seen in post #225. The cost is minimal and the sound is better than cheap normal speakers, but it's definitely not "audiophile".

Horn speakers can be awesome but I reckon they're pretty hard to get right at home. Of course once you get the molding for a perfect horn curve you're good to mass produce.

If you get your hands on an Acapella horn somehow...

I have a Precision Devices 1850 18" horn loaded bass that I use with Mackey SRM450s to play music on my yard on summertime (for parties or when I want to listen to music when mowing the lawn with hearing protection on) and I absolutely love it.

matteos · May 7, 2014

B00nie said:
They have no concept of directivity and what it does to room interaction. He (matteos) gets stuck to some sort of brain lock where he thinks that it's not possible to design a speaker that would work better in any given room. That's simply false.

I've never said any such thing. I'm not going to get into it with you as it's pointless since you don't pay attention to the opinions or postings of others.

B00nie · May 8, 2014

matteos said:
I've never said any such thing. I'm not going to get into it with you as it's pointless since you don't pay attention to the opinions or postings of others.

Do I have to repeat to you what you said?

It's mostly idiocy to design a speaker with room interaction in mind. Because rooms vary.

I already corrected you where you were wrong. I don't see how else I could pay attention to your opinions.

username00 · May 8, 2014

maverick786us said:
But people who want to enjoy high end gaming do need high end speakers. Even if you are watching movies where you connect your desktop to TV using HDMI, you can always enjoy the excellent sound effect.

As far as PC gaming is alive, there should always be a need for high end PC speakers. Strange, I don't know, an HTIB which is not designed for PC, how much it can it refine the output generated by a PC, if you are using good soundcard or your mobo has good onboard sound. Can you get the those details in an HTIB?

I might be wrong, but using an HTIB instead of PC speakers is like using a TV instead of a good quality PC monitor for gaming.

HTIB is the same deal as "computer speakers". You won't get high quality with anything marketed as computer speakers or a home theater in a box. Buy a dedicated amplifier or receiver, and pick a set of quality speakers that fit on your desk. Things labelled as computer speakers or HTIB won't be good sound quality because they are targeted at people who want everything for nothing or dirt cheap, and don't know the difference in good sound quality when they do hear it.

A $100 set of bookshelf speakers and a bottom of the line Yamaha receiver has always sounded better to me than being surrounded in single driver bottom of the barrel speaker drivers with a weak bottom of the barrel class t or class d amp (HTIB). Not saying there's anything wrong with class d or t, I use an AWESOME sounding class d amp... But my point still stands.

B00nie · May 8, 2014

username00 said:
HTIB is the same deal as "computer speakers". You won't get high quality with anything marketed as computer speakers or a home theater in a box. Buy a dedicated amplifier or receiver, and pick a set of quality speakers that fit on your desk. Things labelled as computer speakers or HTIB won't be good sound quality because they are targeted at people who want everything for nothing or dirt cheap, and don't know the difference in good sound quality when they do hear it.

A $100 set of bookshelf speakers and a bottom of the line Yamaha receiver has always sounded better to me than being surrounded in single driver bottom of the barrel speaker drivers with a weak bottom of the barrel class t or class d amp (HTIB). Not saying there's anything wrong with class d or t, I use an AWESOME sounding class d amp... But my point still stands.

Yep, any near field monitor will just blow any 'pc' gear apart simply because they're targeted for different audiences. But that doesn't mean that pc users couldn't use them for higher quality audio.

heflys20 · May 8, 2014

malacoda said:
There are "high end" PC speakers. They're just not easy to find and wont be at the local big box and may or may not be on amazon. They are usually called multimedia but they are designed for the desktop space for the most part

I'm thinking of getting some Swan m200MKIII's one day.

matteos · May 8, 2014

B00nie said:
Do I have to repeat to you what you said?

I already corrected you where you were wrong. I don't see how else I could pay attention to your opinions.

It is mostly idiocy. Some speakers are designed that way but they are a minority. Some such as Bose 901s are designed that way and they frankly suck.

I don't even know what the hell it is your trying to say, or what point you are making. tell me what all these speakers are that are designed with specific room interactions? Sure Big floorstanders are designed for big rooms, small monitors are for nearfield. But when you are setting up audio equipment, time is spent tweaking and measuring and finding the best spots to minimize room interactions. If such interactions were there intentionally by design, there would be a specific way of setting them up directed by the manufacturer, I can only think of a handful of speaker designs where this is the case.

Please don't bring me back into this thread with another strawman or dumb fucking post. I really find interacting with you to be incredibly irritating and I don't care about your opinions in any way. I'm also not interested in proving any points to you. You are the main reason I rarely post in this sub forum anymore, you hijack every thread and waffle on about unrelated things all so you can prove to everybody that you are the source of all audio related knowledge. Which is incredible considering just how many hundreds of different ways there are of designing audio gear.

B00nie · May 9, 2014

matteos said:
It is mostly idiocy. Some speakers are designed that way but they are a minority. Some such as Bose 901s are designed that way and they frankly suck.

I don't even know what the hell it is your trying to say, or what point you are making. tell me what all these speakers are that are designed with specific room interactions? Sure Big floorstanders are designed for big rooms, small monitors are for nearfield. But when you are setting up audio equipment, time is spent tweaking and measuring and finding the best spots to minimize room interactions. If such interactions were there intentionally by design, there would be a specific way of setting them up directed by the manufacturer, I can only think of a handful of speaker designs where this is the case.

Please don't bring me back into this thread with another strawman or dumb fucking post. I really find interacting with you to be incredibly irritating and I don't care about your opinions in any way. I'm also not interested in proving any points to you. You are the main reason I rarely post in this sub forum anymore, you hijack every thread and waffle on about unrelated things all so you can prove to everybody that you are the source of all audio related knowledge. Which is incredible considering just how many hundreds of different ways there are of designing audio gear.

So it's painfully obvious that you don't understand what controlled directivity means. Bose has never had a product that uses high directivity. It's quite embarrassing for you to mention dumbness while you're failing completely to understand what we're talking about here.

As I said, study a little, learn about directivity and how it cancels room reflections. It's the _current_ way to design speakers, the old method was to build wide radiating speakers because the importance of controlled directivity wasn't understood in the past.

Just to point out how far off you are in this subject: Using directivity does not mean bouncing sound from room surfaces - it's exactly the opposite. The goal is NOT to bounce any sound on any room surfaces. Naturally this can't be completely avoided but what can be achieved is produce the majority of direct sound to the listening point. The late reflections (which obviously cant be avoided) are psychoacoustically perceived as echo, they do not damage the sound quality. And because the late reflections need to bounce more than 1 wall to hit the listening point usually, they are much subdued and delayed.

You wanted examples of speakers that utilize controlled directivity?

Magnepan
Martin Logan
Gradient
Amphion
etc..

Gradient Helsinki:

Gradient Revolution:

Gradient Revolution reviews:

GRADIENT REVOLUTION ACTIVE

‘ Best Sound of the SSI Show (Montreal SSI 2011) ‘ -Marc Philip, Magazine Audio (April 2011)

‘ I suppose it’s clear that I really like these speakers, but my admiration goes far beyond simply liking how they sound. To me this design represents a fundamental improvement over most others by directly and successfully treating the problems of room and speaker interaction. In my experience, the resulting immersion in the originally recorded soundfield is otherwise only available in “near-field” listening. Anyone with serious audio interests ought to listen carefully to the Gradient Revolution for the pleasure of it, and also to hear what is possible when a speaker can “ignore” the room around it. You can spend far more money, but you are unlikely to find a speaker (without any special signal processing) that does anywhere near as good a job of taking you to the concert hall. And that is where you want to go, isn’t it? ‘ - Robert E. Greene, The Absolute Sound (Sept. 2008)

Golden Ear Award 2005 (The Absolute Sound):
‘ In theory, one of the very best ways to make a speaker that ignores the acoustics of the listening room is to have dipole radiation in the bass, but in the treble to have forward radiation only in a uniform but relatively narrow pattern. This theoretical dream was realized some years ago by the Gradient Revolution. With its dipole bass and cardioid forward radiation, it was and is a remarkable success at ignoring its surroundings (and soundi
ng neutral in nearly any environment). The original model has been recently supplemented by a new version with a line-level electronic crossover. This design, which requires bi-amplification, allows crossover adjustment of the bass level to fit room size and acoustics. If high bass dynamic capability is desired and/or the speaker is used in a large room, the bass units can be doubled up—two (or more) can be used per channel. The Revolution, even with extra bass units, is quite compact, but it is a giant in sound quality. ‘ -Robert E. Greene, The Absolute Sound (Feb. 2006)

‘ Quite the best, the truest reproduction of an orchestra I experienced at the show, with some of the most accurate bass reproduction I’ve heard anywhere. ‘

-Paul Seydor, T.H.E. Show Newport Report, The Absolute Sound, June 2012.

‘ Several amazing pieces of organ music, live club jazz and female vocals proved to be intoxicating. The sonic imaging placed me in the room where each of the recordings was made, and each projected a different-sized space. Holographic would be the best word to describe this system. Whether sitting in front or standing in back of the speakers, the sound was so extremely visceral and huge that you could easily lose yourself in the illusion of being at a live music event. This was the most realistic and musical sound at the 2012 New York Audio Show. ‘

- Jeremy R. Kipnis, HomeTheaterReview.com (April 2012)

Read the full report here: http://hometheaterreview.com/the-10...rom-the-new-york-audiophile-show-2012/?page=2

‘ The sound in the Gradient room, with everything running, was quite simply unrivaled at this show. ‘

- Scot Hull, New York Audio & AV Show 2012, Part-Time Audiophile (April 2012)

Read the full report here: http://parttimeaudiophile.com/2012/04/28/nyav12-simplifi-audio-presents-gradient-bladelius/

‘ Gradient Conquers Room Acoustics - The sound was open, clear, and vibrant, with well-defined images placed across a wide stage. I heard no evidence of the bass problems that troubled many other systems. ‘ - John Atkinson & Stephen Mejias, New York Audio & AV Show 2012 coverage, Stereophile (April 2012)

Coup de Coeur - Award in the SSI 2012:

‘ Pour moins de 10 000$ tout compris, il n’y a rien sur le marché qui puisse arriver à détrôner le résultat sonore des Gradient Revolution, voilà la raison principale du pourquoi Tim .G Ryan remporte un « best sound of the show » à chaque salon. ‘ -Marc Philip, Magazine Audio (April 2012)

‘ Best Sound of the Show (TAVES 2011) ‘ -Marc Philip, Magazine Audio (October 2011)

Best in Show at CAS 2011:

‘ Aesthetically, this resulted in my favorite sound that I heard all weekend.’... ‘ The bass in this room was perfect... impactful, but not boomy, and fast. There is a section in "The Real Blues" where Ray Brown plays a fast run down to the low E, slapping the strings all the way. This tight combination of high frequency and low frequency information is a mess unless the bass is lightning quick, and I didn't hear it played better on any system at the show.

You hear the exclamation, "the speakers disappeared" all the time, but when it really happens, it is breathtaking... and my breath was taken by the Revolutions. They projected a sonic hologram... when I closed my eyes I felt I was no longer in a hotel room at all. When it needed to, it placed a solo performer right there in the room with us. For larger-scale recordings, sound seemed to come from well beyond the physical walls. ‘

- Clarke Robinson, CAS 2011 Show Report, Enjoy the Music.com (August 2011)

Read the full report here : http://www.enjoythemusic.com/cas_2011/page4.htm

' This was one of my favorite listening experiences of the California Audio Show... While many exhibitors struggled with the sound of their rooms, employing careful, creative speaker placement and a variety of room acoustics treatments, SimpliFi Audio’s Tim Ryan seemed happy to ignore the room altogether..... I was surprised to see that Ryan had used NO room treatments whatsoever.' - Stephen Mejias, CAS 2011 Show Report, Srereophile (July 2011)

Read the full report here : http://www.stereophile.com/content/ending-show-good-note-gradient-dnm-simplifi-audio

‘ I carried around an excelent recording I know well (Eargle's recording of Dvorak's New World), which I have listened to on quite a few carefully corrected systems. I have a good idea of what this ought to sound like...Gradient Revolution with extra bass towers: Small room but excellent truth to tonal character, solid precise bass, correct sense of space, good all around. Sounded a lot like an orchestra, to the extent that that can be done in a small room...Gradient'Simplifi, whose exhibit was one of the very best, making most of the rest sound foolish, was using a $500 amplifier. Of course, no one noticed from listening. No one ever does. ‘

- Robert E. Greene, THE Show Report, REG’s Audio Forum (June 2011)

‘ Gradient craftily left their room door open, and I found myself incapable of walking past it without being drawn in by the wonderful sound. These speakers are clearly worth further evaluation. ‘

- Alan Taffel on THE Show Newport Beach, AVguide.com (June 2011)

‘ Gradient Revolutions, with the active Gradient subwoofers, presented the most accurate replication of a full orchestra with respect to timbral accuracy and tonal weight, and it was certainly no sluggard in the dynamics department...had among the truest, most accurate bass at the show. ‘

- Paul Seydor on THE Show Newport Beach, AVguide.com (June 2011)

B00nie · May 10, 2014

So Matteo do you think the professional audio reviewers are all dumb for falling for this 'idiocy'?

A good comment is also found for the second 'hot potato' conversation - the source.

Sounded a lot like an orchestra, to the extent that that can be done in a small room...Gradient'Simplifi, whose exhibit was one of the very best, making most of the rest sound foolish, was using a $500 amplifier. Of course, no one noticed from listening. No one ever does.

Why am I not surprised?

Ahriman4891 · May 10, 2014

B00nie:

"Professional audio reviewers" are mostly full of shit. And there are better ways to support your point than to quote some buffoon who says "Of course, no one noticed from listening. No one ever does.". Yeah, except him. He is Neo, the Golden Ears. Preaching to the herd who desperately want to believe that they, too, are the Chosen Ones. WTF. Your entire comment just raises a bunch of red flags, that's all. Links to e.g. Linkwitz's articles would be better (here is one: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/frontiers.htm )

As for the thread: why isn't there any revolution? Because the current PC speakers are a good fit for the rooms where we use the computers, size-wise, and since these spaces are acoustically shitty, better quality speakers don't make that much sense. They are also good enough for the majority of the sound material. E.g. recently I've been playing FTL a lot, and while I love the game, 3-way monitors in a treated room would be wasted on the game's "pew-pew". This is something I have to keep telling myself as I am tempted to get better speakers: what for? really, in this room?

If you do care about treating your room and getting better speakers (near-field pro monitors), you could do it right now with some research and money. For the curious, here is another link describing the basics of room acoustics: http://realtraps.com/art_room-setup.htm . Also, Gearslutz has an entire sub-forum dedicated to room acoustics.

Venomous · May 10, 2014

Ahriman4891 said:
B00nie:

"Professional audio reviewers" are mostly full of shit. And there are better ways to support your point than to quote some buffoon who says "Of course, no one noticed from listening. No one ever does.". Yeah, except him. He is Neo, the Golden Ears. Preaching to the herd who desperately want to believe that they, too, are the Chosen Ones. WTF. Your entire comment just raises a bunch of red flags, that's all. Links to e.g. Linkwitz's articles would be better (here is one: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/frontiers.htm )

As for the thread: why isn't there any revolution? Because the current PC speakers are a good fit for the rooms where we use the computers, size-wise, and since these spaces are acoustically shitty, better quality speakers don't make that much sense. They are also good enough for the majority of the sound material. E.g. recently I've been playing FTL a lot, and while I love the game, 3-way monitors in a treated room would be wasted on the game's "pew-pew". This is something I have to keep telling myself as I am tempted to get better speakers: what for? really, in this room?

If you do care about treating your room and getting better speakers (near-field pro monitors), you could do it right now with some research and money. For the curious, here is another link describing the basics of room acoustics: http://realtraps.com/art_room-setup.htm . Also, Gearslutz has an entire sub-forum dedicated to room acoustics.

I had some nice Focal Nearfields that were my original speakers in my workstation studio. They did a great job for what I was doing, but went full 2.1 reference finally

Speakers make the biggest difference in any audio system. That includes being driven by these " shitty " $500 amps out there. 90% of your budget should be speakers anyhow, as long as the source has a clean source connection and clean material, I find it hard you would notice a $500 amp to a $10k.

heflys20 · May 10, 2014

"Of course, no one noticed from listening. No one ever does.". Yeah, except him. He is Neo, the Golden Ears. Preaching to the herd who desperately want to believe that they, too, are the Chosen Ones

I thought the reviewer was referencing to the fact that the Gradient's were (potentially) using a cheaper amp in regards to the competition. It seems he was making a point about no one (himself included) being able to tell the difference in that regard. I may be wrong though.

Ahriman4891 · May 11, 2014

Hmm. If that's the case, and he was being cheeky about the "cheap" source, then I withdraw the snarky comments. Does not change my stance that 95% of "professional" audio reviewers are a bunch of undereducated clowns and/or shills.

Archmage · May 11, 2014

I thought this was a PC speaker thread? Dipoles, ESL, huge horns... require a lot of room.

When I think PC speaker, I think: "compact and affordable." Earlier in this thread I offered some DIY solutions for bookshelf speakers that I thought pushed that boundary a bit. To add to those, eh, maybe just similar designs with some custom waveguides if someone will do the measurement work. Something using high quality drivers that is small, compact, and relatively inexpensive... and that is difficult to do profitably, perhaps even if you have the means to mass-produce everything. KEF has some interesting engineering... maybe Dayton or Tang-Band or MCM can copy them... compact PC speaker!
----

And well, I often contribute to OT discussion, so:

http://www.gedlee.com/Loudspeakers.htm - Earl Geddes has a good paper offering his perspective on directivity. He doesn't seem to believe that dipoles are the correct solution to the problem. Neither does John "Zaph" Krutke, if I remember correctly.

That said, room vibration is a problem. Dipole bass excites the room less (though with less output as well). I enjoy high bass SPL, so I guess general push-pull mounting is a good start.

I don't have any experience with quality ESL setups, but I accept that they are highly regarded. I've seen some old harmonic distortion plots for the Quad ESL-63, though I don't think they were impressive EDIT: http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/esl63.htm - the "plots" link at the bottom right reveals some impressive numbers. Now I'm intrigued despite the the annoying (for me) directivity and limited peak SPL. I'd really like to see more distortion measurements of ESL's. I'd still like to demo something like an acoustat spectra series or something more modern from sanders or even ML.

I will say that panel-type speakers, namely the smaller planars, often exhibit far too audible limited vertical disperson. I'd rather not be locked into a narrow range of vertical head movement. I'd prefer not to be locked into too narrow a sweet-spot regardless.

I believe in non-linear (and linear) harmonic distortion measurements as a design tool. Other than revealing the optimal frequency bandwidth of a driver, it will tell you whether a driver is capable of handling dynamic peaks at maybe 12-20db above the average listening level. The limiting factor is generally the tweeter (dome) or a smaller midrange. There are exceptions (ATC dome mid and some accuton mids can play loud as hell, waveguides can increase usable output of dome tweeters, I think a few dome tweeters can actually handle 105-110db transients?, the RAAL 140-15d ribbon seems to be able to handle 110-113db - but creating a workable design is a different matter) - but usually if we want great dynamic range, we need to abandon dome tweeters and smaller midranges in favor of something like compression drivers and large mids (which is what Geddes has done). An obvious alternative is to use an array of smaller midranges, but the dome tweeter issue persists. OTOH, one may prefer to simply sacrifice that dynamic SPL if they prefer the sound and size of dome tweeters.

The room is an issue, certainly. We still need to be able to fit these monster speakers - which I cannot do. We should still probably try to reduce early reflections - I believe in this. We need adequate space... and hopefully a house that isn't prone to vibrating like hell - like most houses do. - Room treatments can help.

B00nie · May 11, 2014

Ahriman4891 said:
B00nie:

"Professional audio reviewers" are mostly full of shit. And there are better ways to support your point than to quote some buffoon who says "Of course, no one noticed from listening. No one ever does.". Yeah, except him. He is Neo, the Golden Ears. Preaching to the herd who desperately want to believe that they, too, are the Chosen Ones. WTF.

Your reading comprehension is obviously low. If you understood what you read you would realize that the setup sounded awesome despite running it with a $500 amplifier and the surrounding rooms were much worse despite having 10-20 times more expensive sources. It had nothing to do with the reviewer.

Your entire comment just raises a bunch of red flags, that's all. Links to e.g. Linkwitz's articles would be better (here is one: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/frontiers.htm )

Red flags such as? My point was that controlled directionality is anything but idiocy, matteos just doesn't understand it so he has a lot to learn. He wanted examples of speakers that use controlled directivity so I gave them.

As for the thread: why isn't there any revolution? Because the current PC speakers are a good fit for the rooms where we use the computers, size-wise, and since these spaces are acoustically shitty, better quality speakers don't make that much sense. They are also good enough for the majority of the sound material. E.g. recently I've been playing FTL a lot, and while I love the game, 3-way monitors in a treated room would be wasted on the game's "pew-pew". This is something I have to keep telling myself as I am tempted to get better speakers: what for? really, in this room?

If you do care about treating your room and getting better speakers (near-field pro monitors), you could do it right now with some research and money. For the curious, here is another link describing the basics of room acoustics: http://realtraps.com/art_room-setup.htm . Also, Gearslutz has an entire sub-forum dedicated to room acoustics.

In nearfield listening the meaning of room acoustics is reduced, the whole concept of 'near field' means an acoustical phenomenon where a speaker produces an acoustic area in front of it, inside which the listener will receive mostly direct radiated sound instead of room reflections. So for near field use you don't need to build a studio, just a computer desk is enough. The end result will usually be satisfactory unless you happen to have your computer in a closet or a toilet.

Room treatment is extremely difficult due to high cost and aesthetic problems. Bass problem treatment often requires structures that cover an entire wall and eat away precious living space. Directivity is way better as a solution for room problems.

B00nie · May 11, 2014

Archmage said:
I thought this was a PC speaker thread? Dipoles, ESL, huge horns... require a lot of room.

When I think PC speaker, I think: "compact and affordable." Earlier in this thread I offered some DIY solutions for bookshelf speakers that I thought pushed that boundary a bit. To add to those, eh, maybe just similar designs with some custom waveguides if someone will do the measurement work. Something using high quality drivers that is small, compact, and relatively inexpensive... and that is difficult to do profitably, perhaps even if you have the means to mass-produce everything. KEF has some interesting engineering... maybe Dayton or Tang-Band or MCM can copy them... compact PC speaker!
----

And well, I often contribute to OT discussion, so:

http://www.gedlee.com/Loudspeakers.htm - Earl Geddes has a good paper offering his perspective on directivity. He doesn't seem to believe that dipoles are the correct solution to the problem. Neither does John "Zaph" Krutke, if I remember correctly.

That said, room vibration is a problem. Dipole bass excites the room less (though with less output as well). I enjoy high bass SPL, so I guess general push-pull mounting is a good start.

I don't have any experience with quality ESL setups, but I accept that they are highly regarded. I've seen some old harmonic distortion plots for the Quad ESL-63, though I don't think they were impressive EDIT: http://www.euronet.nl/users/temagm/audio/esl63.htm - the "plots" link at the bottom right reveals some impressive numbers. Now I'm intrigued despite the the annoying (for me) directivity. I'd really like to see more distortion measurements of ESL's. I'd still like to demo something like an acoustat spectra series or something more modern from sanders or even ML.

I will say that panel-type speakers, namely the smaller planars, often exhibit far too audible limited vertical disperson. I'd rather not be locked into a narrow range of vertical head movement. I'd prefer not to be locked into too narrow a sweet-spot regardless.

I believe in non-linear (and linear) harmonic distortion measurements as a design tool. Other than revealing the optimal frequency bandwidth of a driver, it will tell you whether a driver is capable of handling dynamic peaks at maybe 12-20db above the average listening level. The limiting factor is generally the tweeter (dome) or a smaller midrange. There are exceptions (ATC dome mid and some accuton mids can play loud as hell, waveguides can increase usable output of dome tweeters, I think a few dome tweeters can actually handle 105-110db transients?, the RAAL 140-15d ribbon seems to be able to handle 110-113db - but creating a workable design is a different matter) - but usually if we want great dynamic range, we need to abandon dome tweeters and smaller midranges in favor of something like compression drivers and large mids (which is what Geddes has done). An obvious alternative is to use an array of smaller midranges, but the dome tweeter issue persists. OTOH, one may prefer to simply sacrifice that dynamic SPL if they prefer the sound and size of dome tweeters.

The room is an issue, certainly. We still need to be able to fit these monster speakers - which I cannot do. We should still probably try to reduce early reflections - I believe in this. We need adequate space... and hopefully a house that isn't prone to vibrating like hell - like most houses do. - Room treatments can help.

Unfortunately directivity is the only way to achieve high quality sound in an untreated listening room. The small sweet spot is just a price you have to pay. The room response of an ESL is almost identical to its anechoic response. This is a feat non directional boxed speakers can't just match, their room response is just bad.

Roger Sanders wrote in his book that the sound of ESLs is imperfect anywhere outside the sweet spot, but the sound of non directive speakers is imperfect everywhere in the room.

Ahriman4891 · May 11, 2014

B00nie said:
Your reading comprehension is obviously low. If you understood what you read you would realize that the setup sounded awesome despite running it with a $500 amplifier and the surrounding rooms were much worse despite having 10-20 times more expensive sources. It had nothing to do with the reviewer.

Admittedly it was low - I had quite a bit of wine yesterday.

Red flags such as? My point was that controlled directionality is anything but idiocy, matteos just doesn't understand it so he has a lot to learn. He wanted examples of speakers that use controlled directivity so I gave them.

Red flags such as quoting obviously untrustworthy sources (advertising brochures, basically) like Stereophile and The Absolute Sound. If you want to communicate the benefits of controlled directivity to someone DIY/measurement inclined, like matteos, you need a more rigorous source (like the Linkwitz website).

In nearfield listening the meaning of room acoustics is reduced, the whole concept of 'near field' means an acoustical phenomenon where a speaker produces an acoustic area in front of it, inside which the listener will receive mostly direct radiated sound instead of room reflections. So for near field use you don't need to build a studio, just a computer desk is enough. The end result will usually be satisfactory unless you happen to have your computer in a closet or a toilet.

Room treatment is extremely difficult due to high cost and aesthetic problems. Bass problem treatment often requires structures that cover an entire wall and eat away precious living space. Directivity is way better as a solution for room problems.

Nearfield does not nullify room acoustics, but lets you keep the treatments to a reasonable aesthetic level (this requirement pretty much excludes huge fun bass though). Unfortunately it also maximizes the influence of desk reflections, so there is no free lunch.

I don't know what your computer room looks like, but having floorstanders e.g. in a Manhattan bedroom is pretty much out of the question. Most controlled directivity speakers are quite large.

B00nie · May 11, 2014

Ahriman4891 said:
Admittedly it was low - I had quite a bit of wine yesterday.

Red flags such as quoting obviously untrustworthy sources (advertising brochures, basically) like Stereophile and The Absolute Sound. If you want to communicate the benefits of controlled directivity to someone DIY/measurement inclined, like matteos, you need a more rigorous source (like the Linkwitz website).

Nearfield does not nullify room acoustics, but lets you keep the treatments to a reasonable aesthetic level (this requirement pretty much excludes huge fun bass though). Unfortunately it also maximizes the influence of desk reflections, so there is no free lunch.

I don't know what your computer room looks like, but having floorstanders e.g. in a Manhattan bedroom is pretty much out of the question. Most controlled directivity speakers are quite large.

Unfortunately Linkwitz site does not include any reviews of any specific speakers I was listing so I don't see whats the point? I don't think it's my business to start educating him either, he can find his own information. However the gedlee link another writer posted I had not seen myself also, thanks for that.

The tabletop reflections can be minimized by placing the monitors on the ear level height. In many control rooms the monitors are placed on top of the mixing rack or on a shelf, placing them away from table surfaces.

The discussion about directive speakers is off topic as I said earlyer, my recommended solution for desktop computer speakers is a pair of active near field monitors, placed on ear level for the beforementioned reasons. There are actually some small speakers that attempt to create directivity by use of waveguides and resistance porting. Resistance ports create a kardioid radiating pattern from a regular looking box.

Lavelier · May 20, 2014

I find the computer branded speakers such as Logitech lacking in sound performance whereas my friend has a set of KEF X300A active speakers which though are more expensive than run-of-the-mill systems sound really good.

teh_chem · May 20, 2014

What a shocker!

Bluesun311 · May 29, 2014

I've been using a set of Blue Sky (no relation) exo2 2.1 speakers for a couple weeks about now and I'm convinced this was the revolution in desktop/computer speaker systems I was hoping for. Granted they aren't inexpensive in the way a Klipsch ProMedia or Logitech system is but this blue sky system is absolutely worth every penny of the $500 I paid. In the past I've sunk 4 times that into mobile audio systems that often had that precarious feeling of almost distorting when pushed--you never get completely comfortable with a system like that because your always looking for a bad honk.

Now that I have a proper DAC (xonar STX) and I've given the speakers a little time to open up, I wanted to post the experience I'm having: musical bliss. The reverb on the STX card is surprisingly good and it's given a wider stance to the staging of this setup. The KLH tower speakers I grew up with (they still sound decent 40 years later) are being outdone by the smallest legitimate satellite monitors I've ever seen.

Originally I thought that the blue sky system didn't have quite as much power for low end pulse as the noisy and fatiguing ProMedia set but after moving to the xonar STX from my onboard sound the level is much easier to dial in high volume across the entire frequency spectrum and I no longer hold this opinion. The promedias can't even thump as loud as the blue sky sealed 8 inch sub, which also happens to sound more expensive than it is.

I recognize 500 bones is a chunk if your aren't accustomed to speaker sticker shock but the truth is good audio don't come cheap and good. This system is a tremendous value in my opinion, having simplified the process of signal path and integration. RCA to RCA and a whole lot of very pleasant sound.

If I have a complaint to make it is that the mids and tweets are so transparent it makes bad recordings worse. Couple totally different examples. I had a scary moment where I thought one of the satellites was damaged while listening to Miles Davis's tune "So What" from the album Kind of Blue--every time the sax would play it got bad whispery distortion with it. The instrument is only being played through one side of the stereo mix and switching the line outs confirmed both speakers produced the distortion from this recording. So it's either the amp channel or the recording. Guess what? Google Play cheaped out on that recording. I found a post from14 years ago someone had the exact same issue trying to demo their system with that cut. The engineer must have transferred the tapes badly and the levels on that saxamaphone are clipping throughout much of that entire album.

Another example: Silverchair "Tomorrow". I have to assume the audio tech working with those kids didn't have a lot more experience than they did because the levels on the guitar, particularly at the beginning of the recording, are clipping. Most of the time with an avg crappy stock car stereo system that recording sounds just like any another garage band--no better no worse--but with a proper monitoring system that mistake on the levels is clear as day.

heflys20 · May 30, 2014

If I have a complaint to make it is that the mids and tweets are so transparent it makes bad recordings worse.

Depending on one's perspective, that's actually a good thing, since the Exo2 is really intended to be a studio monitoring system.

I find the computer branded speakers such as Logitech lacking in sound performance whereas my friend has a set of KEF X300A active speakers which though are more expensive than run-of-the-mill systems sound really good.

LOL. I would hope so. Reflecting on its frequency response, I'm surprised so many people like the z623. There's even a huge dip when the sats/sub crossover. They also suffer due to lack of tweeters.

I remember some shill coming here trying to hype up the Z-2300 and z623 as "titans". That they were the best computer speakers EVAH! Funny, but I didn't expect "titans" to have an almost -10db valley between the lower mid-range/high low-end. There's also a -13-15db drop before hitting 40hz.

Hilarious.

B00nie · May 31, 2014

heflys20 said:
Depending on one's perspective, that's actually a good thing, since the Exo2 is really intended to be a studio monitoring system.

LOL. I would hope so. Reflecting on its frequency response, I'm surprised so many people like the z623. There's even a huge dip when the sats/sub crossover. They also suffer due to lack of tweeters.

I remember some shill coming here trying to hype up the Z-2300 and z623 as "titans". That they were the best computer speakers EVAH! Funny, but I didn't expect "titans" to have an almost -10db valley between the lower mid-range/high low-end. There's also a -13-15db drop before hitting 40hz.

Hilarious.

In reality that dip isn't as bad as it looks because the signals of the speakers are overlapped and amplify eachothers. Separate measurements do not tell the truth in the crossover frequency - every multi-way speaker will have dips like that in separate measurements but once all speakers play together the dip is less or disappears.

I'm not saying that those speakers sound good, not by far. It's just that you're reading that graph wrong. There are other obvious problems in the response though, the speaker most likely has a bad power response. The direct frequency graphs tell only a fraction of the truth especially with non-directive speakers.

heflys20 · May 31, 2014

B00nie said:
Separate measurements do not tell the truth in the crossover frequency - every multi-way speaker will have dips like that in separate measurements but once all speakers play together the dip is less or disappears.

Unfortunately for the Z-2300, It's still audibly noticeable even when not measuring separates.

It's just that you're reading that graph wrong.

There is about a -6 to -10db drop with both components working in unison. It's also true that dip(s) won't be as noticeable when used as intended (not-separates), however, I think a significant drop off from the sats at 300hz before the sub picks up the slack at about 180hz is pretty blah; particularly for a "titan" and considering some of Logitech's offerings seemingly handle the crossover better (if the performance of their separates are any indication). Case in point:

An Edifier set, the S530, also does reasonably well:

B00nie · May 31, 2014

heflys20 said:
Unfortunately for the Z-2300, It's still audibly noticeable even when not measuring separates.

There is about a -6 to -10db drop with both components working in unison. It's also true that dip(s) won't be as noticeable when used as intended (not-separates), however, I think a significant drop off from the sats at 300hz before the sub picks up the slack at about 180hz is pretty blah; particularly for a "titan" and considering some of Logitech's offerings seemingly handle the crossover better (if the performance of their separates are any indication). Case in point:

An Edifier set, the S530, also does reasonably well:

The dip in the 100-200hz area may be a deliberate design choice because small rooms typically suffer from 'boomy' bass which is often caused by the room or bad speaker placement amplifying those frequencies. Again, I'm not saying that those speakers sound good, just that from the graphs alone it's sometimes hard to judge anything.

I haven't heard the speakers in question but I have no difficulties to believe they suck. For me more worrying parts of the response are the frequencies between 1khz -10khz where the tonal sensitivity of the ear is at the most. Large peaking apparent there which no doubt will literally hurt your ears.

Bluesun311 · May 31, 2014

One thing that amazes me about all the "computer speakers" I've ever tried is the lack of any sort of mute circuitry for power on off.

That's another reason I'm loving my new setup besides the quality and comfort of the output: both the Asus Xonar STX AND my 2.1 system have mute relays. So when Windows loads up the driver for the DAC you can hear the card click off/on like a mute relay should, and likewise when the system is powered on or off by my UPS the mute relay in the amplifier clicks on/off real quiet. It sounds like a million dollars to me. I don't know why, but I really love that feature.

B00nie · May 31, 2014

Bluesun311 said:
One thing that amazes me about all the "computer speakers" I've ever tried is the lack of any sort of mute circuitry for power on off.

That's another reason I'm loving my new setup besides the quality and comfort of the output: both the Asus Xonar STX AND my 2.1 system have mute relays. So when Windows loads up the driver for the DAC you can hear the card click off/on like a mute relay should, and likewise when the system is powered on or off by my UPS the mute relay in the amplifier clicks on/off real quiet. It sounds like a million dollars to me. I don't know why, but I really love that feature.

Heh, the reason why the Logicrap etc. lack mute circuitry is that it would have cost them extra 50 cents to implement it and that would have ramped up the manufacturing costs by several percents! The drivers in the logicrap 'multimedia' 2.1 or 5.1 setup cost typically less than a dollar each, the plastic enclosure few cents, the electric circuitry about the same.

OEMs make bookshelf speakers for 5-10 dollars each on large production runs. They sound just as wonderful as the price suggests but the brand sells them for 500+% margins for a huge killing.

heflys20 · May 31, 2014

B00nie said:
The dip in the 100-200hz area may be a deliberate design choice because small rooms typically suffer from 'boomy' bass which is often caused by the room or bad speaker placement amplifying those frequencies. Again, I'm not saying that those speakers sound good, just that from the graphs alone it's sometimes hard to judge anything.

I haven't heard the speakers in question but I have no difficulties to believe they suck. For me more worrying parts of the response are the frequencies between 1khz -10khz where the tonal sensitivity of the ear is at the most. Large peaking apparent there which no doubt will literally hurt your ears.

True.

These speakers are beyond mediocre, I'm surprised people are, in some instances, willing to pay for them.

They even lie about the wattage of the satellites.

http://forums.logitech.com/t5/Speakers/How-do-i-disassemble-a-Z623-satellite-speaker/td-p/625596

I guess cause they go "boom" when needed, it excites people.

Bluesun311 · Jun 2, 2014

heflys20 said:
Depending on one's perspective, that's actually a good thing, since the Exo2 is really intended to be a studio monitoring system.

It's a good thing from my perspective, definitely. It leads you to better recordings and it's showed me I haven't lost my critical ear. Who knew drummers cared about how things sound? Lots of us tune our drums to certain frequencies and are constantly tuning throughout a show because we are literally beating our instrument out of tune every time we play.

Another example of a revered bad recording is the fantastic Portishead tune, Roads, from their album Dummy, which anyone who appreciates down-tempo will love whether it clips now and then or not... but yep, it does. Granted an organ is tough to record live without noise but they failed. I always figured my old rips of this album were bad but it wasn't me. It's pretty obvious on most any good system. I'm finding lots of these... and then I go to look and I can find a recording that is better than the album version half the time on Youtube.

Edit: Don't get me wrong: 99% of recordings sound unbelievable on this system. But if there's distortion on the recording, even if it's pretty well covered up by complex couplings of large numbers of instruments and/or sounds, these speakers will find it. You know it's not the system... because you turn it down really quiet... and the problem is still there. And then you go and try it on another system and a different copy of the same exact recording and it's still there. And then, just to be sure, since we're in the electronica side of the spectrum (cus it's ALLL good music if the musicians have soul) you throw on a standard copy of MassiveAttack "Tear Drop" off the album Mezzanine, which loves to make little mids squirt out of inadequacy rather than any issue with the original cut. Joy. Smooth as silk. You have to even admire the slightly grainy sound of the clock-like ticking they wove out of a record needle pop. Maybe the Portishead album's issue with the organ is something that you can't really get around with that particular instrument, but I really don't think so since I've heard live recordings that don't have the issue. I don't exactly feel like my taste should be everyone else's, but since I pretty much like everything that could be considered music from gangster rap (once a year or so, I have to listen to something like EZ-E or NWA) to bluegrass, I feel like a random buzzing coming from the organ is pretty open and shut. It's not an "accent"; it's a mistake.

UMASS · Jun 2, 2014

Blue: I'm glad you're enjoying your new Blue Sky eXo2 2.1 set up. Not to rain on your parade, I find the aesthetics to be horrendous looking (i.e. cheap looking)

For $500.00+ you could have scored:

PSB B4's @ $179.99 pair

http://www.crutchfield.com/p_760IMGB4C/PSB-Image-B4-Dark-Cherry.html

Mordaunt-Short Aviano @ $299.99 (175 watt) subwoofer:

http://www.accessories4less.com/mak...o-7-10-175-watt-powered-subwoofer-rose/1.html

Audio Engine N22 Amp @ $179.10 (with the SAVE10% coupon)

http://audioengineusa.com/Store/Amplifier/N22-Desktop-Audio-Amplifier

Total Price $659.08 Yes, it's $160.00 more, but I cannot believe your Blue Sky could touch this set-up in the music or even gaming department. I sent you a PM on these boards not to listen to the negative comments you received. I think if you like your set-up, then that's cool. Just that I think for a few more dollars you could have purchased a better "overall" 2.1 system IMHO. If you broke down each piece (i.e. speakers, sub & amp) Buying it separate is the better path & higher quality.

Bluesun311 · Jun 2, 2014

They are kinda funny lookin.

I really like the weird finish on them now that I'm used to it. I would have preferred black cabinets and bezels. Guess they wanted them to stand out.

I would probably get in trouble with that setup you've put together there. I would encourage anyone to go the separate route also generally, but I really wanted something simple to order and setup and I wanted a desktop preamp thingy and etc. I really wanted to find a good integrated system. Do you think a setup like the one you've described would handle bad recordings better? That's not really something I've ever had an issue with before and it's a legitimate question. The whole system seems so completely neutral outside of what the xonar is doing that everything is out in the open and these unfamiliar sounds in familiar recordings are taking me by surprise. It's been a while since I listened to anything closely though.

Try out "Bang, bang/my baby shot me down" by Nancy Sinatra from the kill bill soundtrack. This is very well recorded. Mids and crossovers don't like that guitar or the chorus delay shit on it. The blue skys, ugly though they may be can play that song so loud it hurts my ears and they are crystal clear. I'm not hyping them without a reason they are shocking me 5 times a day. I'm sure I could have spent more and done just as well or better, but I wouldn't bother trying to spend less after this experience. Take it for what you will. I'm posting more than ever lately because you can write and listen to tunes at the same time.

heflys20 · Jun 2, 2014

Glad to see you love it, the specs are pretty good for the size; which likely explains its performance.

UMASS · Jun 3, 2014

BlueSun : At the end of the day, it's what you dig (as I have said before) Looks & sound are subjective. Personally, I don't care for the looks of them. But looks doesn't make a speaker either. They do have decent specs. What I don't care for is if your subwoofer dies, then you're on the hook. I do like the 2-year warranty (as expected for a $500.00 pre-made system) If you like them now, I'm sure they'll get better as you put some hours on them.

Bluesun311 · Jun 3, 2014

Well, it's too late to send them back and get a separate system. But next system won't have the space issue and it won't be but til next year or so. I'm sure I wouldn't dislike anything you regulars would put together, but I actually expected less than what I got from this system, even recognizing I was going to pay a premium for "simplicity".

I'll try to quit braggin' on em. The "hump" at 4k that I've seen described in a pro review is probably why distortion stands out more than I'd like.

One thing that doesn't make sense to me is that the amps are all inside a sealed enclosure. Literally the only air exchange going on is through the vent in the cone. Then again, I don't know what else they have in there--could be vapor chambers or something top-secret, but I doubt it--still, the backplate doesn't get very hot at all, and I've got a Vornado 660 circulating air right onto it. I hope they last long enough to give them to my 4 year old. He definitely digs John Fogerty singin' "Susie Q" out of them.

Megalith · Jun 3, 2014

Soft domes freak me out. Makes me feel like I have to baby a speaker. (Well, I guess already baby all of my electronics anyway...)

UMASS · Jun 3, 2014

Blue: I still have a Cambridge Soundworks 2.1 set up that's well over 10 years old & they still work great. I gave them to my wife for her office. You never know, sometimes things could happen or they simply keep running well for years & years. I hope it's the latter for you.

Sycraft · Jun 3, 2014

Megalith said:
Soft domes freak me out. Makes me feel like I have to baby a speaker. (Well, I guess already baby all of my electronics anyway...)

Not really. They aren't really any more flimsy than a hard dome. Dome tweeters are really thin so as to be really light and thus get good treble with low distortion. However it also means they are easy to break if you mess with them. I dented a titanium dome tweeter once by accident. Just hit it with my finger. That was $40 for a new dome

. Learned to keep my speaker grilles on after that.

Unknown-One · Jun 3, 2014

Eh, not all PC speakers are bad. I have a Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 setup hooked up to my main PC, and they've been great. Seriously, zero complaints.

I recently went ahead and upgraded to bookshelf speakers and a T-amp on my bedroom media center PC... not bad, and they certainly hold their own on the low-end (in spite of not having a subwoofer), but they needed some EQ before I was happy with them.

Still prefer the ProMedia 2.1's. Overall better sound, with no need for any kind of EQ. Pretty good for $120 "computer speakers"

B00nie · Jun 4, 2014

Unknown-One said:
Eh, not all PC speakers are bad. I have a Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 setup hooked up to my main PC, and they've been great. Seriously, zero complaints.

I recently went ahead and upgraded to bookshelf speakers and a T-amp on my bedroom media center PC... not bad, and they certainly hold their own on the low-end (in spite of not having a subwoofer), but they needed some EQ before I was happy with them.

Still prefer the ProMedia 2.1's. Overall better sound, with no need for any kind of EQ. Pretty good for $120 "computer speakers"

Quality is a subjective perception. The promedia set would 100% sure not satisfy me for example.

Megalith · Jun 4, 2014

Instant fail if a system requires a sub to sound acceptable...

Why there isn't any revolution in PC Speakers

[H]F Junkie

[H]ard|Gawd

[H]F Junkie

Limp Gawd

[H]F Junkie

[H]ard|Gawd

[H]ard|Gawd

[H]F Junkie

[H]F Junkie

Gawd

Gawd

[H]ard|Gawd

Gawd

2[H]4U

[H]F Junkie

[H]F Junkie

Gawd

[H]F Junkie

n00b

[H]ard|Gawd

2[H]4U

[H]ard|Gawd

[H]F Junkie

[H]ard|Gawd

[H]F Junkie

2[H]4U

[H]F Junkie

[H]ard|Gawd

2[H]4U

Gawd

2[H]4U

[H]ard|Gawd

Gawd

2[H]4U

24-bit/48kHz

Gawd

Supreme [H]ardness

[H]F Junkie

[H]F Junkie

24-bit/48kHz