2.1 for mainly gaming

F

fornarmr

Gawd
Joined
Sep 5, 2007
Messages
552
I need to get a new 2.1 system for my computer, as my 5.1 setup just won't work anymore beacuse my desk had to be downsized for my new condo.

I am looking at the Swan m10's and the Klipsch Promedia 2.1s. I mostly play games as I have an ipod dock and speakers built into the ceilings of my condo already so I can just use those for my music, although I will sometimes listen to it from my computer (since it's obviously where I get it all from). I read that the Swan M10's subwoofer has to be placed on your desk because the cord is too short to put on the ground? Is this true? If not, then I have no choice but the go with the Klipschs. Also, can you point me toward a good place to purchase either of these.

Thanks!!
 
The swan 'sub' is meant for the desk because it's more of a mid-woofer, it's not anywhere near the size of a regular sub-woofer... I don't think it's a matter of the cord being too short.
 
Go with either the Swan M10 (if you have room for the sub on desk) or the M-Audio AV40 (2.0). From everything I've read those are the two best in the price range if you don't plan on adding a separate subwoofer. Everyone reports the bass on the AV40s is plentiful despite not having a sub. The Klipschs have more boomy wall shaking bass, but from user reviews I've read they state that the AV40s have more detail and sound way better (also many report the Kliphchs breaking after only one year).

The Swan M10s low frequency response is 42Hz while the AV40's is 85Hz. I'm not sure if that means the M10's have better/more defined bass, or just have a more balanced sound? AV40's have a bass boost button so it might sound stronger. Not sure if one sounds better than the other, my guess is both setups would be pretty similar.

Hope this helps.
 
A decent set of 2.0 active monitors like the AV40s will have decent bass, some people tend to think that because they don't have a sub the bass will be non-existant or totally weak but all those monitors you tend to see mentioned 'round here still have back-fired bass ports for bass and pretty large cabinets to accommodate it (another thing people tend not to realize, these 2.0 sets are close to or the same size as a standard set of bookshelf speakers, dwarfing the satellites on most PC speaker sets).

If you want to be shaken off your seat w/game explosions they might not quite manage that, but for most music listening and moderate gaming volumes they'll perform well. Something larger and/or a lil' bit more expensive might obviously suit ya better if budget permits though (Swan M200 MkII's, Audioengine A5, etc), while still keeping the overall footprint smaller than that of a 2.1 set.
 
This is going to be a shock coming from me, but for straight gaming, forget the M10's and go with the Klipsch's. Unless of course you can spring for the Swan M200MKII's, they are much larger then the M10's and have considerably more kick, even with no sub.

I have listened to M10's before.. didn't impress me at all. Very weak.
 
I am leaning towards the klipsch's but I can't find them anywhere. I just ordered the M10's for now (only about $125) and I went on Klipsch's site to request to be emailed when the promedia 2.1's are in.
 
They have been out for awhile now, few years. I know the BestBuy near me still stocks them. Try a B&M store.
 
How are the swan d1080 mkii co pared to the m-audio av40. The av40s are about $10 more than the swans and I've heard great things about both
 
J87X said:
Has anyone heard both the M10 and AV40s?
Click to expand...

I haven't heard the Swans, but I don't think the Swans would be better. They might go deeper, but they seem less powerful. The AV40s are a great speakers for ~$150.

@ Herlin87: I've heard both in this instance, they both seemed great to listen - couldn't really say one was *that* much better than the other. Either one wouldn't be a bad choice at all.
 
computermod14 said:
I've owned the Klipsch Promedia set and my current Logitech Z-2300's literally...really rock the house. The bass is much much more punchier than the Klipsch set...

Check em out... http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16836121122

Have never heard of the Swans though.
Click to expand...

That's because you shop in the 'shit' section. Jokes.

Seriously though, people need to stop recommending Logicrap. Much more better deals for either the same amount, below, or just a bit above. They are a ton better though.
 
I don't get whats inherently wrong the logitechs. They sound pretty good, sure the bass is a bit all over the place, but theres nothing that wrong with that for games.

Sometimes you just want a loud-ass explosion!
 
stueyG said:
I don't get whats inherently wrong the logitechs. They sound pretty good, sure the bass is a bit all over the place, but theres nothing that wrong with that for games.

Sometimes you just want a loud-ass explosion!
Click to expand...

Ignorance is bliss. :)
 
Ignorance is bliss.
Click to expand...

Thats not an answer! :)

By pretty good I mean, I can stick a DVD on with some friends round (I'm in a college dorm), or have some music playing while doing work or something. They do everything I want em to, don't suffer sound quality degradation up to highish volume levels, and are musically.. okay. I wouldn't plug them into an electric piano for example (I have a set of 555's for that)
 
stueyG said:
Thats not an answer! :)

By pretty good I mean, I can stick a DVD on with some friends round (I'm in a college dorm), or have some music playing while doing work or something. They do everything I want em to, don't suffer sound quality degradation up to highish volume levels, and are musically.. okay. I wouldn't plug them into an electric piano for example (I have a set of 555's for that)
Click to expand...

Well... they playback sound... so yeah, they function like a speaker should... but no. They don't sound good. If you haven't heard better, you won't know.
 
Adreneline said:
That's because you shop in the 'shit' section. Jokes.

Seriously though, people need to stop recommending Logicrap. Much more better deals for either the same amount, below, or just a bit above. They are a ton better though.
Click to expand...

actually, I believe my response was more beneficial to him rather than somebody giving thier opinion on something they've never owned. Recommending them because I've previously owned the klipsch set as listed above, and whether you like it or not, the "logicraps" sound much better in every way...thank you.
 
Got my M10s yesterday, been breaking them in for about 8 hours or so. They sound great for everything, but I still can't seem to tell the difference between 128kbps MP3 and FLAC/CD quality. Is this a matter of untrained ears, or do you just need a good pair of headphones to be able to really tell a difference? I'm using an Audigy 2 ZS, but I did switch between my sony walkman and Vision:M several times, couldn't tell much of a difference. Would a better sound card do it?
 
J87X said:
Got my M10s yesterday, been breaking them in for about 8 hours or so. They sound great for everything, but I still can't seem to tell the difference between 128kbps MP3 and FLAC/CD quality. Is this a matter of untrained ears, or do you just need a good pair of headphones to be able to really tell a difference? I'm using an Audigy 2 ZS, but I did switch between my sony walkman and Vision:M several times, couldn't tell much of a difference. Would a better sound card do it?
Click to expand...

I have no idea what your problem is...

I used really crappy unnamed speakers that distorted if past 1/2 way on volume knob, and I could tell a clear difference between 128 -- > 192, and 192 -- > 320.

No discernible difference 320 --> FLAC, even with my good setup now.

192 -> 320 seemed way more clearer and background instruments grew much in depth and clarity.

One possibility is maybe the music you are testing is very basic, i.e. some mainstream rap. My references are Muse - all the albums. On the shit speakers, Origin of Symmetry album in 192 sounded a lot different than in 320. Difference is more apparent on my new setup.
 
Adreneline said:
I have no idea what your problem is...

I used really crappy unnamed speakers that distorted if past 1/2 way on volume knob, and I could tell a clear difference between 128 -- > 192, and 192 -- > 320.

No discernible difference 320 --> FLAC, even with my good setup now.

192 -> 320 seemed way more clearer and background instruments grew much in depth and clarity.

One possibility is maybe the music you are testing is very basic, i.e. some mainstream rap. My references are Muse - all the albums. On the shit speakers, Origin of Symmetry album in 192 sounded a lot different than in 320. Difference is more apparent on my new setup.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Muse has really really busy soundtracks... there's a shit ton of stuff that goes on that can result in different sounds should certain bits of data be lost during encoding...
 
Haha, I use Muse for all my testing as well. I have gotten very used to how I like "Apocalypse Please" to sound. It can be very harsh with crappy DAC's, that's something I notice instantly.
 
When I re-encoded all my CDs to FLAC using EAC I could tell the difference w/o even comparing the FLAC files directly to all the MP3/WMA 128-160kbps rips... It wasn't like night and day, and it wasn't noticeable on every song, but I could definitely hear the difference in a few familiar songs where a lot of elements just sounded cleaner. I think the more accurate rips from EAC's process also had something to do with it though (old files were ripped w/WMP or w/e was handy, etc.).

I could discern the difference on my computer over some decent monitors as well as on my car when playing the songs over an iPod btw, with the iPod playing higher bit-rate VBR MP3 re-encodes of those FLAC files (as opposed to the low-bitrate non-VBR MP3/WMAs); and my car's sound system is nothing fancy at all, a pretty average one from Honda. Probably noticed it all the 'least with my cheap IEMs (Sennheiser CX300's), I guess the lack of sound field and extra bass are to blame there.
 
Last edited:
Ahhh, Muse fans :).

Good to see some around :D.

Yeah, Apocalypse Please is great, great dynamics and I agree with the crappy DAC.
 
I tried porcupine tree - trains, muse (absolution) and radiohead (ok computer). After listening carefully I was able to tell a difference on a few radiohead songs, but most songs that I listened to back and forth with my eyes shut I guessed wrong which ones were the higher bitrate.
 
J87X said:
I tried porcupine tree - trains, muse (absolution) and radiohead (ok computer). After listening carefully I was able to tell a difference on a few radiohead songs, but most songs that I listened to back and forth with my eyes shut I guessed wrong which ones were the higher bitrate.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is: what factors made you choose which is which bitrate? Just because something sounds BETTER doesn't mean it has more audio fidelity. We find all the time that the more revealing an audio equipment, the worse sounding a recording due to the mixing and recording work. AKA the sound engineers fuck up all the time and our better equipment and sourcing ends up revealing it.

Therefore, there's a flaw in anyone's double-blind test unless they have excellent memory for audio. Then they could memorize how the original recording sounded like and then compare that to different bitrates and different encoding types (mp3, flac, etc.). Otherwise, the so-called double-blind tests are nothing more than at-home fun activities.

In the end, almost no one in the world has great audio memory AND access to original recordings which discounts almost everyone's claim to be able OR unable to detect differences in bitrate or encodings.
 
I think what you're missing here, is that at higher encodings on good equipment, you can hear things that you can't on crappy speakers or mp3-players. You also hear the sound separation better and in general things will sound smoother. Low-bitrate definitely can mess up the sound quality. It'll screw up vocals and especially at stress points in music (ie very complex sounds coming out that need more points to come out smooth), you can hear the distortion or choppiness where it cuts out some of the music. Honestly, I find that's one of the best indicators. Everyone has heard some music or other with some memorable parts they know will only sound good on decent equipment and otherwise may even make you cover your ears to avoid the static from the speakers trying to go out of range or whatnot. So it's part speakers and part recording.

Another VERY important note here is that the music you choose to test with makes a huge difference. Pop/mainstream rock generally will sound very little different from 192mbps+ because they already remaster it to cut out any data beyond that (so that it sounds as good as possible on the widest variety of hardware - ie. people's crappy cheapo speakers or mp3-players). It's really important to play music that spans the frequency range and is very dynamic, because that will show the difference the most. Also, trying a variety of different types of audio is a good test. Movie playback, classical recordings, complex alternative/post-rock, etc.... are good ideas to start.
 
I'm not directly arguing with or against you. All I'm pointing out is that despite the fact that some recordings sound like crap and some recordings don't make use of a wide range of the audio spectrum, there are still recordings that you can tell a difference on and are good to use for reference. On good equipment 128mbps will sound hideous on many songs, while 192 maybe sound ok and 256 or 320 will sound ideal (without jumping all the way to lossless).

You usually can pick out a poor recording from a poor bitrate. Poor bitrate will just sound less complete (in the sense you hear less), whereas poor recording you'll hear more, but sometimes that means you also hear the screwups. The recording will overall sound better unless the recording itself is truly terrible (in which case you should get better source material), whereas with lower bitrate I'd often describe the sound as almost coming out sounding dampened very often. Any glitches from lower bitrate tend to have a different characteristic than those induced by poor recording.

With any music listening it ultimately comes down to the individual. Some people have poor hearing or can't understand the difference between 64mbps and ogg, whereas other can tell the difference between 256 and 320. In general, you should rip at whatever bitrate is most comfortable for you. Most people aren't going to rip different bitrates for every single album or song, but the one where they notice a difference if they drop below it. It's finding what works for you and where you hear the difference that matters the most.

Also, higher bitrate has the benefit that if you use any enhancers on the sound, you'll have more information to start with making for a more appealing result. Even if you can't tell the difference beforehand, the difference is pretty quick to tell once you've started mucking around with the sound to get it to your liking. Low bitrate will just end up coming off sounding harsh/grainy/tinny/etc... as it distorts, whereas higher bitrate will come out sounding smoother and more appealing to your ear.
 
Alai said:
TIn the end, almost no one in the world has great audio memory AND access to original recordings which discounts almost everyone's claim to be able OR unable to detect differences in bitrate or encodings.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't that be "albe to discern an improvement in SQ" at the end of the statement? You can certainly hear a difference between bitrates given the right circumstances (equipment, songs, etc.), whether you can pick out the better bitrate or tell for sure if it's lead to an improvement in overall SQ is another matter (for all the reasons that you stated).
 
Impulse said:
Shouldn't that be "albe to discern an improvement in SQ" at the end of the statement? You can certainly hear a difference between bitrates given the right circumstances (equipment, songs, etc.), whether you can pick out the better bitrate or tell for sure if it's lead to an improvement in overall SQ is another matter (for all the reasons that you stated).
Click to expand...

Um... well, you're right that my wording wasn't correct but I don't think yours was either. instead of SQ, I would say audio fidelity. SQ is debatable, imo. SQ can just be better sounding sound while audio fidelity is how true to the original the sound is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top