2.1 vs. 2.0 PC Speakers Comparison

RishiGuru

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
119
Ok, guys a new topic. I think we had "Five 2.1 Speaker Comparison" from Tom'sharware recently. Now they have come up with "Four 2.0 Speaker Comparison".

Tom'sHardware Link : Four 2.0 Speaker Comparison

The contenders are:
1) Altec Lansing Expressionist Bass FX3022 ($105)
2) Bowers & Wilkins MM-1 ($500)
3) Creative Gigaworks T40 Series II ($150)
4) M-Audio ($180)

Altec Lansing Expressionist Bass FX3022


Bowers & Wilkins MM-1


Creative Gigaworks T40 Series II


M-Audio


Tom'sHarware subjective quotes:

Altec Lansing Expressionist Bass FX3022: "My first impression of the Expressionist Bass FX3022 speakers is that they sound very good. Careful listening suggests that the high end of the spectrum is probably overemphasized. The frequency response suggests a sharp peak at 15 kHz, but these speakers sound like they’re enhancing the upper range more than the chart suggests. People tend to like this sort of sound, since it sounds less muddled to many folks. While audio enthusiasts might not appreciate this effect, I admit I like FX3022's output. Despite an unquestionable emphasis on the highs, music and games have a surprisingly notable bass presence, too.

On the negative side, these speakers lack a feeling of strong, sub-bass power. Because of this, game explosions and noises don’t have the punch I’d like to feel. Aside from this there’s not much to complain about, except for those '+' and '-' volume button controls. Our biggest concern here doesn't involve the FX3022's sound, but the set's lack of headphone output. Nevertheless, for the $105 purchase price (the lowest in our two-channel speaker roundup), there’s undeniable value here. We have no problem recommending the Altec Lansing Expressionist Bass FX3022 to people who want great sound reproduction on a $100 budget."

Bowers & Wilkins MM-1: "The Bowers & Wilkins MM-1s have good depth, great presence, and impeccable highs. The frequency is the flattest of the four speaker systems we’ve tried overall, when you consider the sub-bass range.

There’s only one thing missing, and that’s a dip in the audible bass spectrum. As a result, important bass and rhythm notes are noticeably muted in music, and game explosions don’t deliver a solid punch. Yes, the MM-1s boast amazing build quality, a full-function remote, and an integrated DAC. The USB audio functionality is unique in our roundup and certainly offers advantages, especially for folks who want to use the speakers on a system with lesser-quality audio hardware. But the $499.95 price tag demands solid fundamentals, and without them, the MM-1s are a hard sell, even to elitist audiophiles who might otherwise swear by the Bowers & Wilkins brand."

Creative Gigaworks T40 Series II: "Creative’s Gigaworks T40 Series II has a good, even sound. It tends to perform well with hard-hitting rock and dance music, and is a great gaming companion with good bass and detail. What’s great is that you can trim treble and bass to taste with the best controls available in the test group.

Our only complaint is the speakers’ lack of real sub-bass punch—probably due to the plentiful but relatively small 2.5” drivers—and because of this some music will feel stronger than other selections. But the result isn't bad, and on the whole these speakers sound quite good. They look great, especially with the speaker grilles removed and the orange drivers shown off in all of their 2.5" glory. The $149.99 price tag is high compared to the Altec Lansing FX3022 speakers and quite close to the M-Audio AV 40s, so you should take a close look at the competition before making a decision. Creative’s Gigaworks T40 Series II speakers are certain to appeal to some tastes, though."

M-Audio Studiophile AV 40: "The M-Audio Studiophile AV 40s do what reference speakers should: they sound rich and solid, without too much bass or much high-end boost. According to our ears, they offer the flattest and most accurate response in our test group, even if the MM-1s show a flatter sub-bass curve in frequency response tests. Put simply, the AV 40 is the best-sounding system in our test group and probably the best two-channel system we’ve ever heard.

What’s the downside? I suppose some people might not find the traditional look appealing, but that’s subjective at best. Our main concern is the size and price. The AV 40s are quite large and heavy, and one of the strengths of a two-channel PC speaker system should be how easily it fits on a desk. For the $179.99 price tag, you could purchase a 2.1-channel config with smaller satellites for the desktop and a nice bass-emphasizing subwoofer hidden inconspicuously. To be fair, professionals would likely put the AV 40s on speaker stands behind the desk where they belong, so this might not be a fair complaint. But this is a consumer-level review and it has to be mentioned. Aside from this, the AV 40s offer indisputable sound quality and pro-level connectivity options that make them an attractive product for enthusiasts."

It seems from their review M-Audio AV 40 is the clear winner.

But after reading the final note of the review below:

"A Final Note

The price spread between premium two-channel and 2.1-channel products is not much at all, yet a subwoofer can add a lot of bass presence. With very good 2.1-channel PC speaker systems starting in the $150 range, you really need to define your PC audio goals to understand which product is right for you. Are size and convenience your primary concerns, or can you you can spare the space and love your bass? Whatever you choose, you should try these options out at a local electronics outlet before you commit to a purchase."

Considering the price of some good 2.1 PC speakers:
1) Corsair SP2500 ($260)
2) Klipsch Promedia 2.1 ($120)
3) Logitech Z623 ($140)
4) Logitech Z2300 ($110)

The question generally arises that if a person have $200 to spend on PC speakers which way will he/ she go. Buy 2.0 or 2.1? Performance wise which one will be better?

Looking at the audio frequency graphs of below:

2.0 Speakers



2.1 Speakers



In terms of performance I do not see a hell a heaven difference between the 2.0 & 2.1 in midrange & high frequencies. Though 2.1 with dedicated subwoofer seems to excel in the bass department. But maybe I am omitting something.

I would love if some light is shown on this subject.

Blackbeard Ben, Snufykat, Mathemabeat, Dextar, 450, newster, caniba, Joe Average I love you all in spite of our differences in the past. I know all of you guys are quite knowledgeable and would love to share your views on this subject. Remember without you guys this thread is incomplete.

Also this invitation goes to all other members.

RishiGuru.
 
Last edited:
If you read the comments on Tom's Hardware for this article you will see the author replying to someone that his criteria for this selection was "high-end 2.0 speakers (assuming ACTIVE speakers)" and "he contacted a bunch of manufacturers to see if any of them would like to contribute product for the review, and what you see are the products that a few companies responded with".

He should have stated as much in the article itself. So the article is not "These ARE the best" but it's "Let's compare AMONGST these samples we got for free"

Everyone here at [H] is going to offer additional 2.0 speaker options. The two biggest camps are those using ACTIVE speakers which have their own amps and are plug and play and PASSIVE speakers which require the purchase of an intermediary amplifier that sits between the computer and the speakers.

Let the debate begin!
 
I know you're just trying to stir the pot but I'll bite... First off, as mentioned by the previous poster, the review just represents a random sampling of 2.0 and 2.1 speaker sets. If you do a minimum amount of research you'll find plenty of 2.0 monitor sets for under $200 (or under $150 even) that blow away most of the other sets in that review (besides the AV40's, which are pretty good for the price). The trade-off for most of these however is always gonna be the amount of space they take up, but you can't escape physics. If you want a good sounding set of speakers, a full blown cabinet is always gonna sound better than a tiny plastic satellite, 'specially if you want to avoid a sub...

Which brings me to my second point, one of the attractive aspects about a set of active desktop monitors, or a set of passive bookshelves + a receiver, is the fact that you can always pair them up with a sub if you really want to... Even tho a decent set of monitors isn't gonna be lacking in bass, if you really want rafter shaking bass you can still add a sub and have at it, so they're a more flexible solution than any 2.1 set, and it's gonna sound more balanced either way.

Personally I think my Samson StudioDock 3i compares pretty favorably with the AV40 and I got 'em for $120, at Best Buy of all places; haven't seen them there again in a while (tho I've seen the AV30's at BB and CompUSA). Samson also makes a larger set (4i) and a cheaper line (MediaOne 3a/4a/5a) without the iPod dock or USB DAC (which I've never used). Audioengine is another popular recommendation when it comes to active monitors, tho the prices are a bit higher. Swan also makes a wide range of models, the M200Mk X (I forget what version they're up to) are a great bang for the buck, tho they're also some of the biggest.

Honestly, the vast majority of 2.1 PC speaker sets are just overpriced, even the better ones (or perhaps the better ones in particular)... And the sole advantage is typically the fact that the satellites are relatively compact. Several of the active monitors I mentioned have plenty of input options, front-facing controls etc.

If you're gonna spend more than $200 on speakers you'd be a fool to buy a 2.1 set of PC speakers, imo... Regardless of how nice they are, the only possible exception is if you're living in a dorm room w/a tiny ass desk or something.
 
Impulse,
I just wanted to note I got the AV40's today and hooked them up and they are leaps and bounds over what I had (I had a Harmon Kardon HK695 so anything is better) but I'm not really seeing how these are worth $150. They aren't BAD for mid/low (obviously they aren't designed for lows) but I had to switch to my headset after about an hour of listening to them as my head was starting to hurt. They are a little bigger than I would like but the size of these doesn't bother me if they didn't give me such ear fatigue. I'm guessing it's also due to them being a little lower than ear level (I have nothing to stand them up on, not to mention with children I think they might end up getting knocked over). I'm going to keep them for about a week or two to see if I'm just used to my old set and see how I like them then.. I want to pick up the PSW10 from BB and see how that works with the system but I don't want to take something and make it an open box if I'm going to return it anyway (they sell it for 199 when I can get it for 95 on amazon).
 
Why do you think they aren't worth the $150? Compared to the typical set of PC speakers in the same price range they're leaps and bounds better... Tho I've seen them for closer to $120 in the past. Can you possibly build a better system w/a used amp and some bookshelves for not much more? Sure, and you should if having an amp in the same space doesn't bother you.

If you've got 'em set directly on a desk you might wanna find something to angle them up with btw (old sturdy binders perhaps?), sound bouncing off the desk will hurt their imaging as much as not being near ear level. You can definitely get much more from headphones for the same price, but that's apples and oranges if you ask me.
 
For $150 I think you should look at the M-Audio BX5a Deluxe. It goes for $150 from time to time or you can get it now if you wanna pay $200. It's a significant step up from the AV40. I also wouldn't get the PSW10 since they're boomy.
 
Impulse,
I just wanted to note I got the AV40's today and hooked them up and they are leaps and bounds over what I had (I had a Harmon Kardon HK695 so anything is better) but I'm not really seeing how these are worth $150. They aren't BAD for mid/low (obviously they aren't designed for lows) but I had to switch to my headset after about an hour of listening to them as my head was starting to hurt. They are a little bigger than I would like but the size of these doesn't bother me if they didn't give me such ear fatigue. I'm guessing it's also due to them being a little lower than ear level (I have nothing to stand them up on, not to mention with children I think they might end up getting knocked over). I'm going to keep them for about a week or two to see if I'm just used to my old set and see how I like them then.. I want to pick up the PSW10 from BB and see how that works with the system but I don't want to take something and make it an open box if I'm going to return it anyway (they sell it for 199 when I can get it for 95 on amazon).

M-Audio


M-Audio AV-40 is what I now call JUST OK bookshelves. M-Audio charges a lot($150) for what they are really worth of. I will compare with my Z-2300($110) to order to provide a clear picture.

Take the example of the power output claim. M-Audio says a "continuous power" of 20 watts per channel which brings to 40 watts for a pair.

Dismantling the AV-40, I found a bog standard EI transformer rated at 14V X 2, 1.4A i.e. 39VA. In contrast Z-2300 uses an expensive toroidal transformer of 151VA costing 4x times that of AV-40 transformer.

A toroid have numerous advantages over EI type such as low weight, low hum, low noise and also being smaller in size than an equivalent EI type.

I was also astounded that the transformer of AV-40 is so awfully close to the power amp board. In order to prevent magnetic interference from the transformer effecting the amplifier their is a divider made by thin soft iron plate section. This design is utterly crap since the intensity of the internal air flow formed under strong vibration may cause the this thin film to vibrate a cause noise. In addition, this iron plate has already started to rust. So much for quality components.

The ripple filter capacitors used in AV40 are made by "God Knows What" KSK brand of 4,700uF,35V. These KSK are famous for getting blown. The Z-2300 at-least uses a known name like SamXon or CapXon rated at 10,000uF, 35V. So the pair of ripple filters on Z-2300 cost 3x times of AV-40.

Since the AV-40 uses Class-AB power amps, the max these amplifiers will be able to produce is 39/1.27 ~= 30 watts for a pair. So, you have 15 watts of "continuous power" per channel.

Z-2300 also uses Class-AB power amps, the max these amplifiers will be able to produce is 151/1.27 ~= 120 watts. 76 watt goes to the sub & 22 watt to each of the sats.

With so less power on AV-40, you crank up the volume and the single ST Microelectronics TDA7265, 25 X 2 = 50W power amp being awfully limited by a sub standard 30 watt power supply gives up. Mind you those TDA7265 comes at $5.7 a piece.

Z-2300 have a pair of ST Microelectronics TDA7296 & a pair of ST Microelectronics TDA7295. That sums up to 60 X 2 + 80 X 2 = 280W being limited to 120 watt power supply. Cost of these four amps is over $21.

Z-2300 uses a costlier external heat sink, so all the heat from the power amps are radiated outside keeping the amplifier cool. The AV-40 uses an internal heat sink, so the heat remains inside the box causing rise of internal temperature. This shortens the life of the amplifier module.

At least the Z-2300 have a potent amplifier using quality components which later can be used else were. On an average the Z-2300 amplifier is 4x costlier than AV-40 amp module.

I used to think that bookshelves at sub $200 uses better quality components than an equivalently priced 2.1 system. Now after the DIY of AV-40, it seems that I was absolutely wrong. To me AV-40 is not even worth $50. But unfortunately the "M-Audio" name is all one needs to shell out $150.
 
Last edited:
Av-40 is not a book shelf speaker, they are classified as monitors. Bookshelf speakers are not powered and have to be amplified by a separate source.
 
Av-40 is not a book shelf speaker, they are classified as monitors. Bookshelf speakers are not powered and have to be amplified by a separate source.

Snufykat what are your views regarding this sub $200 monitors?
 
I'd normally suggest 2.1 over 2.0 as there's definitely something to be said for a Sub assuming reasonable quality of course.
 
I'd normally suggest 2.1 over 2.0 as there's definitely something to be said for a Sub assuming reasonable quality of course.

M-Audio


After the M-Audio AV-40 farce, I would recommend every body to think five times before opting for a 2.0 rather than a 2.1 below $200. Remember a 2.0 will be unable to recreate the sub-bass that a 2.1 can do.

I will go to this extent in saying that the AV-40 amp components are rivaling the cheapest Chinese speakers available at $20. Use of ultra cheap KSC, LXAP & Fujida capacitors, ultra cheap bog standard under powered EI transformer made by Shenzhen Xingyaoda Electronics. I can find no whereabouts of them in the web. Not to mention the use of internal hit-sink and flimsy iron plate separators which starts to rust after 3 months.

Where as my Z-2300 uses SamXon/ CapXon capacitors & a toroidal transformer made by TenPao. These are recognized Chinese companies who at least have there own websites.

The only component in AV-40 that was known to me was the ST Microelectronics power amp. Z-2300 uses four more powerful power amplifiers from the same make.

If M-Audio have gone for Yoda power amp then I think the cheap Chinese speaker companies could have made M-Audio their OEM manufacturer. They could have imported these AV-40's & labeled them as Dragon Killer 2.0 and sold them at $40 in China.
 
Last edited:
2.1 is to be preferred unless you can spend 6000+$ in highend audiphile speakers (and amp) which can do 30hz - 20 khz, or if you have a limited budget, so you can add a subwoofer later.

Most important is to build your own sound system (if you care about sound). Don't go and waste hundreds of $ in multimedia PC speakers. Buy a decent amp, a good pair of speakers and a soundcard; just make sure you can add things later if you don't have all the cash right away (check if the amp has subwoofer output, go with surround amp if you plan to go surround, and so on).

I personally have owned a bunch of multimedia speakers: Cambridge Soundworks DTT2500, Creative Megaworks 550 THX, Klipsch iFi, Bose Lifestyle 5, Logitech Z-5300...

They all pale in comparison to my current setup: Dynaudio Focus 110 + Jolida 1501RC valve/transistor hybrid amplifier, Cabasse Santorin 25 subwoofer, Auzentech X-Prelude.
I then have an extra amp and speakers for surround, some vintage Pioneer stuff I bought off ebay.
 
2.1 is to be preferred unless you can spend 6000+$ in highend audiphile speakers (and amp) which can do 30hz - 20 khz, or if you have a limited budget, so you can add a subwoofer later.

Most important is to build your own sound system (if you care about sound). Don't go and waste hundreds of $ in multimedia PC speakers. Buy a decent amp, a good pair of speakers and a soundcard; just make sure you can add things later if you don't have all the cash right away (check if the amp has subwoofer output, go with surround amp if you plan to go surround, and so on).

I personally have owned a bunch of multimedia speakers: Cambridge Soundworks DTT2500, Creative Megaworks 550 THX, Klipsch iFi, Bose Lifestyle 5, Logitech Z-5300...

They all pale in comparison to my current setup: Dynaudio Focus 110 + Jolida 1501RC valve/transistor hybrid amplifier, Cabasse Santorin 25 subwoofer, Auzentech X-Prelude.
I then have an extra amp and speakers for surround, some vintage Pioneer stuff I bought off ebay.

Even a cheaply Polk Monitor 30 + dayton sub + receiver would destroy any multimedia speaker. They invented these computer speakers for a reason. A budget alternative. You get what you pay for. ;)
 
2.1 is to be preferred unless you can spend 6000+$ in highend audiphile speakers (and amp) which can do 30hz - 20 khz, or if you have a limited budget, so you can add a subwoofer later.

Most important is to build your own sound system (if you care about sound). Don't go and waste hundreds of $ in multimedia PC speakers. Buy a decent amp, a good pair of speakers and a soundcard; just make sure you can add things later if you don't have all the cash right away (check if the amp has subwoofer output, go with surround amp if you plan to go surround, and so on).

I personally have owned a bunch of multimedia speakers: Cambridge Soundworks DTT2500, Creative Megaworks 550 THX, Klipsch iFi, Bose Lifestyle 5, Logitech Z-5300...

They all pale in comparison to my current setup: Dynaudio Focus 110 + Jolida 1501RC valve/transistor hybrid amplifier, Cabasse Santorin 25 subwoofer, Auzentech X-Prelude.
I then have an extra amp and speakers for surround, some vintage Pioneer stuff I bought off ebay.

your $1500 speakers and $1000 amp sound better than Logitech Z-5300??? How does that even happen?
 
Guys guys we are getting out of topic. Suggestion of 2.0 or 2.1 under $200 please.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Guys guys we are getting out of topic. Suggestion of 2.0 or 2.1 under $200 please.:rolleyes:

MAudio AV40 when they go on sale for $120 on Amazon. For all the Chinese parts it supposedly has it still sounds better than Logicraps. Real mind boggler head scratcher there. It the end that is all that matters: how it sounds to your ears.
 
Certainly those cheap electronic components that were mentioned earlier cannot play a significant factor to the sound production. the tweeters and the drivers in combination with the speaker cabinets probably have the biggest influence on the sound production. i love my AV40s and they sound better than my old Klipsch Promedia 4.1 speakers.
 
Looking at the frequency response graphs why would anybody want any of those speakers? Huge bumps in bass with immediate suck out on the 2.1 sets followed by unbelievable drop-off past 10 to 12 k.

The 2.0 sets are far worse; total suck out on bass and the AV-40s are 18db down at about at about 15 k?

Maybe acceptable for very high compression MP-3 but not much else. These speakers are in BOSE territory, there has to be something better out there.
 
BillR, are you talking about the green line? That one isn't the AV40. Its the FX3022.
 
BillR, are you talking about the green line? That one isn't the AV40. Its the FX3022.

OOps. You are right but the AV40 is still down almost 9db on the high end at a very bad place.

Back in the days of dare I say it *records* the RIAA (before all the corruption and crap) set standards for vinyl recordings at 5htz to 85khtz for a reason.

While very few people can hear fundamental frequencies over 17 to 18k but most acoustical instruments have harmonics that go way beyond 100k (depending on the room and instrument etc... Those frequencies bounce around and return to range of normal hearing becoming part of the performance or overall sound we hear.

When CD was first released back in 1982 they had a “brick wall filter” at 20k and that stopped many people, not audiophiles, but simply people who could hear from buying those early units. The music sounded dry and lifeless.

Now even lower end CD players go out past 30 and 40k and SACD goes beyond 100k while DVD A rolls off at around 85k.

Somebody here made a comment the other week about even an old HK Citation AMP sounded better than most AMPS and receivers today and they are right. HK was among the first make their AMPs and receivers go out to 100k because there are harmonics out there that were and are being missed.

Magnepan back in the day wouldn’t allow a dealer to become a dealer unless they (the dealer and staff) attended at least two live acoustical performances a year just so you knew what live acoustical music sounded like. Magnepan picked up the check just so you would go.

In the end everyone will buy what they like, they always do but damn, if those graphs are right (given it is Tom’s) they all suck.:)
 
I loved my Magnepan speakers when I had them (I've owned the SMGa, MMG, MG12, and MG1.6 so far), I wish Magnepan would make a $200-300 multimedia system.

In terms of small-ish speakers, what would you buy? (preferably under $250-300)
 
I loved my Magnepan speakers when I had them (I've owned the SMGa, MMG, MG12, and MG1.6 so far), I wish Magnepan would make a $200-300 multimedia system.

In terms of small-ish speakers, what would you buy? (preferably under $250-300)

Honestly I'd be looking for a used pair of Paradigm Titans. Problem is nobody want's to part with them. Paridigm MK-3 would be my second choice with the Atom being third.

Second choice, BOSTON ACOUSTICS A40 or A-60.

The Magie SMGa was a true sleeper of a speaker. Touchy on seating position and they liked big high current AMPs but they sounded great. My last pair were MG-3c s with Levinson AMPS and Pre AMP.:)
 
Certainly those cheap electronic components that were mentioned earlier cannot play a significant factor to the sound production. the tweeters and the drivers in combination with the speaker cabinets probably have the biggest influence on the sound production. i love my AV40s and they sound better than my old Klipsch Promedia 4.1 speakers.

Well I do admit that AV-40 is more musical than Z-2300, its actually better tuned than Z-2300 to handle music particularly, but to say "those cheap electronic components that were mentioned earlier cannot play a significant factor to the sound production" is totally wrong. I think you have no technical understanding of how audio systems work. Never ever say these again.

It is like a pairing $1000 dollar bookshelves with $20 Chinese amplifiers which sound bright but have no definition in sound. How can you expect good output when you do not provide a good source?

Also cheap components means shorter life. Take the example of my friends AV-40. He was so happy with them listening music for the first three months after which the amp blew. My Z-2300 is going six years strong. It seems to last another decade. So quality components does matter along with sound quality.

Its true that the cabinet along with the drivers play a significant role in quality sound production, but thats a part of the whole package, not the whole deal.

Everybody thinks how a PC speaker will perform in music. But a person may also be interested in watching movies & playing games. In that sense a 2.1 is more of an all rounder since it can go down under the frequency range which the 2.0 with small drivers cannot.

The frequency response of AV-40 is 85Hz - 20kHz. Of course with 4 inch mid woofers you do not expect more. They were not designed to do so. But if a person had to pay $200 he may also want a system to cover the entire audible audio range as much as possible. AV-40's are awfully short in performance regarding games & movies. I have personally heard them. Also the lack of power limits their performance. AV-40's no way can justify their $150 price tag. Even at $75 I will think twice.

Members in this forum talk about the absence of tweeters in Z-2300 sats which limits the high frequency performance. The same way AV-40 should be talked about the lack of a woofer which limits its low frequency performance. Both are not perfect in this scene.

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

I sometimes wonder what is audio sound quality? Is their any thing like sound quality? Or is it just which ever is good in ones ears is excellent sound quality for him?

One thing for sure that the sound quality is ultra subjective and varies for every person. And their is no proper way to define it.

A person who does not like loudness and mainly listens the classical, jazz, instrumental will be highly impressed with AV-40. He will rate them to have excellent audio quality.

Another person who wants to play loud in order to feel the punch of every beat in his hip hop, rap, techno music along with action movies & games will just love a Z-2300 due to the presence of the subwoofer. He will rate they are excellent too.

Which brings me to the conclusion as to why AV-40 is regarded to have better sound quality than Z-2300 in this forum. If sound quality is subjective then both the above persons are happy with their audio systems. So both of them should have excellent sound quality. Both are equally good. No one is better than the other.

Remember one can use a $500 ultra expensive ferro fluid cooled tweeter matched with a $5000 amplifier in order to produce immaculate high frequencies between 15kHz- 40kHz range, but it would be of no use if there is no midrange & woofer supplementing it to cover the rest of the frequency range.
 
Last edited:
If you where buying a $1000 bookshelves they would not have amplifiers. As mentioned earlier, bookshelf speakers are externally amplified. They are speakers.
 
If you where buying a $1000 bookshelves they would not have amplifiers. As mentioned earlier, bookshelf speakers are externally amplified. They are speakers.

When I said "it is like a pairing $1000 dollar bookshelves with $20 Chinese amplifiers" I meant cheap external Chinese amplifier. Not internal. Note I said "pairing".
 
If you where buying a $1000 bookshelves they would not have amplifiers. As mentioned earlier, bookshelf speakers are externally amplified. They are speakers.

Not completely true...

ex: Paradigm Reference Active 20
 
Doesn't that make them monitors?

I don't see anything that says that a bookshelf speaker is defined as a passive loudspeaker. Technically the monitors are bookshelf speakers as well.
 
When I said "it is like a pairing $1000 dollar bookshelves with $20 Chinese amplifiers" I meant cheap external Chinese amplifier. Not internal. Note I said "pairing".

Next time i will be sure to quote you to avoid the edit.
 
how are the frequency response graphs being calculated?

is that graph and overlay of all speakers in a ~100% absorption chamber? or are they real world responses tested in tom's room?

if the latter, i about guarantee the way he tested is entirely INCORRECT. sigh,

the peaks and nulls of LF are likely room mode issues, and mid-high peaks/nulls from comb-filtering.

and being that the speakers/units themselves are different sizes (e.g. drivers at different geometric locations in the room, even if only by 4" can have drastic results) -- means that those graphs are completely untrustable from a comparison perspective, as the room is likely introducing issues which he is completely unaccounting for.

not saying all of the testing units have 20-20k flat response, but i don't think that it should be a selling point, as his room is likely skewing things
 
I don't see anything that says that a bookshelf speaker is defined as a passive loudspeaker. Technically the monitors are bookshelf speakers as well.

After actually looking up those speakers, they are referenced as bookshelf speakers. I was referencing the speakers the OP had referenced in his post and I over generalized.
 
how are the frequency response graphs being calculated?

is that graph and overlay of all speakers in a ~100% absorption chamber? or are they real world responses tested in tom's room?

if the latter, i about guarantee the way he tested is entirely INCORRECT. sigh,

the peaks and nulls of LF are likely room mode issues, and mid-high peaks/nulls from comb-filtering.

and being that the speakers/units themselves are different sizes (e.g. drivers at different geometric locations in the room, even if only by 4" can have drastic results) -- means that those graphs are completely untrustable from a comparison perspective, as the room is likely introducing issues which he is completely unaccounting for.

not saying all of the testing units have 20-20k flat response, but i don't think that it should be a selling point, as his room is likely skewing things

Tom'sHardware quote: "Most PC speaker reviews are limited to subjective opinions. While those are quite useful, this is Tom’s Hardware. We’re going to try to go a little deeper than that with some objective measurements, too. Our measurements are taken with a calibrated Apex 220 measurement microphone that has a phantom power supplied by TubeMP preamp. The measurement software we use is TrueRTA audio-spectrum analyzer level 4, found at www.trueaudio.com. Testing is done in a 25’x15’ room with the microphone pointed upward 30” from the satellites and subwoofer .................................. Nevertheless, since the speakers were meticulously placed and aimed in the same manner as the other test subjects, we have to consider these dips and pay extra attention when we test the speakers subjectively."
 
There is no "better" between 2.0 or 2.1. It is just different. The question really comes down to bass extension. At a given price point, and at a given speaker size, you'll get lower bass, and more bass, with a 2.1 system. Having a dedicated subwoofer allows for that. However, since a subwoofer is a separate speakers, and it needs an amp and all that, not as much money can go to the left and right speakers.

What is right for you really depends on what you want and how much you are willing to spend. Personally, I'm a big fan of subwoofers. I like low bass that goes down to 16Hz. So despite having tower speakers from my front left and right speakers, I also have a subwoofer.

In terms of active monitors, if those are your thing, you can find many of them that have a subwoofer option, so if you desire more bass you can add a sub that is matched to the speakers. In the case of M-Audio, their SBX10 is a sub that matches well with their Studiophile speakers.

Now in terms of measuring speaker response, well the method listed there won't cut it for good measurements. At the low end, things are completely screwed. That room is not nearly large enough for low frequency measurements. Sound waves are much longer than most people think. For example a 30Hz wave is about 37 feet long. As such anything but a massive room (or outdoors) will have some problems with regards to standing waves. In the case of a 25'x15' room, assuming a normal height of 8' you are going to have some large eigenmodes at 22Hz, 37Hz, 43-45Hz and 59Hz. Also there will be more minor ones from about 65Hz to 176Hz.

Because of that, low frequency measurements have to be carried out in special circumstances if you want the true measurement of the speakers. For example the tower speakers I bought come with individual measurements for the actual speakers themselves, not the characteristics of the line. However they only go down to 200Hz because the small room they use to test speakers before shipping can only accurately measure down that low. For the complete response that they have for the line of speakers, they had to be taken to a much larger facility to measure.

Even then with the higher frequency measurements, you need a well treated room. You get all kinds of reflation at different frequencies off the walls. You need to have anechoic material on as much of the walls, floor and ceiling as possible if you want a true response of just the speaker.

Finally, that measurement microphone is not very accurate. It uses the same cheap measurement capsule most inexpensive measurement mics do. Not a problem, but you need to correct for it. It does not appear they had their microphone calibrated and thus they didn't use a correction file. This introduces additional error.

You really don't get much useful out of that. Also, if objective measurements are going to be taken frequency response is only one to consider and perhaps the least useful. As I noted, rooms mess with frequency response a whole lot. Getting the general range of a speaker's FR is about the only useful thing. If you really care about a reasonably. Flat in-room FR, you either have to have a high quality treated room or equalize your speakers.

A more useful stat would be harmonic distortion vs SPL. The greater the harmonic distortion the less "clean" of a sound you'll have. One of the things that separates high end speakers form lower end speakers is the ability to get loud without much distortion.

At any rate as for 2.0 vs 2.1 (or 4.0 or 5.1 or 7.1) it really all comes down to personal preference and budget. What is it you want and how much can you spend? The more speakers you need, the less money that can go to each speaker at a given price point and thus the lesser quality of the speakers. However that low frequency extension can be rather desirable to many. Also, 2.1 speakers can deal with space constraints in some cases. If you've room on the floor but little on your desk, a 2.1 system can potentially offer smaller speakers but still have the range you want.

2.0 can be a very good choice for music though as the usually offer better sound at a given price point. Depending on the kind of music there may not be that much lower bass to worry about and thus it may not be a real big deal to lose it.

When I had to choose, I did choose 2.0 with less bass. For a number of years I just had B&W 601s2 speakers because I couldn't afford anything more. They didn't have the bass that a system with a sub would have, but it would have required trading down quality quite a bit and I didn't want to do that. I could deal with lacking some low bass.

However if the money is there, I think a sub is a great idea, even if you have tower speakers. It not only extends their bass, but it cleans up the bass too. When the woofers in the speakers don't have to work on those low frequencies, and the large amount of excursion they entail, their distortion goes down.
 
Tom'sHardware quote: "Most PC speaker reviews are limited to subjective opinions. While those are quite useful, this is Tom’s Hardware. We’re going to try to go a little deeper than that with some objective measurements, too. Our measurements are taken with a calibrated Apex 220 measurement microphone that has a phantom power supplied by TubeMP preamp. The measurement software we use is TrueRTA audio-spectrum analyzer level 4, found at www.trueaudio.com. Testing is done in a 25’x15’ room with the microphone pointed upward 30” from the satellites and subwoofer .................................. Nevertheless, since the speakers were meticulously placed and aimed in the same manner as the other test subjects, we have to consider these dips and pay extra attention when we test the speakers subjectively."

thanks -- some speakers have the sub/LF driver placed higher than others --- even a few inches could have drastic differences in response. same goes with the HF stuff regarding comb-filtering.

the mic staying in the same spot is nice but with the drivers being in different physical coordinates of the room (based on different size cabinets for the speakers) does and will cause issues in the testing method.
 
There is no "better" between 2.0 or 2.1. It is just different. The question really comes down to bass extension. At a given price point, and at a given speaker size, you'll get lower bass, and more bass, with a 2.1 system. Having a dedicated subwoofer allows for that. However, since a subwoofer is a separate speakers, and it needs an amp and all that, not as much money can go to the left and right speakers.

the point being...the optimal location for a sub is generally not the optimal location for the mid range/tweeter...therefore, it's generally better to have 2.1 as you can place the sub in a corner to get some boundary reinforcement, but still keep your mid/highs on your desk and in the optimal position for them (since the sound they produce is much more directional). by having the low freq driver + high freq driver in the same enclosure, you are generally sacrificing performance because optimal placement for the two is generally never going to be in the same physical location

it's the same debate with floor standing towers vs bookshelves+sub.

and the issues regarding freq response is exactly the reason i brought it up above ^^
you don't *need* a large room to measure low end, though
 
I myself have a dayton sub + m-audio av30 and couldn't be happier with how they sound and perform. But I came from some crappy Z-530(cheap logitech 5.1) so it was pretty night and day difference for me.
 
Back
Top