Difference between z-5500 and higher end speakers?

astrallite said:
I wouldn't know about composites. Aluminum tweeters are the least problematic of the three, since the breakup mode is about at the same frequency as redbook CD bandwidth (22KHz). Mostly its only the younger people that can hear it.
Click to expand...

Even if they're the "least" problematic, they will sound the worse if not done correctly. Case in point, the DM 303s are what I expected to walk out with one day. Instead, I got the SuperZero XUs . . . a soft dome which I had actually despised till it compared favorably to my Focals.

Seriously, the 303s were that bad. No decay, felt compressed in the treble. I'd say it was one step away from being your basic entry Klipsch.

But you can't really avoid the resonances in the midrange frequencies, and both the Veritas (discontinued for ages) and the NHT Classic series (arguably a ripoff--I've heart NHT dealers say Veritas "inspired" the design.) both use aluminum for all of its drivers. I've had Axiom speakers before...sold it within a week...felt like my ears were bleeding. Anyway, both are 3-ways that suffer from massive comb filtering, which forced both Energy and NHT to come up with interesting ways to house/block off the two drivers from each other. In the end it probably wasn't worth the tradeoff (imagine having no choice but to listen to speakers with the grills on...that's basically what you're left with).
Click to expand...

Once again though, it can change from company to company. The first ones to figure out that anodizing dampens internal resonance wins. :p

That's what it comes to though. If done right, metal can be a great substance to work with for speakers. If done wrong, anything can sound bad really.
 
I'm talking about material resonance, not preferences for particular products. The semantics you define decay with most likely arent the same thing as long decay times in waterfall plots.

As far as spectral decay, that's the problem with aluminum, mostly with midrange drivers...aluminum has tiny breakup modes everywhere but with midrange drivers (4" or 5" the breakup modes are anywhere from 3Khz to 5Khz). Unfortunately given how sharp aluminum tweeters drop off in response at around 3Khz most x-over points in these systems are between 2.7KHz to 3.5KHz...and since you are forced to a shallow crossover slope, you are still getting significant output from the woofers in the midrange frequencies, which means a lot of "cowbell ringing". This is considered the consistent source of why people hear a "brightness" in aluminum driver-based speakers.

Aluminum "done right" unfortunately sounds kind of like a contradiction. If you are budgeting for a speaker where you can fix the problems with aluminum you may as well switch to a better material since aluminum is the "budget" metal. That said some people like the sound of aluminum and buy speakers for that sound. Then on the other end you have people who think measurable purism is a bigger deal. To each their own.
 
astrallite said:
I'm talking about material resonance, not preferences for particular products. The semantics you define decay with most likely arent the same thing as long decay times in waterfall plots.
Click to expand...

However, a combination of materials will change the overall decay. So it's not really worth talking about unless you take into consideration of dampening.

Aluminum "done right" unfortunately sounds kind of like a contradiction. If you are budgeting for a speaker where you can fix the problems with aluminum you may as well switch to a better material since aluminum is the "budget" metal. That said some people like the sound of aluminum and buy speakers for that sound. Then on the other end you have people who think measurable purism is a bigger deal. To each their own.
Click to expand...

Hardly a contradiction. As I said, just anodize them. Cheap, and effective. Many enclosures are built out of anodized aluminum too and extremely inert. Manufactures tend to avoid this though because consumers tend to have a preconceived notion of how they sound.
 
What are anodized enclosures?

As far as drivers goes...Composites, anodizing...reminds me of the hilarity with B&W's love affair with kevlar and their desperate attempt to control resonances...makes you wonder why the product is so overpriced and measures so poorly. Then again that's the price of spending a ton of money trying to fix a "problem" that could be easily remedied with using poly driver with a higher quality tweeter that's crosses over lower and cover the span of the midrange, which a good tweeter will do better than an exotic mid-woofer.
 
I dont exactly agree with the general consensus on the Z-5500. For 200 bux, they arent bad. Do they compare even remotely close to a $600+ system? HELLS NO. For a layed back approach to movies and gaming and for a bang for buck ratio, they are not bad at all. Would I listen to music on them, HELLS NO, as far as music goes I would much rather hook up some HD650s to a decent can amp and enter into sonic heaven. It would be a lie however to say that for $200 Bux, the Z-5500 are total crap. What other 5.1 system for 200 bux far surpases its quality?

I think it all come down to priorities. You want a decent surround sound for movies and gaming without spending much money at all, go with the Z-5500, they are cheap, and not bad. If you want to appreciate true SQL you are going to have to spend a little more money.;
 
astrallite said:
What are anodized enclosures?
Click to expand...

Chemically treated aluminum cabinets. YG Acoustics uses them.

As far as drivers goes...Composites, anodizing...reminds me of the hilarity with B&W's love affair with kevlar and their desperate attempt to control resonances...makes you wonder why the product is so overpriced and measures so poorly. Then again that's the price of spending a ton of money trying to fix a "problem" that could be easily remedied with using poly driver with a higher quality tweeter that's crosses over lower and cover the span of the midrange, which a good tweeter will do better than an exotic mid-woofer.
Click to expand...

Which B&W are you particularly talking about that measures poorly?
 
Wow. I was set on buying some Z-5500 based on the reviews I've read and now im not so sure. Is a better system possible for >$300? I was originally looking at the Klipsch 5.1 system but was turned off that they didn't have Digital inputs- not that Ive ever used these before but the sound is suppose to be much "better" than analog.
 
Mangudai said:
Wow. I was set on buying some Z-5500 based on the reviews I've read and now im not so sure. Is a better system possible for >$300? I was originally looking at the Klipsch 5.1 system but was turned off that they didn't have Digital inputs- not that Ive ever used these before but the sound is suppose to be much "better" than analog.
Click to expand...

Not a chance.
Don't waste your time with nay-sayers.
Of course there are better speakers out there. However, are those better values?
The average price for the Z-5500 is about $200 and as low as $150 on hot deals.

Between the receiver, cables, speakers, you will be out at least three times the amount for anything comparable to the Z-5500.
Even an HTIB that compares would be at least twice as expensive as the Z-5500.

As a physical setup, I find the Z-5500 to be very clean.
There aren't a lot of cables to mess with, and the receiver is small and nice.
The speakers are also very compact. So, they don't stick out too much.
The sub alone is worth the price of the set.

Only worry about getting anything better if you have a listening area larger than 250sf.
 
Well Kevlar-based drivers are susceptible to ringing. The loudspeaker I refer to is the DM603 S3 which both Joseph D'appolito and Stereophile have reviewed . Since the tweeter is aluminum the crossover is forced to 4KHz (whereas 2-ways with high end tweeters usually have a 1.8KHz crossover). The Kevlar driver has significant output to its breakup mode from 4.5 KHz to 6KHz which causes a huge spike in decay measurements, again, more cowbell.

Also the drivers are not time-aligned which is not a problem if you have a low crossover but the midrange is the most audible spectrum and half the midrange is time delayed, which of course, exacerbates the fact that the ringing is very close to the crossover region, so you have time-delay and holdover output at the critical midrange frequencies. Given the same design materials with other B&W products the issue is going to be repeated.

Shike said:
Chemically treated aluminum cabinets. YG Acoustics uses them.
Click to expand...

99% of the cabinet resonance is 200hz and below, it's not even remotely close the to aluminum breakup modes.
 
Like others have said.

The z-5500 will win no sound quality awards, but its definitely not bad for the price. Just dont go thinking its super high quality and your ok. Also if it sounds good to you then it sounds good to you.

If you listen to a lot of music on your computer then you might want to upgrade, (prob not worth it if its all mp3 that you are listening to).

But if you are just gaming its prob not worth spending your money.
 
kemist1117 said:
Like others have said.

The z-5500 will win no sound quality awards, but its definitely not bad for the price. Just dont go thinking its super high quality and your ok. Also if it sounds good to you then it sounds good to you.

If you listen to a lot of music on your computer then you might want to upgrade, (prob not worth it if its all mp3 that you are listening to).

But if you are just gaming its prob not worth spending your money.
Click to expand...

All true. For $200 and surround they do well. Just better out there for the same $$ if you are willing to work craigslist and ebay.
 
astrallite said:
Well Kevlar-based drivers are susceptible to ringing. The loudspeaker I refer to is the DM603 S3 which both Joseph D'appolito and Stereophile have reviewed . Since the tweeter is aluminum the crossover is forced to 4KHz (whereas 2-ways with high end tweeters usually have a 1.8KHz crossover). The Kevlar driver has significant output to its breakup mode from 4.5 KHz to 6KHz which causes a huge spike in decay measurements, again, more cowbell.

Also the drivers are not time-aligned which is not a problem if you have a low crossover but the midrange is the most audible spectrum and half the midrange is time delayed, which of course, exacerbates the fact that the ringing is very close to the crossover region, so you have time-delay and holdover output at the critical midrange frequencies. Given the same design materials with other B&W products the issue is going to be repeated.
Click to expand...

This is interesting, where did you gather all these facts? Also, what speaker materials do you actually suggest?
 
Since I don't design speakers, technically I'm just parroting other people's opinions and extrapolating information. Depending on who you talk to, there's various ways to reading graphs, leading to different approaches, design philosophies. Give ten different graduate students the same lab results and they'll write completely conflicting test conclusions. All of their conclusions will be completely logical, but they reach different conclusions because one of their premises will always be inductive--their personal bias.

I bought speakers based on recommendation and I didn't like them, so I looked for the possible reason, and found information that validated my beliefs. I respect Joe D'appolito's opinion (even though I dislike the D'appolito array), and the design philosophies of a lot of the ID (internet direct) companies. Of course given my distaste for metal woofers you could say I sort of just walked into this sort of design philosophy--high performance tweeters (usually soft dome or metals with "inaudible" resonances), low crossovers, simple (poly or paper) long-throw woofers, heavily reinforced cabinets.

I dislike metal drivers because from what I've seen (and I admit, AVSforum and Audioholics is full of B&M haters), classical companies who have been building these aluminum and kevlar based speakers are now getting competition from upstart companies (particularly American companies, and the "strength" of the dollar is weighing heavily in our advantage) where they are focusing on what I think are the "right things" to maximize value. What have these classical loudspeaker companies done since facing this kind of competition? Come up with exotic composites and oxides to justify the cost of their products when they are probably better off buying off the shelf drivers from high end manufacturers instead of wasting money R&Ding a design to fix a problem with a material they probably should never have used to start with. Then again twenty years ago people didn't really know what spectral decay was and just called it "brightness" and these materials seemed like a brilliant alternative to paper or poly.
 
B&W was built on 80s sound which was lots of upper bass and lots of upper treble (called the Smiley Face Curve). This is purely an educated guess, but kevlar could have seemed like a brilliant material in the 80s given how much high frequency energy it radiates. Back then "tipping the sound" with additives was considered good speaker design.

Now in the 2000s, Canadian speaker design philosophy has become a worldwide trend--neutral, accurate audio, high dispersion, low spectral decay. This is why the high quality tweeter, the curved baffles, and the nondescript woofer has become the new modern norm. Paradigm, a company that once strived to copy B&W, has completely re-engineered their driver philosophy in the last 5 years--if you look at speaker measurements, 5 years ago their entire lineup looked like 1980s style frequency response, today they are painstakingly neutral. Paradigm has also turned toward funneling the majority of their funds towards the tweeter--for the same price as five years ago, you can get a signature series speaker with a beryllium tweeter, which probably costs three or four times more than what they were using before.

Really it's an old-school vs new school war right now. The modern paradigm--we trust the recording to sound good, so we will play back the recording as it is. Older paradigm--we can make the recording sound better by making it "bouncier."
 
Do you think I'd be happier with Klipsch's? Only reason I wasn't considering them was because they didn't have digital in. Either way its mainly for gaming and music and the occasional movie.
 
Mangudai said:
Do you think I'd be happier with Klipsch's? Only reason I wasn't considering them was because they didn't have digital in. Either way its mainly for gaming and music and the occasional movie.
Click to expand...

3 popular brands for computer surround speakers, in order of worst to least-worse: logitech, creative, klipsch.

logitech is readily available, cheap to find, and it comes with a built-in decoder. ok system if you are lazy and just want to keep it simple. however, it does have significant shortcomings.

creative 5.1 are ok. their 7.1 speakers are interesting, if only it is 7.1 and its THX rated (all listed here are.) but those are hard to find and expensive.

klipsch have the best sound of the 3. however, klipsch no longer makes them and their bash amps are known to have a high failure rate (a number of fixes exist). you can find them used for ~ 150 - 300.

for computer speakers, i think its worth the effort to find a set of klipsch. the digital option is only useful if you wanted to use them with your ps3/360, but useless if only used with your computer and you have a 5.1 capable sound card.
 
I have the z5500's
I have a buddy with klipsch

the klipsch to my ears sound a lot better, and make the 5500's feel very dull, so if you can, find some
 
I had a set of the Klipsch GMX 2.1's for a period during college and loved them. They just sounded so much nicer than the rest of the lot (despite looking a bit wonky). When I became a bit more serious about audio and went through my research/design phase I also went shopping for a new set of speakers for the living room. I ended up with Klipsch's old flagships, the RF-7's (64% off woohoo!). A buddy of mine also had to figure out his stereo situation for a college room. He coupled a H/K stereo receiver with a pair of Klipsch RB-15s and they sound absolutely tremendous for a dorm room. I mean straight out awesome. Total cost of that route is maybe $400-$500. In my opinion you really can't beat Klipsh on value. I demo'd a fair number at a hi-fi store (called Stereophile of all things) and really couldn't justify spending 10g's. Moral of the story, go find a set of Klipsch's ; in any price bracket they'll still come out on top.
 
Taiguy said:
I had a set of the Klipsch GMX 2.1's for a period during college and loved them. They just sounded so much nicer than the rest of the lot (despite looking a bit wonky). When I became a bit more serious about audio and went through my research/design phase I also went shopping for a new set of speakers for the living room. I ended up with Klipsch's old flagships, the RF-7's (64% off woohoo!). A buddy of mine also had to figure out his stereo situation for a college room. He coupled a H/K stereo receiver with a pair of Klipsch RB-15s and they sound absolutely tremendous for a dorm room. I mean straight out awesome. Total cost of that route is maybe $400-$500. In my opinion you really can't beat Klipsh on value. I demo'd a fair number at a hi-fi store (called Stereophile of all things) and really couldn't justify spending 10g's. Moral of the story, go find a set of Klipsch's ; in any price bracket they'll still come out on top.
Click to expand...

I agree, Around 18 months ago, I got myself the Klipsch Promedia 2.1 set, it was actually a pretty darn good set, and I was thinking to myself can how can the audio get any better?!

As I got sucked deeper into the world of audiophiles and got myself more interested in better audio systems, I finally got myself a pair Klipsch RB-61 bookshelfs (2 months ago), and I have never been more pleased with the audio!

It sounds far different than the promedias. First of all, since I do not have a subwoofer, the bass on the bookshelfs cant even compare with that of the promedia set, but the bass on the bookshelfs are soo clean and tight, its perfect, nothing earth-rattling but its pleasing (Good for other members in the house, personally, I think the bass of the promedia was finally getting to them). Second, as most Klipsch systems sound, they sound Bright, this is hugely noticeable in the first moments you listen to the speakers, but nonetheless, you get used to it really quick. I spent approx $525 on my setup (speakers + yamaha reciever) and I do not regret it whatsoever.

It does lack bass pound, but oh is the sound so crisp and clear.

After demoing many different paradigms in a local audio store, I am more than positive that my next set, whether for PC or home theatre will be paradigms, they just sound much more balanced than Klipsch.
 
empty, I am about to do the same thing except with 5500's

glad to read your post
 
There's better than paradigm for the same $$. Great speakers though. Better than most. I would buy them used. Just fyi.
 
spaceman said:
There's better than paradigm for the same $$. Great speakers though. Better than most. I would buy them used. Just fyi.
Click to expand...

What speakers other than AV123 :)p) would you suggest? I am wide open for suggestions. I hear really good things about AV123 and I do plan on trying them... eventually...

For my home theatre upgrade, I am looking at Studio 60 fronts, CC590/CC690 center, and Studio 20 rear (no subwoofer).

I have listenned to various Tannoys, I do like its consistant spread around a room, but I prefer the sound of Paradigm.
 
av123 owns paradigm when you go head to head. so, whatever price point you are at, simply select the av123 that fits. you will be happy with anything that they sell. I have tried 3 different models and was impressed by them all.

Just get some $$ together and call them. You never know what kind of crazy deal they might(or might not) spring on you. Just make CERTAIN that they have the product in stock and will ship immediately. They get behind mostly due to being sold out all the time or trying to find companies to supply them with what they need to build the speakers. Safe to deal with them so long as they have the product in hand. They REALLY try to do too much imo. Again though, av123 is the closest thing to DIY in terms of price/performance that I know of. That is a huge compliment.
 
I had the Z5500, then I Got klipsch 5.1 ultras , big diff there in terms of computer speakers, for my HT setup, i put together a custom made setup older pioneer amp, running analog from my Prelude XFI with an 8" sub panasonic fronts + center and my older klipsch 4.1 sats for the rears, and that sounds better then my klipsch 5.1s

but for PC use, I'd say klipsch have the best product in terms of size, performance and cost without going into an amp/speakers
 
I don't know what you mean by "owning." If you mean by expense of components as a function of total cost, then yes. But some people argue its about the synergy of design and not component expense. And if it were the latter, there are companies that expense more on the components than AV123.

Paradigm and AV123 don't have the same design philosophy anyway. AV123 likes to voice there speakers with a boost from 200-500hz to give an illusion of size, but the rest of the frequency range is neutral. If you like "Paradigm" sound (excluding the Signature series which is flat neutral) you probably should look into European (or pseudo-European) brands which have a tipped treble.

Dahlquist Audio, Energy (Reference Connoisseur series), B&W are a few examples I can think of with the same sound signature as the Paradigms. Energy is, amusingly, owned by Klipsch.
 
You understood well enough then.

My opinion, after owning many of the flavor of the month monitors and sometimes floor standers, is that av123 offers the best overall value. Paradigms are not sexy but sound good for the $$. AV123 looks great and sounds excellent for the $$.
 
Don't mean to break up the ongoing conversation but I'm in dire need of advice like literally by tomorrow noon. Okay, I'm done with the "What TV or Monitor Is Best w/ PS3" dilemma; but I found a knew one! What are some good 5.1 speakers just for PS3? I'm on a budget of $500. I can't order anything online so anything from BB or CC or CompUSA will have to suffice. I was thinking of getting the Logitch Z5500's but I know there is a difference between computer and home theatre speakers. I'm looking for the whole shebang! *Off Topic sorry but I've got two HDMI inputs, ones for PS3 and the other could be for the speakers, but If I wanted to watch HD broadcasting would I be able to use Component? I also need some clarity on the Optical vs. HDMI connections for speakers? Some say optical sounds the same as HDMI and that only audiophiles would be able to tell the differences; which I am not! Please some help before noon!

Thanks, One2The3
 
Digital audio is the same, HDMI or optical. Difference is that HDMI can carry HD sound, optical don't.
 
kadozer said:
I use to think z5500s were top of the line (only in the computer enthusiast world maybe) but I since discovered enthusiast home theater systems from reading forums like Avs. The difference is night and day, 4870x2 crossfire to on board video, Color television to black and white hehe you get the picture.
Now run my setup through Denon reciever, cerwin vega speakers and a BIC subwoofer. Worth every penny to go that route over crappy computer speakers.
Click to expand...
i don't think the difference is that big, but its certainly there ;)
 
The better the system, the more of a difference you'll hear when you compare the two. Now all we have to wait for is an affordable BD player with HD audio bitstream output, and then we can let our new fancy HD receivers do what they were intended to do.
 
matrix563 said:
i don't think the difference is that big, but its certainly there ;)
Click to expand...

Something is wrong then or you just don't have the right setup sorry to be frank but its the truth. As subjective as that sounds the quality of hardware is definitely night and day.
 
kadozer said:
Something is wrong then or you just don't have the right setup sorry to be frank but its the truth. As subjective as that sounds the quality of hardware is definitely night and day.
Click to expand...

i have a 1000 watt system and its not that much more than the megaworks 550thx i had before. sorry man ;)
 
Whoa, pump the brakes a bit. First, the megaworks is NOT a 1000 watt system lol. Pretty sure it would measure out around 300 at most.

Second, wtf is this thread about again? I forget. Cooking burgers smell is making my brain slow.
 
You can't find a 1000 W Class A/B amplifier, let alone an entire system, for a "little more" than the 550THX. You'd be lucky to find a stand-alone amp that'll give you that much RMS power at under $1,000, and that would probably be re-furbished or neolithic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top