Why there isn't any revolution in PC Speakers

[Bluesun311]

Older posts in the thread...


I noticed that flaw in that recording when I got my ESL's. I believe it's bad on "So What" and somewhat on "Flamenco Sketches", the rest of the songs are ok as far as I remember but I haven't listened to that album in a while. I've heard that the CD releases aren't correct like the speed is wrong (I think slightly too fast) and some other issues. I'd read one of the people who recorded it or played in the band absolutely hates the CD versions. So maybe see if you can find a vinyl rip and see if it's better? I have an actual SACD rip of it (thank you fat hackable PS3's lol) but I haven't tested to see if that particular flaw with the distorted instrument rears it's ugly head there too but sadly I think it's the recording. :/ If you want to hear a fubar recording that makes you feel like your speakers are broken give Metallica's Death Magnetic or RHCP's Californication a spin. Rick Rubin should be repeatedly punched in the throat for the SQ of those albums.

Oh man, to know another guy found this in our era--I'm in the right kind of place, I guess. That really freaked me out... I actually called Sweetwater to tell them I thought maybe I had a bad speaker but then I did the test while the guy was on the phone and we had an awkward laugh about it. He didn't seem the least bit surprised about the bad recording but I was shocked.

I've looked deeper and found better masters, but the distortion is there on the original tapes unfortunately The good remasters and the original vinyls have the sax in the mix very very low in those few spots where in the bad version (which is super common) it gets loud. It's there no matter what and it's a slight shame because John Coltrane is really really swinging on that record; but I was too critical of the mix because that tune is the main issue, as you say most of the album Coltrane's sax is loud and clean. They are so loose in that cut that they squeak and honk pretty frequently and it's all the more golden for being so raw and honest. They were just jammin', man. Really appreciate the response.

 

[B00nie]

Oh man, to know another guy found this in our era--I'm in the right kind of place, I guess. That really freaked me out... I actually called Sweetwater to tell them I thought maybe I had a bad speaker but then I did the test while the guy was on the phone and we had an awkward laugh about it. He didn't seem the least bit surprised about the bad recording but I was shocked.

I've looked deeper and found better masters, but the distortion is there on the original tapes unfortunately The good remasters and the original vinyls have the sax in the mix very very low in those few spots where in the bad version (which is super common) it gets loud. It's there no matter what and it's a slight shame because John Coltrane is really really swinging on that record; but I was too critical of the mix because that tune is the main issue, as you say most of the album Coltrane's sax is loud and clean. They are so loose in that cut that they squeak and honk pretty frequently and it's all the more golden for being so raw and honest. They were just jammin', man. Really appreciate the response.

Hearing recordings accurately for the first time does indeed come as a shock to many people. Typical speakers in a typical room do not reproduce the sound anywhere close to the original. Room reverbation and modes create a mixmatch of sound which sounds kinda like the recording but not quite.

The typical sign of a truly accurate speaker is that it mercilessly reveals problems in the recordings. I had this effect with my first ESLs as well. I found out that some records that sounded good on my old system now sounded flat and artificial and some records that sounded flat and crappy on the old system (old stereo recordings for example) now opened up as a holographic soundstage. I remember how some songs of the Tom Waits and Bruce Springsteen albums went over night from my meh to amazing in sound quality.

Even if your current speakers are not best of the best in quality, the fact that you listen to them near field makes a world of difference.

 

[Nenu]

Good thread guys.

Yeah similarly with my ribbon tweeters, I've found quite a few recordings to be a bit shrill.
I've tried tweaking my crossovers to suit, but end up coming back to a similar level to keep other music at its best.

I envy you who can get a decent bass response without pushing the boat out.
I'm running stereo 10" Transmission line speakers (specced to 22Hz -3dB open air) and cannot get a decent response below 30Hz due to having wooden walls which dont reflect bass well.
I've had to directly hook up a BK Monolith (specced to 15Hz @ -3dB in room, 20Hz open air) to my stereo amps outputs for a nice response to 20Hz.
But its not much cop below that in this room. Hmph.

My stereo amp is the Emotiva XPA-2, it is great down to 10Hz and lower, so its response isnt limiting me.

 

[StoleMyOwnCar]

Because there aren't any spinning parts (that I know of).

Still think I'm the only one that really answered the thread properly. >.>
Unfortunately I just realized that most PC speakers have a volume knob, so that's a partial disproving. Fortunately most of those volume knobs don't complete full revolutions. They're stopped at certain points. *Thumbs up*

Ahem. Ever since then it just got derailed and went in all of these random directions with people arguing about various speaker-related things...

Keep in mind that with speakers, you can affect the outcome greatly by simply moving them. If you keep certain guidelines in mind you can make a good speaker sound good or an average speaker to sound average. But with wrong positioning you can make an excellent speaker sound totally crappy.

For example you should never place a speaker close to back wall or corners unless the speaker is specifically designed for that. And if you have the small speakers, you should elevate them above your desktop so that the tweeter of the speakers is at your ear level. And theres much more to it.

I don't mean to interrupt you guys as you're arguing about... various things and whatnot, but this caught my interest. I recently did a modest upgrade to a pair of Mordaunt Short Aviano 2 bookshelf speakers. How far away from the wall do you think I should place them? How about how far apart? I think their bass is really good for bookshelf speakers, but sometimes it seems louder than I expect it, and I'm wondering if it ruins some other aspects of the sound. What are characteristics of improper speaker placement?

 

[Nenu]

Because audio frequencies are based upon the length of the wave, distance from the wall affects bass response.
Bass reverberates between solid objects (bounces between them multiple times).
The frequencies whos wavelength is around the same as that distance or double that distance will maintain their power the longest and therefore will sound louder.

As Boonie pointed out, different speakers are designed with different placement requirements.
So your specific speakers will have a certain distance from the wall that will work best for them in most situations.
Look up the mfrs website to see what they recommend.

Adjustment beyond that will work along these lines.
The further away you place them from the wall(s), the longer the wavelengths that will respond best.
So you will find that lower frequencies will respond better the further away they are, and the closer they are to the wall, the more higher frequencies will respond.

But bear in mind, if the speaker cannot produce low enough frequencies loud enough (or at all), pulling them further away from the wall will reduce the response of upper bass and will set up a response for lower bass that the speakers cannot produce.
You then end up getting less of all bass.

Something that may help:
If the speaker sounds boomy (too much bass of a certain frequency), try pulling them away from the rear or side wall until the boom reduces enough.
You may be able to fix boom this way, but some times it needs a bit more effort.

To further answer your question...
Too much bass reduces how much detail you hear from the upper frequencies.
Try it.
Increase the bass and you wont hear as much going on.
You can have too much bass because it sounds too loud and because it masks other sounds.

 

[B00nie]

Pretty much what nenu said.

If the bookshelf speakers are actually designed to be used at bookshelfs and are not just small speakers designed to be played on speaker stands, they'll have a reduced bass response to compensate the amplifying effect of the back wall. The speaker designer can actually use the back walls effect to make the speaker extend into lower bass because he can tune the bass driver 'too' low. If the resonant frequency of the driver is pushed artificially low the speaker will start to drop gradually at much higher frequencies than it would do if Q value was the typical 0.7 for example. The boost from the wall will give the otherwise anemic bass the boost it needs. There's no free lunch however, the boost comes at a cost of degraded response.

When a speaker is placed near the walls, lower frequencies get boosted and as nenu said the closer you go, the higher frequencies get the boost. If you go too close you'll get a boost to the nasty 150-250hz area that creates the echoing boomy sound so characteristic to many bookshelf arrangements. The situation becomes even worse if you make the double mistake of placing the bookhelf speakers to the highest shelf close to the ceiling, this will maximize every possible negative room effect you can think of.

You want to avoid exciting room modes (bass doubling and canceling in room) and this can be done only by adding directivity to the speaker design or placing the speaker away from walls. The first you can't do yourself but the latter you can.

You might want to make an experiment. Get 6 'leca' clay bricks or something similar and try placing your speakers on them so that the speakers are symmetrically in the room (your listening position in the middle of the triangle)

and each speaker is a minimum of 2 feet away from any walls. This should improve your overall sound considerably compared to having them in the bookshelf. You can also affect stereo imaging by sitting close to back wall or close to front wall while listening

Sitting close to the back wall will make the sound appear more 'in' the room and sitting close to the front wall (and the speakers themselves) will make your soundstage appear more holographic, bigger and if you would listen at the performance instead of your room. Don't expect miracles with regular speakers though - with large ESL panels and some horn/directive speakers this position can really give you the illusion of sitting inside the concert.

Here's the Mordaunt Short Aviano installation guide, they dont mention specific distances but the image would let you understand that the speakers are designed for installation close to the walls. http://www.mordaunt-short.com/media/avianospeakersinstallationguide-1330432892.pdf

 

[Neutrino]

To address the initial question, from my perspective there was a huge revolution in PC speakers when I realized that active studio monitors are the perfect PC speaker (at least for me) and they run the gamut from ultra bang for the buck like KRK or M-Audio to ultra high quality options such as Focal or Genelec

 

[Eman D. Rahym]

To address the initial question, from my perspective there was a huge revolution in PC speakers when I realized that active studio monitors are the perfect PC speaker (at least for me) and they run the gamut from ultra bang for the buck like KRK or M-Audio to ultra high quality options such as Focal or Genelec

This. Right now you can get a pair of JBL LSR 305s for US$240. (Amazon even throws in free shipping.) At that price they are an astounding value. Along with a pair of modest stands and some cables you can have sound that simply demolishes old style "PC" speakers and that easily takes on fancy "Hi-Fi" speaker and stereo amplifier combos re-purposed for PC use.

Are studio speakers perfect? No. Are the lots of fun to listen to? You bet.

 

[heflys20]

This. Right now you can get a pair of JBL LSR 305s for US$240. (Amazon even throws in free shipping.) At that price they are an astounding value. Along with a pair of modest stands and some cables you can have sound that simply demolishes old style "PC" speakers and that easily takes on fancy "Hi-Fi" speaker and stereo amplifier combos re-purposed for PC use.

Are studio speakers perfect? No. Are the lots of fun to listen to? You bet.

Soon. Those JBL's will be mine. I gotta make space though.

 

[dragonageinquisition]

Yep, cabinets are not simple anymore for top end speakers

That's not a particularly complex cabinet...nor would I call the KEF LS50 a "top end speaker." If you wanna see a complex cabinet, check out Magico...

 

[Unknown-One]

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

So what would satisfy you in the $99 to $120 price range? So far, the ProMedia's are the best thing I've found.

Like I said, I pulled together a $120 speaker setup with full bookshelf speakers + T Amp... and still couldn't fully match the ProMedia's (comparing both sets without EQ). Clearly PC speakers aren't always worse than "real speakers," which was my point

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

Which the ProMedias don't (in fact, one of their selling points is the THX certification which guarantees an 80Hz LFE crossover).

This is an instance where the woofer IS NOT being used to "prop up" poor speakers.

 

[heflys20]

Which the ProMedias don't (in fact, one of their selling points is the THX certification which guarantees an 80Hz LFE crossover).

Personally, I'm not impressed by the frequency response. Here's a chart provided by a member on AVS; which was recorded from near-field listening (intended setting for these speakers):

 

[B00nie]

So what would satisfy you in the $99 to $120 price range? So far, the ProMedia's are the best thing I've found.

For that price range headphones are the only thing you can find, sorry.

Like I said, I pulled together a $120 speaker setup with full bookshelf speakers + T Amp... and still couldn't fully match the ProMedia's (comparing both sets without EQ). Clearly PC speakers aren't always worse than "real speakers," which was my point


Which the ProMedias don't (in fact, one of their selling points is the THX certification which guarantees an 80Hz LFE crossover).

This is an instance where the woofer IS NOT being used to "prop up" poor speakers.

Don't be fooled by the 'THX' labels. They're snake oil. Klipsch just paid THX some money and seemingly filled some pseudorequirement for the label. I'd estimate that around 90% of 'THX' labeled hardware would not be accepted to any real THX setup made by a professional

Oh and if you think you can get anything remotely good sounding for 120 dollars, it's a pipe dream. Even the touted price/performance miracles Pioneer SP-BS22:s cost almost 150 bucks a pair.

The sad reality is that with a handful of exceptions you need to pay a hefty sum of money to get proper speakers.

 

[450]

On the used market you can get pretty good deals.

 

[Ryom]

Something wrong with the Micca MB42X and a good T-Amp for around $120?

It's WAY disingenuous to say "nothing remotely good sounding" as there are quite a few options available for a budget user. Sure, you aren't going to get a perfectly flat response with appreciable SPL down to 20hz, but that isn't really required to sound "remotely good". For anyone that can afford to go all out on speakers and room correction they can aim for that. When someone says "what can I do for $120" it's super lame to say "NOTHING YOU ARE SO F#$CK'd MAN!" (paraphrased). There are lots of reasons someone may not want to use headphones even if they are technically better for the price.

 

[agtmeihk]

Quality PC speakers died ever since Creative X-fi died.

OK, maybe that was a bit of an overstatement. But remember how sound card makers were enhancing games with their 3d positional audio and effects? Well, that declined when Windows 7 came out, and the APIs changed everything. My theory of course.

First time stepping into surround sound gaming was with one of those 4.1 Cambridge sound works with the ugly biege speakers and tripods that tip over all the time. Paired that with a wannabe Soundblaster Live card, aka Soundblaster PCI 512 and loaded up Unreal on a fearless 14" 4:3 Packard Bell monitor with a Voodoo 3 AGP. I loved it.

 

[B00nie]

Something wrong with the Micca MB42X and a good T-Amp for around $120?

It's WAY disingenuous to say "nothing remotely good sounding" as there are quite a few options available for a budget user. Sure, you aren't going to get a perfectly flat response with appreciable SPL down to 20hz, but that isn't really required to sound "remotely good". For anyone that can afford to go all out on speakers and room correction they can aim for that. When someone says "what can I do for $120" it's super lame to say "NOTHING YOU ARE SO F#$CK'd MAN!" (paraphrased). There are lots of reasons someone may not want to use headphones even if they are technically better for the price.

It's super lame to pretend that you can get a great car for 1000 dollars when you can't. I gave him a viable option, headphones. Head gear you CAN get in that price range but not any sort of hi-fi speakers.

If sound quality is not that important to you and you don't want to invest the money it takes, it's up to you. Personally I wouldn't want to torture my ears with the cheap nasties. After all, some people are perfectly happy driving around in a 1000 dollar car also, they have different priorities. I prefer my Mercedes though.

 

[Ryom]

Now I see why people are arguing with you. Hyperbole and overstatement seem to be your forte. You may not get a great car for $1000, but that isn't really the equivalent option. Budget cars run about $10,000 to $15,000 and guess what? There are good and bad options in that price range if that's what they are asking for.

If you can't or don't want to tell someone what the good enough options are for their budget, it's useless to tell them they can get a Tesla for only $90,000 when their budget is $12,000. That's damn near trolling. Sure, go ahead and mention that they can get something for a bit more, but at least have the decency to answer the original question if you're going to bother responding.

I've put my recommendation in for a $120 budget, hopefully that helps. Not everyone is seeking nirvanic audio bliss.

 

[B00nie]

Now I see why people are arguing with you. Hyperbole and overstatement seem to be your forte. You may not get a great car for $1000, but that isn't really the equivalent option. Budget cars run about $10,000 to $15,000 and guess what? There are good and bad options in that price range if that's what they are asking for.

If you can't or don't want to tell someone what the good enough options are for their budget, it's useless to tell them they can get a Tesla for only $90,000 when their budget is $12,000. That's damn near trolling. Sure, go ahead and mention that they can get something for a bit more, but at least have the decency to answer the original question if you're going to bother responding.

I've put my recommendation in for a $120 budget, hopefully that helps. Not everyone is seeking nirvanic audio bliss.

There is no hyperbole or overstatement in saying that $120 can't buy you a pair of hi-fi speakers. In most cases $120 won't buy you even 1 speaker let alone a pair. A headphone set is the only possible option to get any sort of acceptable sound quality in that price range. Anyone saying otherwise is either ignorant or in denial. Especially with active near field monitors the absolute starting price is around 300 bucks a pair under which the products tend to be utter crap.

Budget cars run from 1000 bucks upwards, a $15000 car would be equivalent of a 800-1200 dollar speaker pair already, something that passes nicely for economy use. A second hand $15k car would get you a nice mid-level second hand product like a 1200 dollar pre-owned speaker would.

With speakers if you go to the 'new Mercedes' level you have to pay $20k and upwards. And the high-end speakers cost just as much as many cars.

But as I said earlyer no matter which price range speaker you plan to buy, it's essential to test drive them at home where you plan to use them. Other speakers work in rooms that others don't so without actually testing them it's shooting in the dark. With active monitors you at least usually have built in eq slopes that help with room matching so you can notch out a boomy mid-bass for example.

 

[oshia86]

I never seem to do any critical listening while at my computer anymore. If I do, I go to my headphone setup. Most of my music these days is either streamed in the car, or on a Bluray/SACD/USB drive through the home theater system. I do love me some Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD audio on a 5.1 system. Sadly, this isn't an option in the computer realm, as far as I know.

 

[Sycraft]

I never seem to do any critical listening while at my computer anymore. If I do, I go to my headphone setup. Most of my music these days is either streamed in the car, or on a Bluray/SACD/USB drive through the home theater system. I do love me some Dolby TrueHD or DTS-HD audio on a 5.1 system. Sadly, this isn't an option in the computer realm, as far as I know.

It is but not easily. You can hook your computer via HDMI to a receiver, and then use something like PowerDVD to bitstream the audio out. A bit of a pain though, and of course it only works with an HDMI setup. General purpose 5.1 audio, well your computer can output it no problem, so long as the sound device you are using is 5.1 (or more). The issue is getting audio to use. There are rippers for DVD-A and Blu-ray and such out there, but of course such things are not legal in the US. If you go get the audio, there are plugins for MLP in Winamp and Foobar2000. MLP is Dolby TrueHD and DVD-A, so you can play that.

It is not something very common though.

 

[oshia86]

Ya, probably not worth the hassle for all of that. The HT is already setup to handle all of that.I have plenty of concerts in Bluray, and HFPA discs.

 

[Unknown-One]

For that price range headphones are the only thing you can find, sorry.

Never found headphones that cheap that I'd want to listen too. Currently using Sennheiser 595's (MSRP $349) and they're decent enough. Wouldn't go any lower, though.
Looking at headphones, $99 to $120 has you looking at things like the Sony MDR-V6 (MSRP $109)... not a bad choice for cheap headphones, but not what I'd call spectacular.

So... there's NOTHING in the $99 to $120 range you find acceptable in speakers? Not even something you'd recommend over the ProMedias? Because if you can't beat the ProMedias then we basically have to admit a set of "computer speakers" is your best-bet at prices these low.

Basically, I'm asking what speakers you would tell someone to get who was only looking to spend $120. Or would you just default to "sorry, no sound for you, not enough money"?

 

[oshia86]

I'd take a pair of Grado SR80's for the $120 or under range. They aren't bad. I've owned a few or Grado's lower end headphones myself before I went to the 650's.

 

[Neutrino]

Never found headphones that cheap that I'd want to listen too. Currently using Sennheiser 595's (MSRP $349) and they're decent enough. Wouldn't go any lower, though.

funny you should mention those headphones because the lower end 555 can be modifies in 5 min to be identical to yours for the beautiful price of 0 dollars:

http://mikebeauchamp.com/misc/sennheiser-hd-555-to-hd-595-mod/

 

[Unknown-One]

I'd take a pair of Grado SR80's for the $120 or under range. They aren't bad. I've owned a few or Grado's lower end headphones myself before I went to the 650's.

I personally can't use any on-ear headphones without EXTREME pain within minutes of wearing them. Ears pushed against sides of head = bent cartilage = ow.

Not a common complaint, I know, but that was one of the reasons I mentioned the MDR-V6's (they're around-ear rather than on-ear)

funny you should mention those headphones because the lower end 555 can be modifies in 5 min to be identical to yours for the beautiful price of 0 dollars:

http://mikebeauchamp.com/misc/sennheiser-hd-555-to-hd-595-mod/

I was well aware of that mod when I purchased the my 595's

I picked up the 595's brand-new for $150 when they were going EOL, so I have an intact warranty and a nicer head-band than the 555's without spending anywhere close to MSRP

 

[Neutrino]

I was well aware of that mod when I purchased the my 595's

I picked up the 595's brand-new for $150 when they were going EOL, so I have an intact warranty and a nicer head-band than the 555's without spending anywhere close to MSRP

hehe ... the 595 do look a bit better also ... me I'm just happy when I found out I could upgrade my 555 so easily

 

[Unknown-One]

Personally, I'm not impressed by the frequency response. Here's a chart provided by a member on AVS; which was recorded from near-field listening (intended setting for these speakers):

http://cdn.avsforum.com/8/83/833a96b7_vbattach232279.jpeg

Hmm, TomsHardware did a rundown of various 2.1 setups, and their graph doesn't agree with that one at all:

The ProMedias look fairly flat there, all things considered.

Something wrong with the Micca MB42X and a good T-Amp for around $120?

Heh, you almost landed on exactly the speakers I picked up. Micca MB42 paired with a SMSL SA-36A TA2020 T-Amp.

The price on the MB42X has dropped recently, which probably would have swayed me towards them (in spite of the ugly cabinet) had they been priced that way when I was making my purchase. I've heard some very good things about the "X" version.

Edit: Ran across DSP correction profiles for both the MB42 and the MB42X, you can find them at the links below if you want to give these speakers a go with flattened frequency response (scroll to the very bottom of the review):
http://noaudiophile.com/Micca_MB42/
http://noaudiophile.com/Micca_MB42x_Bookshelf_Speakers/

Edit: Turns out Micca actually sells the crossover as an upgrade from the MB42 (effectively turning it into an MB42X). Can find that here: http://www.miccastore.com/crossover-upgrade-for-micca-mb42-bookshelf-speakers-p-114.html

 

[heflys20]

Hmm, TomsHardware did a rundown of various 2.1 setups, and their graph doesn't agree with that one at all:

It's even worse. The lows are significantly louder than the rest of the frequencies. The chart I posted maintained some (if limited) balance with the mids (aside from the massive crossover dip), the Tom's chart shows the lows as being too dominate (not unexpected). And, similar to my chart, the speakers start to drop off in highs.

I remember when Corsair got slightly upset over that chart, since it made the SP2500 look bad. LOL.

The ProMedias look fairly flat there, all things considered.

Fairly flat? The bass (lower frequencies) appears to be almost 20 dbu louder (at its peak) than the other frequencies. There's a marginal dip where the sub and sats crossover. And, finally, the sats start to fall off in the highs considerably when they hit 10khz.

This is what I envision as being fairly flat:

 

[B00nie]

Never found headphones that cheap that I'd want to listen too. Currently using Sennheiser 595's (MSRP $349) and they're decent enough. Wouldn't go any lower, though.
Looking at headphones, $99 to $120 has you looking at things like the Sony MDR-V6 (MSRP $109)... not a bad choice for cheap headphones, but not what I'd call spectacular.

So... there's NOTHING in the $99 to $120 range you find acceptable in speakers? Not even something you'd recommend over the ProMedias? Because if you can't beat the ProMedias then we basically have to admit a set of "computer speakers" is your best-bet at prices these low.

Basically, I'm asking what speakers you would tell someone to get who was only looking to spend $120. Or would you just default to "sorry, no sound for you, not enough money"?

Heh think about it for a minute. If you can't find headphones that will pass for under 300 bucks, under which logic do you expect to find speakers any cheaper? Headphones are about 10x cheaper to produce.

 

[B00nie]

Hmm, TomsHardware did a rundown of various 2.1 setups, and their graph doesn't agree with that one at all:

The ProMedias look fairly flat there, all things considered.

The AVS guy probably measured his speakers in his listening room and without a time window, this brings the room reflections in the measurement and gives a better approximation of the actual sound you hear in your room. It's trivial to design a 2-way speaker that will have a nearly flat anechoic response but it's astronomically difficult to repeat that feat inside a normal listening room.

If a speaker lacks controlled directivity its sound gets literally messed up in a typical reverbant room.

The other option is that he messed up his measurements, perhaps he measured the speaker outside the near field even though they were meant for near field use.

 

[Unknown-One]

It's even worse. The lows are significantly louder than the rest of the frequencies. The chart I posted maintained some (if limited) balance with the mids (aside from the massive crossover dip), the Tom's chart shows the lows as being too dominate (not unexpected). And, similar to my chart, the speakers start to drop off in highs.

Worth noting that the ProMedia's have a separate subwoofer volume control, so it's fairly easy to bring that massive low-end hump down to normal. Just turn the knob. No idea why they didn't bother doing this when reviewing the unit, as it would have immediately hammered-out the most obvious issue in the graph.

The roll-off on the highs is actually very fixable with EQ. The tweeters can handle it, just have to give them a little nudge. Dip during the cross-over can also be partially corrected with EQ (though the AVS chart shows the dip at 100Hz while Toms chart shows it at 150Hz. Who's right?)

After turning the volume down on the woofer, and using the EQ on my Xonar, I'd wager I'm getting a much better result out of my ProMedia's than those graphs might lead you to think is possible. Not saying EQ is a magic bullet, but it sure can help kill some issues.

Heh think about it for a minute. If you can't find headphones that will pass for under 300 bucks, under which logic do you expect to find speakers any cheaper? Headphones are about 10x cheaper to produce.

Since when has production cost had ANYTHING to do with the price of audio equipment?

From my own personal experience, cheap speakers tend to work a hell of a lot better than cheap headphones *shrug*

 

[B00nie]

Since when has production cost had ANYTHING to do with the price of audio equipment?

From my own personal experience, cheap speakers tend to work a hell of a lot better than cheap headphones *shrug*

Imaging wise I agree. Comfort wise I agree. But overall accuracy and frequency response wise I disagree. Headphones by means of physics can produce a response superior to most speakers at a very low cost level. There are however many inherent problems to headgear that have made me always dislike them.

I haven't tried head tracking headgear yet but if I get a chance I surely will.

 

[oshia86]

I personally can't use any on-ear headphones without EXTREME pain within minutes of wearing them. Ears pushed against sides of head = bent cartilage = ow.

Not attacking you, but that isn't the headphones fault. I, as well as many others, haven't had those problems. Are they the most comfortable, no, but there is no reason you shouldn't be able to wear them for a good amount of time. Actually, I think I'd take the lower end Grado's over the 595's, but I' may be somewhat lopsided in that regard.

 

[Unknown-One]

Not attacking you, but that isn't the headphones fault. I, as well as many others, haven't had those problems.

I never said it was the headphones fault, I said "I personally" can't use those... I'm well aware not everyone runs into that problem, otherwise on-ear headphones wouldn't even exist.

Are they the most comfortable, no, but there is no reason you shouldn't be able to wear them for a good amount of time. Actually, I think I'd take the lower end Grado's over the 595's, but I' may be somewhat lopsided in that regard.

I'm sure they're fine, but I wont be finding out. I don't like my ears in red-hot searing pain

Imaging wise I agree. Comfort wise I agree. But overall accuracy and frequency response wise I disagree. Headphones by means of physics can produce a response superior to most speakers at a very low cost level.

Thing is, any accuracy (or frequency response) issues a pair of headphones have seems to be much more noticeable than the same issues presented through a set of bookshelf speakers. The drivers are pressed right up against your ears, after all, and that's bound to make it easier to pick-out issues. There's also very little you can do for headphones, besides apply EQ.

Speakers have the advantage of being able to use room effects to hide some problems. You can push them closer or pull them farther away from a back-wall, change the toe-in, make sure they're properly sized for a given room, choose to plug the port (if you're using ported cabinets) to varying degrees... all of this before you even look at an EQ. You can set up a lot of mediocre speakers to get a fair experience out of them.

Mediocre headphones, on the other hand... they are what they are.

 

[B00nie]

Thing is, any accuracy (or frequency response) issues a pair of headphones have seems to be much more noticeable than the same issues presented through a set of bookshelf speakers. The drivers are pressed right up against your ears, after all, and that's bound to make it easier to pick-out issues. There's also very little you can do for headphones, besides apply EQ.

Speakers have the advantage of being able to use room effects to hide some problems. You can push them closer or pull them farther away from a back-wall, change the toe-in, make sure they're properly sized for a given room, choose to plug the port (if you're using ported cabinets) to varying degrees... all of this before you even look at an EQ. You can set up a lot of mediocre speakers to get a fair experience out of them.

Mediocre headphones, on the other hand... they are what they are.

It's exactly the opposite though. Headphones do not have all the inherent problems a speaker that plays in a room has. So the response is automatically far superior as long as the headphone drivers are even remotely suitable for their job.

If you could get a headphone like response with the imaging you get from regular speakers, you would be listening to a pair of large ESLs.

 

[Unknown-One]

It's exactly the opposite though. Headphones do not have all the inherent problems a speaker that plays in a room has.

But you missed the entire point...

A pair of mediocre headphones is what it is. There's no changing them. There's nothing to adjust. You can't reposition the drivers, you can't change the distance they sit from your ears, you can't do anything except apply EQ. You're literally STUCK with the aspects of them you don't like.
"These headphones sound tinny... well... crap, guess I have to live with it..."

A pair of mediocre speakers, on the other hand, have options. You can actually customize them to suit your ear and preferences. You're not totally stuck with the aspects of them you don't like.
"These speakers sound tinny. I'll remove the toe-in and position them a bit closer to the back wall... aaaaah, that's better"

This key distinction automatically makes a mediocre set of speakers preferable to an equally mediocre set of headphones for a lot of people.

 

[heflys20]

Worth noting that the ProMedia's have a separate subwoofer volume control, so it's fairly easy to bring that massive low-end hump down to normal. Just turn the knob. No idea why they didn't bother doing this when reviewing the unit, as it would have immediately hammered-out the most obvious issue in the graph.

The did test it at the minimalist setting:

Even then, the bass still tries to rear its head; particularly in contrast to some of the other speakers tested.

After turning the volume down on the woofer, and using the EQ on my Xonar, I'd wager I'm getting a much better result out of my ProMedia's than those graphs might lead you to think is possible. Not saying EQ is a magic bullet, but it sure can help kill some issues.

I don't know, it might improve somewhat, but I'm certain the inherent flaws will still be there in some limited fashion. The Promedia is a powerful/boomy sub coupled with average/decent satellites.

 

[Unknown-One]

Even then, the bass still tries to rear its head; particularly in contrast to some of the other speakers tested.

Are we looking at the same chart? Because every frequency generated by the woofer is below the average of the satellites.

Actually looks like it needs to be turned back up, slightly.

 

[heflys20]

Are we looking at the same chart? Because every frequency generated by the woofer is below the average of the satellites.

Not sure I follow, according to the chart (at peak), the woofer is clearly overpowering all other frequencies. When set to the minimalist level, the woofer is only marginally less audible than the sats. My point is, even when turned down to lowest setting, the Klipsch is still producing pretty significant bass. The Klipsch are designed to be boomy. If the bass is that loud when turned all the way down, I can only imagine how it would react at the recommended setting dictated on the bass knob.

Here's the Z623 for contrast:

This would indicate to me that Klipsch woofer is overpowering; specifically in contrast to the sats.
It's something I've heard complained about before.

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?t=376540

Don't get me wrong, the Klipsch are decent for computer speakers.