What Computer Speakers Do You Use?

karnal asks: "Since we all listen to a lot of music (who doesn't), I wondered if anyone could help me on this. I've been looking to buy a new speaker system, after growing tired of my current setup. I've recently bought the Turtle Beach Santa Cruz and I'm looking for a good set of speakers. Should I go the 4.1 route? Personally, I think I'd be happy with 2.1. I'm looking for low noise, decent power, and excellent sound quality. I've looked at the VideoLogic Sirocco Crossfire, but at 449$ a set, I wouldn't want to be dissappointed. Anyone test any outstanding speakers lately?"

Comments

Why?

[JediTrainer]

Why use 'computer speakers' at all? If you're going to spend some cash, just get a Y-cable and hook your computer up to your stereo receiver's AUX input.

This is the best way (IMO) to get decent sound, and of course, this gives you things like radio, tape decks, equalizer and whatever else you want to add to it. Add a subwoofer to that. Heck - you can do surround sound if you want it (assuming your program supports it).

disclaimer: this is what I have done and it's worked well for me for years. When I heard the improvement for the first time, there was no going back. Thus - I have absolutely no idea how good today's higher-end computer speakers sound

Well..

[cmowire]

I just retired a set of $20 computer speakers (i.e. the movers killed them) so I'm thinking of applying my own advice and getting some good new speakers for my computer.

My personal advice goes along these lines:

First, 4.1 speakers are only good for games and merely OK for DVDs. Eventually, DVD-Audio/SACD/something else will make 5.1 sound for the masses possible. Right now, unless you are going to be doing gaming, just get a 2.1 setup. 4.1 doesn't have the center channel required for a proper DVD movie experience.

Second, there are advantages to properly constructed computer speakers. Generally computer speakers won't mess with your monitor if they are placed right up against it. They also tend to be nice and compact.

Third, there are great price and performance advantages to using non-computer speakers. A good audio setup will be weighted with a flatter, more realistic frequency response and work especially well with music. And they are generally more boom-for-the-buck then the high-end computer speakers. You often-times get 5.1 out of them, instead of 4.1. This can be a good thing, especially if you can get everything to work together, because you can get the center channel along with the 4 corner speakers. You need at least three speakers in front of you, preferebly five, to be able to accurately position sounds.

Fourth, both cheap stereo equipment and most computer speakers are heavily tuned for specific sounds. They give you thudding bass sounds so that you feel like you are getting your money's worth, but, once you get past that, have a really crappy sound. And they'll say they have a 15Hz-30KHz or better frequency range, with 200 Watts of power, when you really are getting about 20-30 watts of power, with great response and clarity in the 15Hz-1KHz range, and muddy the rest of the way.

If you are really wanting to blow some money, go to a musical instrument store and pick up a set of studio monitors. You will pay $500-1500, or maybe even more, but they will have a crystal-clear, completely flat, frequency response across the entire audible range. In today's computer-centric studios, they even make shielded monitors that won't mess up your monitors.

Best bet, get a good quality walkman and a CD with some music you like. Then run it through the various speaker systems in the store. Your ears will tell you what you should purchase. If you can't tell the difference between an $80 set and a $120 set, get the $80 set. It's probably the only way to do things.

Re:Well..

[The Mayor]

Wow...I have to comment on this one. The author seems to be on track. But there are some serious misunderstandings here.

"You need at least three speakers in front of you, preferably five, to be able to accurately position sounds." Hmm... I don't think so. Go listen to some Maggies at your local high-end hi-fi store. Two speakers will image far better than any 5.1 speaker setup costing anywhere near their price. They're beautiful. Imaging has a *lot* to do with phase, and most speakers put a filter smack dab in the middle of our most sensitive hearing range (we are most sensitive to 1kHz-3kHz, and most speakers put a filter at ~2kHz). With the exception of first order filters (which have tons of problems in their own right, and are rarely used), filters screw up phase horribly.

"...they'll say they have 15Hz-30kHz or better frequency range". I assume you mean amplifiers will be rated this way. Speakers will never be rated this good. Not even $70,000 speakers. Yes, computer speakers will exagerate claims. But not this great. Most computer speakers have a -3dB (half perceived volume) point of around 80Hz. A decent $1000+ pair of speakers will have a -3dB point of around 50Hz. Both will usually quote the -60dB point, which is around 60Hz and 35Hz accordingly. Most subwoofers will hit their -60dB point around 25-30Hz. Some extraordinary woofers will push that down below 20Hz. But that's very rare. However, most computer speakers will focus on the 100Hz-2kHz region. Most people perceive mid bass (around 100Hz) as deep bass, so this fools a lot of people.

"...but they will have a crystal-clear, completely flat, frequency response across the entire audible range". No. They won't. No speaker has anything close to a flat frequency response. Go do some waterfall plots of any speaker, regardless of price, and you'll see what I mean. Dips and peaks of 5dB or more are common, even on the most expensive of speakers. And once you go off-center on the speakers, the response gets even worse. To find a speaker that covers the entire audible range, you'll also be looking at a speaker system costing thousands of dollars. I'd look towards Hsu Research for budget subwoofers that can cover the lower end of the audible spectrum. High frequencies aren't as hard to produce. But, in any event, you won't find any speaker that approaches a linear response.

But, yes, I agree that you should use your own ears to test audio systems. If possible, test them in your own home, as the room in which they are placed makes a significant difference to the sound.

Re:Well..

[Tower]

Ah... a pair of Vandersteens would work as well, for those who would like a nice set of dynamics (at a pretty resonable price, I might add). And actually, if you look at the 1C, it does use a first order filter (at 2.8kHz), and the imaging is wonderful. Vandersteen does a great job with their filters and the narrow baffle around the tweeter removes the reflection for the imaging. I must admit that I'd love a pair of Maggies or maybe an SL3, though :)

BA-635 Cheap and great-sounding

[Snowfox]

I love the Boston Acoustics BA-635 speakers - it's a 2.1, but it's a good one, and if you want surround, two sets of these are a better investment than most 5 speaker systems. I got a set of these with a Gateway machine, and it was the only worthwhile bit from that setup.

The price is almost too good to be true: you can find these for about $45 at PriceWatch and Shop.Yahoo by searching on "BA635". But these sure as hell don't sound like $45 speakers.

cheap speakers

[toast0]

I personally have no ear for quality of speakers...

I can tell if they sound really crappy, but paying more than $10 filters out most of the really crappy speakers.

What I look for is everything is individually connected and disconnectable. Ideally speaker to speaker wires are disconnectable on both ends, at the least it should be disconnectable on both ends.

If I wanted good sound, I'd use digital out to a real speaker system, but i don't care :)

digital in on HI-FI amp

[johnjones]

you need to have a sound card with digital out
why ?

because of all the noise (electrickery noise) that your computer + monitor keyboard ........

then get yourself a decent amp with 5.1 out
why ?

a decent pre/power amp alows much more to be hooked up
I have a seperate DVD player and TV and I like digital radio and analoge tapes

so this way my needs all come out of the same high quality speakers (which tend to be quite cheap £ wise)

get yourself a good amp is my advice

they dont cost that much if you dont go for a sony (-;

look around their are bargins to be had
(the cost of valves is low so why not make your own ;-)

regards

john jones

Headphones

[dohnut]

I quit using speakers long ago. I still have them, but 99% of the time I wear high-quality, comfortable headphones. Why? I live in an apartment, so I can't run speakers loud enough to satisfy me without pissing off the neighbors. But neighbors aside, I might wear them anyway while playing 3D games. You can hear little things so much better, and it's easier for me to tell the direction of a sound. YMMV.

It depends you want toys or audio

[Lumpy]

I have 4 Studio monitors on stands behind my desk driven by a pair of crown studio amps which is connected to my mackie mixer and then the PC. I set the speakers on dynamat and I have 4 sonex panels on the walls to remove reflexions.

That is what I consider a bare minimum for acceptable audio, but It'll cost you $3200.00.

Do this if you are mixing music and/or doing non-linear video editing and audio work. Buying that so you can play Quake III or listen to limp Bizzzkit is completely insane. If you want decent quality buy a small amp and some decent speakers. Bose 301's or 201's sound very nice. and you can get a small 50 watt crown amp for around $450.00 including a pair of 201's this would be acceptable audio for home use but still way too much overkill for usual computer use.

As for a subwoofer, a decent speaker system has no need for a subwoofer and they are only used for special effects or to make up for a crappy stereo system.

Re:Monsoon Flatpanel

[mmontour]

I agree these are nice speakers - I have a Monsoon MM-700 system on my desk.

However these are not "the speakers you'll find in Humvees". They're sold under the same Monsoon brand, but the flat-panel computer speakers are designed and manufactured by a company called Sonigistix in Richmond, BC, Canada. Last I checked, none of the Sonigistix flat-panel technology had yet made it into an automotive application.

The Monsoon speakers are based on planar-magnetic technology, partially licensed from a company called Eminent Technology. Sonigistix took the basic design, and adapted it so that the speakers could be mass-produced and sold at a lower price point. Note that there are several other flat-panel computer speakers on the market that do not use planar-magnetic technology, but instead use a "distributed-mode" technology developed by a company called "NXT". In my (biased, as a former Sonigistix employee) opinion, the planar-magnetic ones sound a lot better.

Re:Klipsch ProMedia

[orangesquid]

I got a pair of $60 Philips USB speakers (40W I believe) as a Christmas present -- they have decent frequency response for computer speakers, and they can amplify most things well without clipping except for 4K-8K range, so you lose some definition at high volume. They definitely bring out the bad parts of cheap MP3's, too -- although I think it's more the encoder's fault than the bitrate; bladeenc and gogo have never given me that sort of trashy sound even at 96 kbps.

Re:Not bose

[cloudmaster]

So, like he said, unless you're willing to screw away hours of your time just to find out that your listening room is not "bose compliant", don't get Bose speakers. Bose stuff can sound good, but the hassle isn't worth it for the majority of the sounds coming out of most anyone's computer. :)