Slashdot Mirror
Logitech Z-680 Dolby 5.1 PC Speakers Reviewed
PhatBass writes "PC Speakers certainly have come a long way from the little buzzers we used to
listen to before the days of SoundBlaster. Remember the 'Windows Speaker
Driver' that gave you more than beeps and buzzing through the little cone in
your case? Well now we have full Dolby Surround Sound setups, THX
Certified, the works, for Gaming, DVD and Multimedia bliss. Take a look at
the
sweet Z-680 setup from Logitech that is reviewed here, they sport 1000 Watts
of Peak Power, a hardware Dolby Pro Logic II 5.1 Decoder, Digital Inputs and
serious style."
With a total output of over 500 watts and a frequency response of 35-22000 Hz you could power a mid sized dance floor... Fact is these figures aren't really true.
The problem is that measuring these figures aren't done according to any standard weighting... the frequency response of my subwoofer at home is 39-200 Hz, the lower end at -3 DeciBels. The problem is these manufacturers don't report weighted figures. For all we know 35 Hz could be at -10 DeciBels, which is much lower than nominal volume.
This is why you never ever read the specs... listen to the speakers.
I'm not saying these speakers are bad. I'm just saying that the figures stated in the specs aren't comparable to professional or HIFI equipment.
.: Max Romantschuk
The correct poewr rating is 505 watts RMS [Root Mean Square], which is what the speakers can handle on a continuous basis.
Don't be swayed that marketing term known as PMPO [Peak Music Power Output] - what the equipment in question can handle/deliver over a very short period of time, typically measured in milliseconds.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
Uh, no. RMS Watts are no standard. 'RMS' just specifies the calculation method. You also need to specify the distortion at which the test takes place. I'll bet the Logitech figures are at 10% THD. Serious equpment is measured at something like 0,01% THD.
1. Hifi speakers will have a flatter frequency response, meaning they won't overemphasize some frequencies at the cost of others. I predict the Logitech will sound boomy rather than full, and be rather tiring to listen to in the long run.
2. Hifi speakers will sound more detailed. When you go from a bad system to a good one, you may notice new instruments in a song, things like that.
3. Hifi speakers have a greater dynamic range. On the Logitech, I expect the subwoofer will start distorting at a sound level that's not insanely high, where Hifi speakers would just keep performing well.
Actually, I would not go to a local HiFi store for nice sound quality. HiFi speakers are designed to sound "nice" to your ears, by introducing various colorations that are not present in the original signal. If you want to have accurate sound reproduction, you should consider buying studio monitors. For example, genelecs, Tannoys or Spirits (which is what I have). They are designed to reproduce sound neutrally. The advantage: your good CDs will sound nice and crisp. The disadvantage: you will notice that a lot of your previously good-sounding CDs are not recorded and/or mixed well, and sound like crap.
For that matter how do I know my hearing is good enough to distinguish the difference ?
Unless you regularly visit loud dancings or concerts, your ears will be good enough.
Han-Wen Nienhuys -- LilyPond
Don't be fooled by the supposedly massive power output of this system. I've heard such systems many times, and pumping that much power (probably 1000W PMPO ~= 500W RMS?) into tiny plastic housed speakers really sounds quite crap.
I've got VASTLY better sound by connecting the audio output (headphone socket) from my old Soundblaster AWE 32 (ISA) straight to some Mission bookshelf speakers using a custom cable (3.5mm stereo jack to twin speaker cable!). That sounds card had a reasonable 12W RMS power amp on board that most new sound cards don't have (only line out or 4W headphone). I was surprised at how good this set up actually sounded. It lacked in the old bass department if you turned the sound the right up, but it was fine for normal listening levels or watching films.
A cheap (and VERY old Yamaha amp from eBay) made this set up even better (and provided me with a tuner!). All this for much less money and WAY more sound quality.
If you don't believe me, try it yourself. Get a really cheap old amp, and use your real hi-fi speakers - I can guarantee it will sound better than any plastic computer speakers ever will.
You don't need 5 channels - this just makes music sound crap and is just a gimmick for gamers. It's far better to get a decent stereo set up working first and if you really want 5 channel audio - then an old dolby digital amp off e-bay will definitely sound better than a package like this Logitech system.
The "1000W" figure is a complete joke! My £1000(GBP = $1500USD) NAD system is only 65W per channel and sounds stunningly good even using bookshelf speakers. Never EVER be tempted to equate output power to sound quality (especically if the power is measured PMPO rather than RMS) and never underestimate how bad small speakers sound compared to larger ones. Two tiny (10cm drivers) speakers + subwoofer does not in any way equate to the quality obtained by two half decent mid-sized bookshelf hi-fi speakers.
Nick...
Just like everything else that has the words "computer" on it related to audio.
If you want really good computer speakers to listen to music on or as a good audio refrence... go to your local guitar center and buy a set of studio monitors and a studio amp... they're over in the mixer section...
For the same amount of cash as these overpriced and horribly overrated junk you can get something real.
I found the most entertaining the 1000 watt rating.. Yeah right. in low-end car audio ratings... I have a Crown stereo amp here that is only 25 watts and cost $400.00 and will kick the crap out of anyone's home stereo that cost around $400.00
a watt rating is 100% useless... tell me the watt rating RMS at a distortion level. anything higher than 0.05% THD is junk.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Take a look at the M-audio Revolution. M-audio has been making professional audio soundcards for many years, and they are now branching out into the consumer arena. The Revolution sports 7.1 connections, 24/192 DACS, channel independent bass management, and SRS Labs Circle Surround II processing. I've not listened to it yet, but will install mine tonight. Additionally, I've heard talk of a DVD-audio player to be availible for it as well.
Use this link: http://dealnews.com/articles/47191.html
and you can get it for about $90.
The best part? You get to thumb your nose at Creative, and their driver bloatware, and fake 24/192 DACS
Regarding using headphones while playing games: That works so long as 3D isn't an issue.
Umm, how many ears do you have? I personally only have 2...
NASA did a lot of research into how the brain interprets possition from delay in audio, and Aureal (who no longer exist) incorporated this into their A3D sound cards so that you could get possitional audio with a pair of stereophonic headphones. I assume DirectSound3D / EAX now implement something similar (The A3D is over 5 years old now). Many people, including most hard-core gamers beleive that you only get first class 3D (well, 2D) audio from headphones, not from surround sound speakers.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Over a year ago, I paid around £100 ($150ish, I guess) for a set of Videologic DigiTheatre LC speakers (The LC variant doesn't come with a dolby decoder, which is not a problem since I already have an AC-3 / DTS decoder). The front 3 speakers have two drivers (sound quality of the rear speakers is less important, since your ear is less sensitive to sound from behind you). Theses speakers produce very nice quality sound (subjectively). They are only rated at about 62.5W RMS, but at maximum volume they don't distort, and you really don't miss (other than ear damage) that you would get from more powerful speakers. Did I mention that over a year ago these cost less than half of what the Logitech set cost now? Let's have some perspective here...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Don't get duped!
The specs say 505 watts total power.
The specs say an input impedance of 10,000 ohms and this means the power amplifier is built in.
A built in power amplifier also means that there is an internal power supply which has, at best, 85% efficiency, requiring 594 watts from the wall plug.
Now look at the power rating on the unit, and you can bet it has a rating less than 500 watts.
Since most of the public (and probably most engineers)don't understand the ratings,we find manufacturers providing deceptive advertising.
More power SELLS better!
Back in the 60's and early 70's the audio industry went through RMS power, Peak Power, Music Power, Instantaneous Peak Music Power, and perhaps one or two other meaningless terms. Why? Because RMS power doesn't describe the instaneous power needed for speakers to reproduce the sound of a sudden drumbeat or crashing cymbol without distortion and that requires a very large power for amout 1/4 second. Large power ratings impress the ignorant and opens up more wallets.
Then there is the frequency response of -3db (half power, +/- 3db, and -10db. Never mind that the power level is so low that you can't hear the bass or highest frequencies.
Next there's the distortion figure at each power level. If your car tag rattles with the bass sounds you probably don't care, but if you want to hear the brush on the drum, 3% distortion will bother you. More power generally means more distortion.
When the engineers and audophiles finally started asking questions and publishing reports about the misleading specs, they finally stopped. Now, with a new generation of listeners, they are back.
Moral: Pay attention to the specs. and listen to the speakers. There's more to audio than just sound.
I'm using my system as the center of my home theater, and really like it. If you don't mind spending a good chunk of cash get yourself some Genelec active monitors. You have to find a reciever with balanced pre-amp outputs, I think Dennon makes one. The setup will cost a pretty penny, I think the Genelecs are about $1000 a pair, but you will be rewarded with a very nice system if you do that. It would also be nice for your occasional production work.
I'm running a much lower-end system some Paradigm bookshelf units and a sub are plenty for my DVD and music needs. I have a decent Technics amp, mostly because it has plenty of digital inputs. I think that is by far the best way to use your PC, get the digital stream out of the relativly noisy PC case. You might want to look into some of the silent PCs out there, because all those fans can get loud.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
Just in case you didn't know, the rear speakers are supposed to be facing the _sides_ of the audience, not their backs. This is a common mistake that people make when placing a 5.1 system. When you do a 7.1 setup, the extra two speakers are the ones that get placed in the far rear. In a 5.1 setup, the rear speakers are to the side of the listener, and a little behind them.
Not All Who Wander Are Lost
References please?
What's the matter, you don't believe a complete stranger when he tells you something? C'mon, have some faith. I found the following, I'm sure there's more out there. In all honesty, I'm relaying what I've HEARD, not what I can prove, so given proof that I'm wrong I'd be more than willing ot take the opposite stance. However, I remember hearing many times that headphones are more damaging to your ears due to the proximity of the sound. I can see how a GOOD pair of headphones would cancel out any of the negative implications of headphones, IE toning down higher frequencies, etc. Any actual studies that show either side of the argument would be interesting and appreciated.
Taken from http://headwize.com/articles/hearing_art.htm
In loudspeaker reproduction, sounds must travel several feet before reaching the listener's ears. By the time they arrive, a portion of the high frequencies have been absorbed by the air. Low frequencies are not absorbed as much, but they are more felt through bone conduction than actually heard. With headphones, the ears hear all frequencies without any attenuation, because the transducers are literally pressed against them. Thus, when listening to headphones at the same effective volume level as loudspeakers, headphones may still transmit louder high frequencies that are more likely to cause hearing damage.
Another hearing phenomenon that seems to be more noticeable with headphones is a decreasing sensitivity to sound levels over time, as the ears adapt to loud sounds. The listener perceives a gradual drop in loudness even though the volume control setting hasn't changed. The acoustic isolation of headphones tends to highlight this dulling effect. It is all too easy for headphone listeners to turn up the volume to the point where hearing is at risk. Interestingly, most people find it difficult to distinguish between 85dB and 100dB SPLs, despite that the latter is more injurious to hearing. Therefore, it is important to avoid listening fatigue by resting the ears in silence after long sessions with headphones and to fight the temptation to turn up the volume.
There appears to be some confusion here about amplifier power, speaker efficiency, and power handling.
1) Most standard domestic equipment can, at least excluding sub-bass frequencies, produce entirely acceptable sound pressure levels of 100-105dB or so. For a nearfield environment, which a PC is, I cannot see a substantial reason to be particularly concerned about peak output levels.
2) "Watts" are not a particularly meaningful measurement. The amplifier and speaker load will have specific interactions, and the volume for a given power level will vary with speaker efficiency.
3) Speaker efficiency is *not* a measurement of speaker quality.
4) The human hearing system is non-linear, and it requires a substantial increase in power level to increase the perceived volume level by 100%. (e.g. 100W, all else equal, is only twice as loud as 10W.)
5) Speakers have two types of power handling: one is the limit of physical excursion, i.e. how far the speaker will move before reaching its physical excursion limit and typically making "thwack" sounds. (With the risk of damage, of course.) Speakers tend to be measured in terms of *thermal* power. Because they are not very efficient, they tend to generate large quantities of heat. At some power level, this will not be properly dissipated and will cause adhesives, etc. to melt and damage the drivers. Thermal power tends not to be too bad a concern. If one is looking to generate high levels of sub-to-mid bass, one needs to be sure that the speaker's excursion capability is up to the task.
6) Having said that, using an underpowered amplifier and turning it up so that it clips will generate a lot of unwanted high frequencies, which may exceed a tweeter's thermal power handling. A tweeter's thermal power handling is designed considering the frequency distribution of typical programme material, i.e. only a fraction of power should be handled by the tweeter.
True; movies have a standardised sound level, and hopefully some level of standardisation between monitoring equipment and the "B-chain" (amps/speakers/acoustics) of movie theatres. Of course, this was exactly the declared intent of the THX-certification programme: to ensure that theatres and later home performance matched that of the dubbing theatre. It is thus fortunate that at least something of a "reference" exists, and movie soundtracks at home may be enjoyed with the full dynamic range as intended. I doubt we can compare this to much music, especially of the more "popular" variety, which is liable to have plenty of dynamic compression and processing to sound "punchy" on medicore equipment.
But certainly, good point--some frequency response compensation is likely to be necessary at lower sound pressure levels. Home theatre equipment at least may include dynamic range compression for lower listening levels. As one that is fond of probably a slightly heavy bass level, (:D) I wouldn't be so very concerned about drowing out the midrange at higher levels, although I can imagine some could find it a concern at times on certain programme material.