Slashdot Mirror
Getting High-Quality Audio From a PC
audiophile writes "Just because it's a PC doesn't mean it can't output good-sounding audio. In the same vein as specialty A/V products, you can find PC-based A/V systems with extensive audio processing and step-up performance specifications, including Signal-to-Noise ratio, which can make a significant difference when using the analog outputs. Media center manufacturer Niveus shares tips for getting high-quality audio from a PC."
Isn't that how it usually goes?
Cheers,
Xyst
FP??
Because at first glance I seriously thought that this article was going to be about smoking pot...
I got nothin'
I wonder if they have taken into consideration the age of the audience when doing stuff like this. What I mean as we get older our ability to clearly hear certain sounds diminishes. A sad fact of life.
So I wonder when they take specs like this to build systems they go well our target audience is X years old so 90% of them don't need as good of quality in the sound so we can build something still good but cheaper because we don't need to use the 80% of the time to get the final 5% of sound?
This is some serious sampling hardware [no affiliation]:
http://www.lynxstudio.com/products.html
Audio should not be done inside a PC. Well, not the analog portion, anyway. Ever looked at anything inside a PC with an oscilloscope? The noise environment is awful. You should not be trying to clean up the power the PC provides to the point you can use it for analog work; it's just not worth it. Especially when you'll just get hit by all the radiated EMI inside the case.
The solution? Simple -- ship the data out digitally and do the analog work elsewhere. Fortunately this has become very easy, with S/PDIF and the availability of good amplifiers with digital inputs. Amplifier power supplies are designed to be clean, and there aren't high current noisy loads on them -- they're designed for analog work. I have a fully digital amplifier from Panasonic that I'm very happy with. (Fully digital meaning all the way to the output FETs -- it does a delta-sigma pulse density modulation directly on the output signal, which turns out to be a very low noise, inexpensive way to get high quality output.)
The Jackhammer (see Pimp my Ride)
Unless you happen to be on a DRM-encumbered OS like Vista where this is no longer poss---Ohhhh I see what's going on here...
Right. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Come on! Didn't some editor read it before posting it to Slashdot front page? This is nothing but advertisement for their A/V product line, and their summary is ridiculous. I will spare you people the trouble to read it in TFA:
And, look at this pearl:
I rest my case. Anyone advocating WMA lossless codec (specially to Slashdot target audience) is not worth your time. Nothing to see here, move along.
audiophile writes "Just because it's a PC doesn't mean it can't output good-sounding audio.
Why would anyone even think that? Just because you have a processor that can perform gigaflops you'd think you can't output good quality sound? The only reason such a perception would exist is to get so-called audiophiles to spend more on garbage that doesn't make a difference to sound quality but they can pretend it does.
For proof, just look at this $1200 Power Cable . How stupid does one have to be to spend $1200 on a power cable. What do you think conducts the power from the breaker box to the wall outlet? Why would someone build a $3000+ amp and not properly condition the power inside the power supply?
I miss the old Sound Blaster 16s. They were pretty decent cards. I still have a couple of them around, but the lack of ISA slots in most machines is keeping them out of service. My mp3 playback computer uses an old Diamond Monster Sound MX300 (Vortex2) card, and its pretty awesome. Old, but awesome.
Given the proliferation of MP3 as a standard audio format, I wonder how many people actually care about high quality audio?
[Insert pithy quote here]
To be able to reproduce sounds of up to 100khz. duh.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Don't waste your money on analog sound - just buy a cheap C-Media card, a proper receiver/amplifier, install this driver http://cmediadrivers.googlepages.com/ and you'll get better quality than any analog sound card could possibly provide
Just because it's a PC doesn't mean it can't output good-sounding audio.
I guess it didn't occur to him that virtually all audio today is recorded and edited using some form of computer, whether Mac or PC. The statement above is really rather pointless.
Three Squirrels
So that it still sounds perfect on those occasions when you choose to play your music back at 1/4 speed.
It's a USB audio card the size of a thumb drive. Its ground is completely isolated from the computer, and as such it is dead quiet - this is especially great in laptops. I have Shure e3 headphones and if you ran them directly into my laptop you'd hear clicks and pops as the HDD was operating.
2 788
Here's a link:
http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=
The TBAAM is pretty much the best value upgrade for a laptop's audio out.
'Be always mindful, even when ditch-digging.' --D. T. Suzuki
Without proper room treatment, forget it.
Pfft. I have a SB Audigy and a set of creative 7.1 speakers. The audio quality from that's is better than most $1,000+ systems found in some greasy Best Buy. I feel that's good enough for listening to MP3's and casual movie watching. The only difference comes in recording. That's when I'd want condenser mics and mixing equipment. The bill for such a system could blow the monocle right off of John D. Rockefeller's mummified corpse.
I just wish the SoundMax drivers for my m9700 would stop BSOD-ing.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
You have to remember, when it come to "high-end" audio, logic has no place. "High-end" audio lives by a very simple rule - more expensive the gadget, the better - it does not matter if makes sense or if it really even make things better (because it is all about psychology and not physics), the cost of the gadget is what matters.
In my oppinion, Source + DAC + Amp +Speaker ar important to determine audio quality.
if we know sound card contained with very poor DAC, dont let PC doing the DAC job.
so that's why i strongly suggest just get optical spdif from computer.
in my real life situation, my macmini (with flac & alac audio) spdif to yamaha amp, the B&W speaker.
it sound just great.
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)
This will make my collection of MIDI music sound awesome!!!
Everything they make is a piece of crap.
If you want a really good soundcard that doesn't cost an arm and a leg, and is about as "audiophile" as you can possibly achieve with a wintel PC, then look no further than an M-Audio Audiophile 192
You can use an assortment of filters that use the ultra high frequencies essentially as a garbage dump. All the errors are placed in the inaudible region.
Audigy 2 and other EMU10k1 chipsets are locked to 48khz internally, which has caused me a lot of grief when wanting to play back stuff at other rates. If you're playing back 48k exclusively this is fine, otherwise better get a soundcard that supports the different sample rates of your choice natively.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Don't listen to the consumer marketed crap that these companies feed you. If you have a basic home setup with happy pc speakers and such you're never going to notice a difference between a 16bit or 24bit encoded file. the only time 24bit is even an issue is when you're in a pro studio recording tracks. cd's are 16bit at 44.1hz. if you rip it as a uncompressed wav you'll get that same quality. anything else is just a compressed likeness to the cd's quality. hell, HD radio is just now able to give you the capablity to listen to FM transmission at CD quality. What makes you think that your home pc is going to out perform an industry standard recording format? If you have a home studio my best advise is to get a rack based audio interface. The M-Audio Delta 1010 isn't a bad place to start especially since you can put four of them to a box with a max of 32 analog ins/outs. It'll set you back about $500 but what else do you want for 8 ins/outs in a home production studio. For home users. Its all about the quality of the equipment you use. There is always a step above what you have and if you have the best there is always something coming out tomorrow to top it. Get what you can afford and enjoy life.
Re-rip your CDs at 192Kbps MP3 and delete the old-skool 128kbps MP3s. Then, go to Wal*Mart and search around for the 98 cent headphones... I swear that they're the best I've ever heard!!
-jX
Don't you just love politics? It's like a comedy of errors.
...except for not understanding the "delta-sigma pulse density modulation" bit. In my quest for understanding, Wikipedia (which knows all things) tells me that's a technique for analog to digital?
I have one of those Panasonic devices (SA-XR55), and it's very good indeed.
So here's a pointless bit of pedantry: is it technically fair to call the Panasonic devices "amplifiers" (when taking digital input). As I understand it, what they do is take the PCM input, convert it to PWM entirely in the digital domain, and then use a low-pass filter to convert that to the analog speaker output. So, the classic definition of an amplifier - which applies gain from the input to the output - does not apply. There's no element of the device, logical or physical, where a low level analog signal is converted into a higher level copy of the signal... (the bits that input low level digital and output a high level digital signal surely aren't amps - they're switches). It's more of a DAC with direct speaker level outputs.
If you feed these "amps" an analog signal, they run the input through an ADC to make PCM and then through the digital input path, so the whole unit acts as a logical amp.
I got grief for posing this pedantic question elsewhere (mostly along the lines of "of course it's an amplifier - it sits in the spot where a DAC + amplifier would be") - I'm only presenting it as a quirky, pedantic issue of semantics.
Why would you bother? Makes a lot more sense to get one of these and output to whatever you need... RME Fireface
---- The Open Source Record Label : : LOCARECORDS.COM
When I built my home theater system 2 years ago, I decided to invest in a professional audio card.d &name=News&file=article&sid=7 ]
[For example, after reading buyers reviews and critics, I settled on the Terratec phase 28. http://audioen.terratec.net/modules.php?op=modloa
Its output is directly connected to my Hi-Fi amplifier (no pre-amp).
The only thing to be careful about with such a setup is to not shut down your PC (reset/reboot is fine) while your amp is still on.
Investing in a high grade sound card is the same as investing in a good amplifier or speakers : you are likely to use it for a long time (unlike a graphics card for example).
I think you just outlined the reason Bose is successful...
As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
So anyways, I'm wondering if Linux has good out-of-box support for digital audio on most motherboards these days?
This is an obvious comment, but I wanted to quickly mention the phenomenal difference in sound quality you can get when you take a little bit of time to put together a decent stereo system. I mean, everyone knows that an "audiophile-type" system is going to sound better than something you buy at Future Shop. That said, I don't know if many people are aware of the vast, huge chasm of difference that is present. Music takes on a life of its own when reproduced through a decent setup. I now listen to music "just to listen to music", whereas before I always considered it "background noise", to listen to while doing something else. Now, I can spend hours and hours listening to music - and doing just that. I assume everyone has heard of the Super-T amplifier - it's cheap, it's really good, and it can make all the difference in the world when compared to a lesser amplifier. Check out TNT Audio (www.tnt-audio.com) - there is a great review on the amplifier. They also have a pre-amp listed there, which gives you multiple analog inputs. For about $250.00, you can set yourself up with an excellent amp/pre-amp that will give you a bit of a taste of higher end audio. Mate these two devices with some decent speakers (or make your own!), and see what all the fuss is about. Of note, Fostex speakers and "bigger is better" boxes - google will show you the way. That is how I started, and even with that basic setup, $250.00 in electronics and $400.00 in speaker parts, I had a stereo system that blew away pretty much anything I had heard previously. At the time, I was using a Squeezebox and a cheap CD player as a source. It is a ridiculously fun hobby. But beware. Once you get bit by the audio bug, it is hard to stop.
USB should work fine. Seriously, you shouldn't need HDMI. Hell even ethernet might work. We're talking audio, not video here.
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Getting good quality audio from your PC is more difficult then people realize, and is very important if you use your PC to listen to a lot of music or watch movies (ie. as an HTPC).
Since a lot of PC audio equipment is geared towards gamers and people listening to low quality MP3's, it is easy to get loud, deep, multi-channel audio. The hard part is getting clear crisp sound. The one downfall I have found with HTPC's is that I have a much harder time hearing the dialog clearly for some movies then I would if I were in the theater.
This is particularly true when it comes to movies downloaded from the Internet (or so I'm told - I would never do this myself of course). The movies on the internet tend to use 2 channel MP3 or AC-3 audio, so a fancy 5.1 channel AC-3 decoder and speakers don't help (not to mention that they are expensive and ugly).
So, does anyone have any suggestions for sound cards or speakers that will provide clear, crisp, 2 channel sound at a reasonable price?
As some here, I use digital out from the computer and keep analogue audio on equipment that are made for that.
If you read a bit of French, here's my actual setup
Basically, music is stored on firewire drives,
The result is quite good (and the computer+3DLab DAC are far better than drive/DAC I tried or had, like VRDS-25, Apogee mini-dac).
This could be improved a bit (theoretically) on the jitter side but it still has to be confirmed (I mean heard) and of course there are some better audio-setup. If anyone has improved that type of setup, I'm really interested.
ClaudeBBG
Are any of you out there using the SilverStone EB01 USB DAC? What do you think of it? I'm quite enjoying it. But I don't go around buying $100 usb soundgear willy-nilly, so I'm not sure how it stacks up to other similar products. I can say that it is a revelation compared to my cheap-as-possible prior computer sound solutions. Also, it draws enough juice that I had to mod a USB cable and drop in a 5v supply on the power wires. It was crashing my USB subsystem with too much current draw.
Once you step up to $150 or $200 for your dac there are many options, but this one gets a thumbs up from me at the ~$80 price point. (I found mine at newegg) Better bass - tighter, more tuneful, greater depth. Smoother sound over all - less fatiguing, more liquid. But what I noticed most was a much greater seperation and resolution of sounds. Each note retained a separate charecter much further down into the noise floor. But this is compared to very cheap computer sound gear - for a long time I had written off quality PC audio. So I'm interested to hear what opinions others might have developed of this bit of hardware.
I've seen a number of reviews of it online, but was unable to find anything any more audiophile than 'the drivers worked, and it sounds better than my integrated audio.' I use it with a pair of DIY Cyburgs Needle speakers with the TB W3-871 driver and a modified SI t-amp. Quite pleasing overall, but of course I can't stop here...
-- "Oh. This guy again."
As a Mac user the digital output is really attractive. What I miss is a really simple integrated amplifier with a digital input, a volume control, and speaker outputs -- sort of like my old Audiolab. Some of the new digital amps are cool, but awfully pricey. It would be sort of cool to be able to add in a modular card for wireless as well, or simply use an Airport with digital outputs!
Does anybody know of any powered speakers, like the Meridiens, that have optical inputs?
Reduction is the key, but as you can tell I like some convenience thrown in for good measure.
makes pretty good audio solutions for computers and just sound in general. Kinda expensive but a LOT cheaper then that Bose shit.
not to be a downer, but the #1 thing is to protect your ears.
* keep the volume down, whether speakers or headphones
* be careful of occupational noise...use foam earplugs or over-the-ear mufflers, make your employer pay for them and make sure your co-workers know about hearing damage too
* stay away from loud concerts, parties, dance halls
* get your hearing checked every couple of years by an audiologist
* don't overdo the drugs, booze, or caffiene
* if you are exposed to even moderately high sound levels, let your ears rest for a couple weeks before exposing them again. do not *ever* go to two rock concerts in the same weekend
* at the first sign of infection or fluid buildup, see a doctor
* hearing loss can be instantaneous and permanent, don't risk it
All the megabits and SNR in the world won't help if your nerve cells and eardrums are making little buzzes, whines, and clicking noises. You can buy a better sound card or nicer speakers but you cannot replace damaged hearing: PROTECT IT
TFA mentions a service called MusicGiants, which offers downloads of high-res and multichannel music. Sadly though it uses WMA and a ton of DRM:Pity about the DRM, if it weren't for that I might be pretty interested. I wonder how their business is going to be affected by the un-DRMed tracks from Apple? If Apple were to start selling DRM-free lossless tracks, particularly out of the back catalog they presumably have access to, they could do some neat stuff for the high-end market. But I think it's a limited market and I doubt it'll happen.
What really interests me is not the ability to download the same content that you can get on CD, but downloading content that's better than a CD. While I agree that 44.1kHz PCM is fine for most pop and rock (actually I maintain that cassette would be fine for 90% of that, too), high-res PCM or the non-PCM formats (like SACD or even its long forgotten predecessor the DBX700) sound really, really good for live recordings of more traditional instruments. Unfortunately SACD is never going anywhere, and there's not really a digital-file equivalent that's widely supported, so we're stuck with PCM/PCM-like formats. But there's no reason why you can't download stuff that's better than the 44.1kHz de facto standard.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Remember, folks. It ain't quality audio unless you can decode WWVB from the signal..
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Step 1. Plug in speaker power wire.
So you can still reproduce the 50k-60k noise of your internal switching power supply of course!
I'm still waiting for a pc that IS a reciever. Even the high end receivers suffer from lack of updatable software/firmware. Think about the horrendous lack of preferences... I don't want it to change modes when I change inputs. That's not the best example but it proves the point; it could be configurable. I want to get my OSD in Component output but they probably couldn't QA it in time... could have been in a future release.
My Yamaha RXV-4600 was $1200 last year and already obsolete because of no 1080p through. Why can't it pass a 1080p signal through? I assume because the software/firmware wasn't designed to as 1080p wasn't around 2 years ago.
Maybe it's hardware? Well it sure would be nice if that hardware was on a modular component bus like pci/pci-x where I could just swap out a $29 card. Even outboard FireWire/USB 2.0 would be just fine. Same goes for this new HDMI 1.3 crap... If I get my new TV, I can't run it through my receiver, and TV's never have HDMI output or through so a $100 splitter(not switcher) becomes necessary. Don't talk about what HDMI 1.3 is or isn't, bottom line is I should have to throw away a $1200 piece of equipment because of a cable update. Same thing goes for AV compression (or lack thereof).
My dream is a CPU pre-amp that only serves as a router and processing manager. It should have modular I/O. I don't need 12 analog ins/outs. Why do I pay for them? It should be able to take any input and route to any output, upscaling or down scaling as necessary. For specialized processing it should have modular components. Dolby's new codec shouldn't make my receiver obsolete when sub $100 sound cards are capable of decoding it. Modular components are defiantly the way to go, not to mention the general purpose CPU on this system could probably handle a lot of this without being a very fast chip.
It should be able to take those signals and do any blend you require. It should be able to merge video input providing the first ever useful picture in picture system. I can't go hdmi from cable and PS3 into any reciever and use PIP out meaning, I can't rack up exp points while watching something else. Sometimes I want to listen to music on my stereo while still playing the ball game with low volume. I'd love to assign the game to the rear surrounds only and using the fronts for music. How many of you have crappy receivers that won't even use the rears for music unless the signal is a certain format? You mean to tell me I require a DTS signal to play music on all 5 speakers... oh, you never though about that. Pity it's too late to change now.
With my high expectations, this article was a real disappointment.
Ever done a `man` on `top` ?
Just buy an old SGI O2 (if you're going to do analog only) or Octane (if you want SPDIF in). They're practically free (there was a Craigslist post with 6 Octanes for $120 in SoCal within the last two weeks), they're made for audio, and to be honest, Irix is light years ahead of Linux when it comes to a rational and sane interface for configuring the audio hardware. Plus, the mixer (called 'audiopanel' in Irix) goes to 11
"...better get a soundcard that supports the different sample rates of your choice natively."
Very important point. Many soundcards sample rate convert everything to one common sampling rate, say 48KHz, and do it really badly.
And by "badly" I don't mean some subtle nuance that only someone with golden ears and a $50k system can hear I mean gross distortion.
Try looping the output back into the line input and firing some test tones through it and seeing what kind of FFT you get back.
Perhaps one of you fellow slashdotters can help me with this...
I have my computer hooked up to my stereo via ordinary an ordinary stereo RCA->RCA connection. To avoid distortion I have to set the volume to a maximum of 75% with alsamixer. I have to turn the volume knob on my amplifier at least twice as high as I have to with my ordinary CD player to get the same volume. For most stuff and ordinary listening it's fine, but if I have to play something that's recorded rather quietly (classical music, for instance), I can't turn it up enough for a proper listening level without maxing out the volume on the amplifier.
This happens with both my Edirol UA-1X USB sound card, and the onboard Realtek crap I also tried.
Is there any fix for this short of buying a preamp?
Eat the rich.
"What about S/PDIF audio connections?
Windows Vista does not require S/PDIF to be turned off, but Windows Vista continues to support the ability to turn it off for certain content -- a capability that has been present on the Windows platform for many years. Additionally, in order to support the requirements of some types of content, Windows Vista supports the ability to constrain the quality of the audio component of that content. Similar to image constraint for video, this quality constraint only applies to the audio from content whose policy requires the constraint, not to any other audio being played concurrently on the system. As a practical matter, these audio restrictions are not widely used today" Windows Vista Content Protection - Twenty Questions (and Answers)
I didn't really know any better until I tried something else. The sound quality from the Audigy sound cards is simply awful thanks to the terrible sample rate conversion they do from 44K (music from CDs should play at this rate) to 48K.
will it work with linux?
will it enforce drm?
Benchmark Media makes the DAC1, a relatively (to before) cheap digital to analog converter (DAC) that can run from USB, XLR, coax or optical (AES or SPDIF, like most digital AV puts out now), for the kind of hifi home theater that used to require FireWire (and a lot more money). 192KHz (or 96, 44.1 or their doubles) into 24bits (or 16, or 8, I guess).
This thing is probably the best PC audio out now.
--
make install -not war
I own a Lynx L22. These audio cards are about as good as you can get for something that lives inside the PC. I have actually used my L22 inputs as an FM baseband spectrum analyzer. (FM baseband goes to 100kHz and so if I run the L22 at 200kHz and do a big 'ol FFT on that, well, there you have it :)
As to questioning the high sample rates for normal audio use (the real reason I bought the card) what I can tell you is this: many people report that the 192kHz converters sound significantly better than older generations of converters BUT they sould better even when running at "normal" (44.1) sample rates! In other words, the higher sample rate is probably meaningless (frequencies beyond human hearing) but the converters have also improved within the range of human hearing. Also, in the case of the Lynx L22, it is not just the high end ADC and DAC chips but the rest of the circuity on those cards that results in excellent audio quality. Go take a look at the pictures of the L22 PCB - it is a very high quality design.
My audio setup has an ancient AWE Soundblaster 64 Gold ISA card, sending a digital audio signal over a cheap homemade cable to a mid-range amp. Sounds great, no interference from PC components whatsoever. I used to use the analogue outputs on the same card and they were pretty good as well despite the box also serving as a network server with four HDs running.
The card cost about 15 UK Pounds when I bought it.
Getting decent audio into the computer.
Most sound cards are almost useless except for using your computer as a dictaphone, because almost all sound cards are mono only and the s/n ratio is totally unacceptable.
I have a fairly decent condenser microphone and would very much like to be able to make digital recordings which are of similar quality to that which the microphone is able to create.
Any ideas /.ers?
It is clear that XLR connections for balanced audio offer improvements in sound quality...
>No it isn't. XLR connectors are robust which is why they are found on PRO kit.
>The advantage to a balanced signal is reduced RF
Not RF mainly, but ground loops (which are a big problem at harmonics of the power
line frequency, 60/180 Hz in my neck of the woods). With all of our modern devices
using switching power supplies, there's LOTS of sources for pickup at other frequencies.
See Ott's book on instrumentation
Ott, Henry _Noise Reduction Techniques in Electronic Systems_
to get a more complete picture.
In fact, there are many interference and distortion sources that balanced signals can
reduce (like thermocouple effects). As for pro audio systems, there's a secondary
consideration, other than ruggedness, that favors these connections; you can
supply phantom power to a microphone preamp by suitable trickery.
Just imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
I don't know about A/D, but in a DAC the problem is that garbage and images gets into the analog stages, and (though high frequency), modulates gain device parameters and intermodulates with the signal. Beyond that, high enough frequency noise exceeds slew limitations of the analog amplifier and causes transient intermodulation related effects. This is why you want to have a steep anti-imaging filter after a DAC. Another point worth mentioning is that the higher your sampling frequency is, the higher the sensitivity to jitter. The best approach is to have minimum upsampling and a very steep analog filter. Most DAC chips do 8x. Something like 4-6x with a 6-7 pole filter is the best way, and is used in for example some of Lavry's pro-audio DACs.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
I would add to all that the fact that most of the EM noise inside a PC is not in the audible spectrum. Does the 20MHz ethernet clock matter one jot to audio? Does the 533/667/1033MHz FSB noise matter to audio? Does the GHz clock for the CPU matter? Does the PCI clock at 33MHz matter?
On top of that you can and do get those tin plated metal screening boxes to shield any sensitive areas.
In fact it occurred to me recently that high end audio power supplies are done all wrong anyway. They all use linear power supplies, and all as a consequence have 50/100Hz or 60/120Hz mains hum problems.
Far more sensible to rectify and smooth the mains and then whack it through a 500kHz SMPS. Then any residual noise getting through at the output stage does not matter, because not even the daftest audiophile can claim to hear 500kHz, yet everyone can hear mains hum. The only reason they mess about with linear PSU's is that this is what is conventionally what is done. Also possibly the fact that it is only in recent years that SMPS's have moved well out the audible range. However the point is that doing a linear PSU in audio equipment in 2007 is just plain daft.
I'm a musician and audio engineer, and the best sound I've heard out of any speakers is out of a decent pair of studio monitors with a proper subwoofer. A pair of Mackie HR824's or Yorkville YSM1P's can deliver extremely detailed sound, with much better transient detail than a typical set of home-theater or even 'audiophile' speakers. It should be mentioned that many people prefer the less-even frequency response of non-studio speakers (easier on the ears for extended listening, or exaggerated bass/treble), but this can be easily modeled with a decent EQ (assuming you have the flat response of studio monitors to start with).
Free electronic music for you!