Originally posted by: RanDum72
quote:
And I respectfully disagree too. If you notice something about the 'audio reviews' they are pretty much broken down into two parts. One is measurements, and the other part is when the reviewer sits down in a room and listens to the speakers with different source material. And properly measured what? Measured frequency notes made by a tone generator? What do you think reviewers listen to?
Well sure, you're right about most audio reviews being in two parts. But wouldn't you agree that all that means is that the second part (the part "when the reviewer sits down in a room and listens to the speakers with different source material") is subjective? Without intending to, I think, you're reinforcing my point -- that "first part" or whatever you want to call it
is non-subjective. So the original quote of RanDum72 (you by another name?) that "audio quality is subjective" is clearly inaccurate -- you yourself acknowledge the non-subjective "first part" that includes "measurements." Measurements made on properly calibrated, properly chosen test equipment, by competent, non-biased 'testers,' are
not subjective -- they are what they are and are not subject to perception or biases of the listener/reviewer (unlike the "second part"). Unless there's incompetency or bad intentions on the part of the people doing the measuring, of course.
I think what we should maybe do here is re-phrase and/or clarify our terminology. Why don't we agree that properly measured audio quality is
not subjective and non-measureable audio quality
is subjective. Are you cool with that? I totally concur that certain aspects of audio quality are difficult, if not impossible, to measure with test equipment, so they can
only be subjective. The good thing for all of us is that these aspects are not "key aspects" of a speaker's performance -- the key aspects (or most important or determinative aspects) are, IMHO, frequency response and THD. Imaging (hard to measure) and signal-to-noise ratio (easy to measure) probably come next, and everything else is down on the priority list. Things like SPL, "burst power," and maximum wattage are essentially irrelevant in any good quality, modern speaker systems, as they're going to be good enough whatever they are [unless a person is trying to fill an auditorium with sound from computer speakers or something dumb like that :laugh: ]. Would you concur?
Wow, so you think that a person who will buy a certain speaker that is not 'audiophile quality' is not sophisticated or unqualified to LISTEN to what they want? That is why I said listening to audio is SUBJECTIVE. It may have the best lab measurements in the world but if the customer is older and couldn't hear anythinag above, say 12k, a speaker with that 'sweet' upper frequency extension is not goiing to make any difference in PERCEIVED sound quality. And tell me, if you say that 99% listeners out there are 'uneducated' about sound, then how many people are 'educated'? See, this is where your 'key specs' argument doesn't take into consideration. A certain sound is supposed to sound a certain way and the perfect speaker is supposed to reproduce it perfectly. But that doesn't really quite happen yet, even with the best out there. You get two speakers with equally good frequency responses but yet you can still notice differences between them although they would really be small.If you are really anal, you just nitpick here and there and come up with a conclusion. Then the 'way we humans hear', well no one hears sounds exactly the same way. The stimuli might be the same (sound) but when it reaches the ear and travels into the brain to get processed, its different for everyone (similar is not equal to exactly the same).
Hmmm ... not sure how to respond to that, as you kind of twisted my words around there (unintentionally, I'll assume). Lemme try to put it another way: The point I was making, and that I'll reiterate here, is that NO, a speaker may NOT sound better depending on the material being listened to.
The speaker's sound reproduction capabilities are what they are -- they don't change depending on who's listening to them. A speaker's frequency response, or THD, or S/N ratio specs, for example, aren't different when Person A listens to them compared to when Person B listens to them. The speaker sounds the way it sounds, and it sounds that way all the time (assuming it's functioning properly). The only things that can be variables are the perceptions of the listener or his or her qualifications/abilities to assess that speaker's sound.
I will say that I do believe that a very high percentage of computer audio listeners & consumers are in fact unsophisticated and unqualified to properly assess speaker sound. And, of course, there's nothing wrong with that -- as long as they don't
claim to be sophisticated or qualified. Heck, I myself am not qualified to assess speaker sound without scientific measurements accompanying that assessment. I was a music major in college and consider myself an audiophile, but more because of knowledge than trained "golden ears" or something. Most consumers have no audio engineering training whatsoever, only a small percentage are musicians or audiophiles, and their opinions on speaker sound are utterly meaningless. One need only read a number of speaker threads on this site and others to see a litany of comments like "these speakers kick ass," "these speakers rock!," "these are the bomb!" about speakers with terrible specs (I'm not referring to the Z-500s here, BTW). If you consider these folks sophisticated, I don't know what to tell 'ya!
So typically insignificant is not perfect, right? Lets check the 'claimed specs':
Klipsch
FREQUENCY RESPONSE:
25Hz-20kHz +/- 5dB
POWER HANDLING:
FTC Rated per Satellite: 60 w/channel @ = 1% THD, 100Hz - 1KHz (Note: all channels driven)
FTC Rated Subwoofer: 170 w @ = 3% THD, 40 - 100Hz
Maximum Burst Power*: 500
Logitech
Total RMS power: 505 watts RMS
Satellites: 317 watts RMS (2 x 62 W front, 2 x 62 rear, 69 W center)
Subwoofer: 188 watts RMS
Total Peak power: 1010 watts
Maximum SPL: >115 dB
Frequency response: 33 Hz ? 20 kHz
Amplifier: Ultra-linear, high-capacity analog
Signal to noise ratio: >93.5 dB, typical 100
Input impedance: 8,000 ohms
Frequency response, the Klipsch is +/- 5 db 25-20k while the Logitech is 33- 20k with no mention of variances. Tomshardware had this graph to show for the Logitech:
Link
Frequency response is very even except for the big hump at 32-40hz ( due to room placement). Basically, you can safely say that the 33-20k rated response is accurate, maybe +/- 2-3db. So this is comparable to the Klipsch.
Ahhh ... so many flaws here, I don't know where to start.
To begin with, I shouldn't have to tell you about Tom's Hardware. Many, and I mean
many Anandtech readers can tell you about their credibility/accuracy when it comes to tests they've done. It's all over the map. And if I recall, I read here awhile back that they were even caught falsifying test reports on CPUs (or was it vid cards?) in the past. I've seen some okay reviews there from time to time, but also some seriously flawed ones.
Moreover, that "graph" and FR test they ran is seriously suspect. First of all, who tests frequency response of speakers by only running a "maxium burst" test? You'd never see a respected audio magazine like
Sound & Vision or
The Absolute Sound , for example, relying on nothing more than this for a test of speakers' frequency response. This is exactly why I always refer to
"credible" reviews. And we have no idea what the test conditions were (they don't tell us), what mic they used (they don't tell us), etc. Presumably, based on the limited info provided, they set up a mic (connected to what test equipment?), fed the speakers a "maximum burst" signal, and measured the FR with their mic. Sorry, but they'll have to do far better than that before I'll put any stock in their FR "test." The fact that Logitech intentionally refuses to publish their FR specs with "no mention of variances,"
as you yourself admitted, should tell you all you need to know here. If these speakers' FR response was so great, Logitech would
absolutely publish the "mention of variances." When companies either omit unflattering specs or try to disguise them, it's for a reason.
Any frequency response spec without a plus/minus db range is 100% meaningless. Now, if a more credible review than the one done by Tom's Hardware confirms the Z-5500s' FR as being what you and Tom's claim, I'll be happy to give them their due. Until then, their intentional ommission of the critical plus/minus db range (or "mention of variances") is a huge red flag and is likely to mean only one thing: they're hiding something.
So where in the specs say that lower THD and superior frequency response? Klipsch says it goes down to 25hz but most probably at -5db. If you rate the Logitech at -5db at that frequency, both are virtually equal. As for anything above that ( to 20k), both can do that too. THD?Klipsch rates at = 1% THD, 100Hz - 1KHz. This more a function of both amp and speaker quality. But do note that Klipsch rates at 100-1khz, which is NOT a full bandwidth rating (20-20khz). I agree, sound coming from a 1 driver or a two driver doesn't really matter.
Based on the factual info at my disposal, I
wouldn't rate the Logitech at -5db at 25Hz. In fact,
the specs you quote above clearly state they only to go down to 33Hz. So they can't even produce 25Hz at ANY db level, let alone do so at a level only down by 5dB. So no, both are
not "virtually equal." What basis would I have to rate the Logitechs at that frequency? That amateurish review by Tom's Hardware? Sorry -- not even close. (BTW, we also know nothing about the qualifications of the guy who reviewed them. Click on his link provided with the review, and a number of Tom's staff members come up -- but he is conspicuously absent.
For all I know, he could be some 19-year-old computer geek with no audio training whatsoever. How in the world can any of us know his qualifications? It's not like this review was done by David Ranada, or the late Julian Hirsch, or Ken Pohlmann, or another established reviewer from a respected audio magazine or something, you know? I just have a very low opinion of most computer hardware reviewers who think they are qualified to review audio equipment, as most are simply not qualified to do so.)
How do you know? Have you taken it apart and looked at the cross-over parts?
No. But I've never seen or heard of anyone alleging that they use "less than optimized crossovers" or that they have "phase differences between the drivers." If you can provide any substantiated evidence that the ProMedias have either of these faults, I'll be happy to take a look.
Just for your own edification, you might wanna check out
this review of ProMedias. It's for the 2.1 system, but I believe the speakers themselves are similar or identical to those in the 5.1 ProMedia system. I know many people won't take the time to read reviews that are linked to (it can get rather time consuming), but you really ought to check this one out. It's not perfect either, but it's more professionally done and credible than that Tom's Hardware review of the Logitech Z-5500s (which is not Logitech's fault, of course). I think you'll see that the components in the ProMedia system are top-notch all the way around, with the exception of the stock speaker wire they come with. Many owners have complained about this, and I freely admit that Klipsch needs to be flogged for it! (What were they thinking?)
I will find that link. What makes you think that Klipsch drivers are the best? There are TONS of other brands out there you haven't even heard that will blow Klipsch drivers away. I just said they are know for excellent performance for the price. That doesn't mean they aren't comparable to Klipsch just because they are cheaper.
I'll await that link.
And I never said "that Klipsch drivers are the best." You are misquoting me, so I'll also await your apology. :laugh: There may be "TONS of other brands out there ... that will blow Klipsch drivers away," but not in
computer speakers. If there are, show me credible, measureable proof of their superiority and I'll concur. As I've said before, I have no blind loyalty. In fact, list just 3 of the "TONS" of the better computer speaker drivers you say are better. I'll await that as well. Don't forget the supporting evidence (and no, your ears alone and Tom's Hardware reviews do not count).
Check graph again. I think its 'flat enough'.
As I stated earlier, that graph is suspect at best.
If it's accurate, I would agree that it's flat enough. That's a BIG "if," however, and again, the fact that Logitech
refuses to publish the
true frequency response of these speakers --
with the plus/minus db range -- leads me to believe they are NOT flat.
If they were, why wouldn't Logitech publish the true specs so as to remove any potential criticisms or suspicions about their performance? You can believe what you want, but I'd think that in the interest of getting the best sound, you'd want the full truth about speakers you're buying or listening to. Which company here is not providing full disclosure? Hmmm ... one might just suspect
you of being the one exhibiting blind loyalty here, my friend!
The last parts of my post are purely subjective, true. But I don't think I'm 'uneducated'. I have a college degree, I listen to music extensively. I have been a serious speaker hobbyist for 15 years or so and I have designed and assembled speakers and x-overs for the same period. As for 'faster bass' I thought you have been reading reviews since 1978. I'm pretty sure you have come across it before. If you don't recall anything about it, try 'pitch definition' or 'punchiness'. Also, read the discussion on this thread. The guy with the long post pretty much knows what he's talking about. If you don't take my opinion, then maybe you should know that somebody has an opinion similar to mine's .
Again, you're misquoting me. That makes two apologies you owe me.
I never said
you were uneducated (nor did I imply it). Re "faster bass," I have in fact been reading reviews in respected audio magazines since 1978 and I have never heard such a term. And "pitch definition" and "punchiness" are equally odd, not to mention vague. Again, these are exactly what I've criticized -- subjective things that can't be measured. How could one measure "punchiness" with test equipment? Or "pitch definition"?
I did in fact take the time to read that review you linked to above. Without going into yet another mile-long dissertation
, I also see several flaws in his comments. But my fingers are about to fall off here from all this typing, so I'll just have to skip the specifics (yeah, I know that looks evasive, but whatever ....). I'm sure he makes some valid observations, but the main problem I have with his opinion is that much of it is, again,
subjective. To paraphrase Cuba Gooding Jr. in
Jerry Maguire, "Show me the specs! Show me the specs!"
Okay, I've been typing away here for over an hour and I hope you'll agree that this has become waaaayyyy too long of a discussion. I have a million more important things to do with my time, so I'm gonna have to let this be my last contribution to this thread. Both of these speaker sets are decent. Both will likely sound good with most source material that an average person would listen to. The OP orignially asked which of the two is likely to sound better and if the Klipsches would be worth the additional cost. That's really all I was trying to answer, and it really comes down to what his priorities are. You can have the last word, and if you ask any further questions, my lack of reply will be due to me being done with this thread, not evading the questions.
Later,
Ken
PS: Cliff notes for this thread are available for a small fee.
:laugh: (Yes, mods, I'm kidding.)
Edited to fix a couple typos.
Facebook
Twitter