What speakers to go with TB Santa Cruz

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: Ken90630

Originally posted by: DarkTXKnight
wow, all this from a simple question.... and I ended up buying one of each anyway man I love this site!!!

This was nothing. Just for fun, go over to the CPU/Processors forum and do a post that says, "I've been reading all you guys' comments about how great AMD is. I just wanna say Intel kicks AMD's a*s!"

Heh heh. That oughta be sufficient to start WWIII. :laugh:

ATI vs. Nvidia in the Video forum is a good one as well. Half the time I think if you substituted "liberals" for ATI and "conservatives" for Nvidia, it would be completely indistinguishable from P&N.

 

[Wedge1]

I enjoyed reading this thread. I like both scientific measurements as well as subjective opinion. I come to the forum and usually find both (there are typically links to the manufacturer's web site provided in the thread for getting the tech specs).


*Oh, and...
ATI beats Nvidia
Intel trumps AMD
Dodge is better than Ford
Canon over Lexmark
Black and Decker, not Craftsman
Burger King trounces McDonald's
Cats rule, dogs do not
Elvis was cooler than Fonzi
Paul needed John more than the other way around



*(strictly humor folks)

 

[Zap Brannigan]

LOL!

 

[The J]

Originally posted by: Gurck
Ken, you know Creative's Gigaworks are rebadged Cambridge? Many feel their sats beat out the Klipsch PMUs.

The MegaWorks 510D were made by Cambridge Soundworks. They used the Newton MC50 satellites and the BassCube 851 subwoofer/integrated amp. The MegaWorks 550 and 650 use a modified (read: cheaper) version of the MC50s that doesn't have Cambridge's "4 EQ Network" (I admit I have no idea how that affects quality). Also, the subwoofer is modified with a bass port, a better remote, and it does not have any dampening material on the inside like the 510D did.

Why the backstory? I just wanted people to realize that Creative did more than just stick their name on the speakers. According to a review by Digit-Life, the MegaWorks 510D sounded better to the reviewer (though not by much). The GigaWorks model their satellites after the Cambridge Newton MC100, but they also are most likely modified to be cheaper (They're $70/pair at www.hifi.com).

Either way, I'm still happy with my MegaWorks. I just wanted people to know the above.

 

[alcoholbob]

Ken...

Again, I know you are in love with the on-axie FR response graph again, but again, of-axis response will add/detract to brightness. But that's not really much of a discussion because the Klipsch's don't have a flat on-axis FR response. THat's the price you pay for very easy to drive speakers. (a 96db horn loaded speakers can be thirty times easier to drive than an 86db speaker). And Zap doesn't have ears different from the average joe huh? He hears the frequency spikes just like everyone else (which we attenuate as brightness) than you apparently.

Seems like our boy likes louder subs...pyschoacoustics have shown something as little as 0,5dB boost will have us prefer the louder speaker, even when comparing two pairs of the same speaker. It's also possible he likes boomy music--I have to admit I sort of like it too at times, since it seems to have more "life" (plus you let the neighbors know it), even if it isn't accurate. (Subs will overamplify the lowend anyway unless you have great floorstanders and your sub is crossed over at 40hz or below)

Define what the hell is professional credible testing anyway, you even admitted yourself on the other thread there will be differences. Whose to say Person A or Person B doesn't have different tastes in women, sports, cars, hobbies, have different sports, have different tastes in music genres, accenuations on different octaves of the audible frequency?--clearly our buyer here likes boomy bass for example. You sound like you are trying too hard to convince us our opinions are irrelevant and professional testing on crappy $400 multimedia sub-sat systems will make us that much happier. We are way out of the price range before people even care enough and the flagship of multimedia speakers is severely flawed to start with.

I like how you clearly define what's a "home threater" speaker and what's a "computer" speaker. No, these are "sub-sat" speakers, speakers in a similar price range with very similar characteristics. The fact that one requires a $6 RCA to stereo mini connector is not a valid reason to dissmiss it as being in the same class.

BTW Ken, don't want to bust your bubble but there are no such thing as "professional audio reviewers." It's just a bunch of people who get small compensation on their free time to write about their hobby, you think they aren't biased?

As for Gurk's question, you could simply compare them apples to apples in a sonic department since the different Gigaworks systems all have the same satellite (just like Logitechs...just like Klipschs...notice a trend here?)

I find it amusing you hate the Logitechs so much since the Gigaworks have no tweeter either and simply work on a larger 3.5" driver (a little more accurate than Klipsch's horn loaded 3"...maybe...)

Quote from you: "I think you guys would prolly agree that it's kind of a challenge to find truly professional, credible reviews of computer speaker systems."

Answer: who is going to waste their time reviewing a sub-$400 sub/mini-sat system? MAYBE if it had something like 4" woofers bare minimum, some decent MDF and a large enough sat enclosure.

Stop Bashing Logitech just because they are a niche product alone with Cambridge and Klipsch, who all appeal to different masses.

 

[alcoholbob]

It's Ken the audiophile again.

Zap's ears are qualified to assess speaker quality because he is the customer. You can arm him with information that may help him understand what manufacturers will do to try to steal his money and help him find a good deal, but after the fact, the only thing that's important is his opinion. I mean you tout the Klipsch Ultras, and that's your cup of tea, even though to me horn-loaded speakers are too bright (and a load of crap on the on-axis FR graph compared to regular speaker cones, yes, like the Logitechs and the Cambridges, yet you defend the Klipschs on the basis that their accuracy is their strong point).

Lol...a professional review or test report...the whole market is filled with stuff significantly better than Klipsch, as you might have noticed, Klipsch use horn loaded speakers and their application (why do you think they bother to get the THX moniker) is for home threater in order to reach THX VOLUME LEVELS, not tonal accuracy. You don't even need to find a report or review that says the Klipschs aren't neutral, just read a university white paper on "horn-loaded speakers" and you'll save yourself a lot of embarrasement.

I would probably say the Cambridge (comparing the big three of Klipsch, Logitech, and Cambridge/Creative) will lead to the most musical neutrality...because Cambridge is a professional speaker company which use traditional speakers and their motto is for tonal neutrality...

No offense to you either, but I just don't see where you are coming from, Ken...

PS, Ken from Ken and Barbie, or Ken and Ryu ?

 

[Ken90630]

Again, I know you are in love with the on-axie FR response graph again, but again, of-axis response will add/detract to brightness.

Kobe,

On-axis frequency response is the single most determinative factor of how speakers sound. Period. Off-axis response matters as well, but not nearly as much. People typically listen to their computer speakers sitting in a chair in front of their monitor -- either listening to music or gaming -- not moving around the room. Now, do people get up out of the chair and move around the room a bit? Of course. But the majority of 'listening time' to a pair of speakers is going to be in a stationary position in front of them. Therefore, if the speakers are set up properly so that the listener is in an on-axis position, the majority of listening time will be spent listening to them on-axis. Hence the what-should-be obvious importance of speakers' on-axis frequency response (FR) performance.

I said earlier (either in this thread or another similar one -- I'm not sure) that I acknowledged the ProMedias' less-than-ideal off-axis response. There's no question that the MicroTractix horns do not disperse the high frequencies as well to off-axis positions as a conventional, high quality tweeter would. As I said above, however, off-axis listening is not where a majority of people are going to spend the majority of their time listening to computer speakers, so this should not be a big factor for most listeners. If it is a big factor for a particular person, they should consider a different brand of speakers.

But that's not really much of a discussion because the Klipsch's don't have a flat on-axis FR response.

I would argue that 25Hz to 20kHz +/- 5dB is plenty flat enough for computer speakers. That's a lot flatter than anything Logitech, or any other computer speaker company, makes. Neither you, I, nor anyone but the most highly trained, sophisticated listener or audio engineer can hear FR anomalies in a speaker system that close to flat. See published specs here.

And Zap doesn't have ears different from the average joe huh? He hears the frequency spikes just like everyone else (which we attenuate as brightness) than you apparently.

No, he doesn't. Per his previous contributions to this thread, he has absolutely no formal training or qualifications to assess speaker sound in a way that's notably better than any Average Joe. And what "frequency spikes"? The imaginary ones you're alleging in this thread for some unknown reason? I'd bet any amount of money that the ProMedias are within +/- 3dB (or less) throughout most of the audible spectrum, and only diverge to +/-5dB towards the outer edges (which aren't going to be audible to most people anyway). Calling such divergence "spikes" is silly. Yeah, you guys hear "spikes" with the ProMedias. :roll: Please state, specifically, at which frequencies the ProMedias exhibit these supposed "spikes" you and Zap supposedly are hearing, then please post a link to a credible test report confirming these spikes on a frequency response graph. This is a challenge -- are you gonna accept it or evade it? We'll all be waiting on your response.

Seems like our boy likes louder subs...

Yet another of the many false assumptions you've made. I do not like "louder subs."

pyschoacoustics have shown something as little as 0,5dB boost will have us prefer the louder speaker, even when comparing two pairs of the same speaker.

Since the smallest increment in sound level that humans can detect is 1dB, I doubt that a 0.5 boost will be perceptible. But I know the point you were trying to make, and it is basically correct. I concur that people generally prefer a louder speaker even when comparing two pairs of the same speaker. It's a trick our minds play on us, and this has been known to audiophiles for decades and proven time & time again in listening tests.

It's also possible he likes boomy music

Nope. I like clean, accurate bass, not "boomy" bass or music. I like accurately reproduced bass. Period.

Define what the hell is professional credible testing anyway, you even admitted yourself on the other thread there will be differences. Whose to say Person A or Person B doesn't have different tastes in women, sports, cars, hobbies, have different sports, have different tastes in music genres, accenuations on different octaves of the audible frequency?--

Professional, credible testing is testing done by trained, accomplished audio professionals. People like the late Julian Hirsch, or David Ranada, or Ken Pohlmann, or Ian Masters, or Al Griffin, and dozens of others have professional training and education behind what they do. People who belong to the Audio Engineering Society typically have specific education and training that qualifies them to assess sound quality of components. Neither you nor Zap (nor I, for that matter) have any such training or edcuation, therefore, you are not qualified to assess sound quality of any components with your ears alone.

As for that "Person A, Person B" comment, you succeeded in making my point (unintentionally, I assume ) and shooting even more holes in your argument. If people have "different tastes," that has nothing to do with the sound reproduction performance of a speaker -- credible lab measurements determine (for the most part) how accurately a speaker reproduces the signal fed to it. If "Person A" listens to a cheapy, lousy speaker with terrible specs and pronounces it to be better than another speaker that has vastly superior specs, does that mean the lousy speaker is better because Person A just 'likes' its better? No -- it means that the lousy speaker is inferior and the listener doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

You may be qualified to state what 'sounds good to you,' but so what? Whatever your "different tastes" are, that has nothing to do with the actual quality of an audio component.

clearly our buyer here likes boomy bass for example.

Sigh ... clearly wrong again. :roll:

I like how you clearly define what's a "home threater" speaker and what's a "computer" speaker. No, these are "sub-sat" speakers, speakers in a similar price range with very similar characteristics. The fact that one requires a $6 RCA to stereo mini connector is not a valid reason to dissmiss it as being in the same class.

Wrong again. One set is designed for, and marketed as, home speakers designed to be driven by a component amplifier, and associated componentry, in a larger listening room than one would typically use computer speakers. The other is designed for, and marketed as, computer speakers to be driven via a computer sound card and an amplifier housed within the subwoofer, and in a comparatively smaller listening room than one would have with a home theater setup (a living room or actual home theater, for example). I could easily find dozens of home theater speaker "satellites," costing many times the price of computer speakers, that would blow away anything Logitech is capable of making, but that would be unfair. Apples and oranges.

BTW Ken, don't want to bust your bubble but there are no such thing as "professional audio reviewers." It's just a bunch of people who get small compensation on their free time to write about their hobby, you think they aren't biased?

Your ignorance here is nothing short of astonishing. David Ranada, Ian Masters, Ken Pohlmann, Daniel Kumin, and many others are, in fact, professional audio reviewers with degrees in audio engineering and related fields. Mr. Ranada's resume, in particular, is beyond impressive. Your stupid remark is an insult to those folks and to everyone whose accomplishments in the field of audio deserve recognition, praise and appreciation. What are you, like 16 years old or something? I suggest you pick up an issue of Sound & Vision magazine, or The Absolute Sound sometime if you want to read some real audio reviews. Then you can come back to this board and apologize for your ignorant comments (if you're man enough).

And it's their level of expertise that's sorely lacking in the world of computer audio (and computer hardware reviews in general, for that matter). Since established, credible audio magazines don't often review computer audio components, we're left with reviewers on computer hardware sites like Tom's or CNET or Anandtech or whatever. And what we get from these places is, typically, amateurs with little or no qualifications to review computer audio equipment. Therefore, it's difficult to really determine which components truly perform better. And therefore, we get threads like this that ultimately amount to not much more than a waste of everybody's time. :laugh:

Answer: who is going to waste their time reviewing a sub-$400 sub/mini-sat system?

Okay, whether it would be a "waste of time" is debatable, but I assume the reason is that computer audio is not considered a truly high fidelity medium for all but a very small percentage of users & enthusiasts. The average adolescent gamer geek or MP3 hound doesn't care about true audio quality, nor does he/she have the ears to recognize the difference between good and poor speakers anyway, so I guess there wouldn't be a large audience for such reviews. That's my guess as to why we don't see reviews of $400 sub/mini-sat systems.

Stop Bashing Logitech just because they are a niche product alone with Cambridge and Klipsch, who all appeal to different masses.

I haven't bashed Logitech because they're a niche product [where did you get that???? ]. The only way in which I've "bashed" them at all, AFAIK, is in response to their intentionally dishonest refusal to post a +/- qualfier for their frequency response curve or a distortion spec for their speakers. Without a +/- qualifier, the FR range is 100% meaningless and they know it. As they do by also ommitting any distortion specs, they leave out the +/- qualifier intentionally because they're hiding something, and the fact that you either can't or won't recognize this and call them on it only confirms your obvious bias towards Logitech. Why you're biased in favor of a company that does this and biased against the company that does publish honest specs is beyond me. Perhaps you can explain to me and everyone else reading this thread why this is.

And what do you mean they "all appeal to different masses"? Seriously, what on earth does that mean?

Zap's ears are qualified to assess speaker quality because he is the customer.

100% incorrect. Zap is "qualified," if that's how you wanna describe it, to decide which speakers he likes best and wants to buy. But that could have nothing whatsoever to do with the speakers' quality. Some people like boomy but inaccurate bass, some people like overly bright but inaccurate highs, some people like "warm" but inaccurate midranges ... but does that mean that speakers that exhibit those characteristics are of higher "quality" than more accurate ones just because some person likes them better? No -- it means the person listening to them is ignorant and unqualified to assess the speakers' actual quality. Speaker quality is, by and large, NOT subjective -- measureable performance is what it is. The only thing that is subjective is the person(s) doing the listening. Just as a Kia Rio is not a better car than a Porsche Carrerra just because there's prolly some person out there who likes the Kia better, a lousy speaker is not better than a great speaker just become some person "likes" it better. :roll:

(And no, I'm not referring to Logitech or Klipsch speakers with that last sentence. I'm speaking in general terms.)

Okay, I think we've beat this subject into the ground and then some. We could both go back & forth here and answer each other tit for tat for the next month, but nothing's likely to change. I'll bow out of this thread now, and you can have the last word.

Edited, as usual, to fix a typo.

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: Ken90630

Don't worry Ken, Kobe likes to rip apart other peoples opinions just to spite you. He can't try to make a point without finding someone elses perfectly valid opinion to bitch and moan about. My opinion, just ignore him.

 

[jamesch]

Wow, what an incredible suck up.

Hey Kobe, don't worry about rleemhui, he just gives hot stone massages every week to different lover.

 

[LED]

Originally posted by: DarkTXKnight
wow, all this from a simple question.... and I ended up buying one of each anyway man I love this site!!!

LMAO...way to go Bro

 

[keeleysam]

Originally posted by: Mr N8
Logitech Z-5300e would be a great 5.1 choice. I've listened to Klipsch speakers and Logitechs, and I guess I don't understand why the Klipsch speakers are so highly loved. They were good, but I don't think they were good enough to justify the extra dough.

:thumbsup:

 

[PurdueRy]

Originally posted by: jamesch
Wow, what an incredible suck up.

Hey Kobe, don't worry about rleemhui, he just gives hot stone massages every week to different lover.

wow....or I just don't care for how Kobe posts. He seems to find the need to disagree with everything people say. You would know me well considering your massive amount of posts. Kobe was arguing points that were absolutely wrong. Sorry that I don't just let that go.

 

[Zap Brannigan]

Dammit; I missed a cameo apearence by Ken!