• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why pay $400 for Klipsch when you can . . .

klipsch speaks are better. some people don't like how a horn sounds, so you might like the sony's better. but sony hasn't made good speaks in years, and only their top end stuff can even compete in its own price range.
 
A couple of reasons really. First, the speakers you show arent magnetically shielded, so if you set up the center channel anywhere near your monitor, you will ruin it. If any of the satellite speakers are anywhere near your case, it could ruin any of the components inside of it.

As is the case with most recievers, their wattage is exaggerated. Im sure the 5.1s would provide more power than this set you show, certainly the sub. The Sony set has a 50W sub, which only goes down to 40hz. The Klipsch 5.1 sub goes down to 29hz, and gives 200W of real power.

You would probably have to spend at least $1000 for speakers AND a reciever to get better quality than the 5.1s can provide.
 


<< First, the speakers you show arent magnetically shielded, so if you set up the center channel anywhere near your monitor, you will ruin it. If any of the satellite speakers are anywhere near your case, it could ruin any of the components inside of it.
 >>



Even with an LCD? Hmm.

Do the Klipsch's have "true" 5.1 support? IE, a coax-in for the digital out of your soundcard?
 


<< A couple of reasons really. First, the speakers you show arent magnetically shielded, so if you set up the center channel anywhere near your monitor, you will ruin it. If any of the satellite speakers are anywhere near your case, it could ruin any of the components inside of it. >>



Um, these speakers are meant to be used close to, if not on top of TVs. I'll bet money at least the three front speakers are magnetically shielded as are most surround sound speakers.
 
Well talking from experience (aiwa is a pos), ht in a box usually yields fair quality speakers (adequate though), I have not researched those sonys at all but you may get higher and wider response than the sonys with your klipsh
 
I purchased the Klipsch 5.1's about a month ago. Damn finest speakers I have listened to in awhile. Well worth the four "C" notes I dropped on them!
 
Well, another major reason is that these speakers (as far as I can tell from the specs) don't have a tweeter. The sony main's and surrounds are using full-range drivers, whereas the Klipsch's have a separate horn that handles the treble frequencies. I haven't heard a good-sounding set of speakers that didn't use either tweeters or horns. Although I haven't heard the Klipsch's, they're the only computer speakers I know of that use either tweeters or horns (the last pair I remember to do so were the Altec ACS-48's, which sounded pretty good for computer speakers).
 
I dont understand why you think that "true 5.1 support" means "coax-in for the digital out of your soundcard". The soundcard does the AC3 to analog conversion, and outputs that to the speakers. That is no different than a reciever doing the AC3 conversion and outputting the analog to the speakers. Either way, analog signals are being sent to the speakers, not digital.
 
I havent personally heard either one. But for years I have owned Klipsch home speakers.. Chorus II, Tangents, K series, etc and I simply cant say enough good about them. Ive owned Bose and they didnt measure up to Klipsch. I can only imagine they do extremely well in any size enclosure.
 
I dont understand why you think that "true 5.1 support" means "coax-in for the digital out of your soundcard". The soundcard does the AC3 to analog conversion, and outputs that to the speakers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that use up a heck of a lot of CPU cycles? Why not let an off-board device do the conversion?
 
The entire DVD decoding process (video and audio) uses about 8% of the CPU when you have a Radeon card. The Radeon card has onboard IVTC. The AC3 stream isnt any more compressed than a MP3.
 


<< I dont understand why you think that "true 5.1 support" means "coax-in for the digital out of your soundcard". The soundcard does the AC3 to analog conversion, and outputs that to the speakers.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that use up a heck of a lot of CPU cycles? Why not let an off-board device do the conversion? >>



Some sound cards do use alot of cpu cycles when processing sound and you can see this in some FPS games when you bench with sound and without sound. The SB Live card decreases your fps ~20-30% but they have been making better processors for sound like the SB Audigy which only decreases fps ~5-12% so your cpu usage isn't as much and you get more out of the sound board.

Sending digital sound directly out isn't going to save you much in cpu cycles considering you are just watching a dvd. Now if you are burning a game, watching a dvd, playing a game, rendering video and what not, you would probably notice that your current cpu is heavily loaded but you wouldn't notice much from just playing a dvd movie. Unless you have your sound source externally connected to the decoder, it's going to be decoded by the sound card and use cpu cycles, but you will not notice them compared to what needs to be done for video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top