I'm looking at some inexpensive computer speakers (Creative I-Trigue
L3500), clearly not nearly as nice as the multiple thousand dollar
Pioneer home stereo system 120 W per channel speakers I have owned.
So I asked for opinions about those speakers and some say "they
suck, they have frequency dropout in the low mid range". At the same
time, I have heard a multitude of positive comments which say the
opposite.

Seems to me that anyone who is technically inclined and interested
could easily test speakers for frequency dropout, at very little
cost.

.... make a frequency sweep recording

.... play that recording through different speaker systems

.... make a recording of that playback

.... make a graph of the frequency responses in the recordings

I'm sure there are important variables, but a basic test seems
straightforward, easy, and inexpensive.

Thank you.

"John Doe" wrote ...
I'm looking at some inexpensive computer speakers (Creative I-Trigue
L3500), clearly not nearly as nice as the multiple thousand dollar
Pioneer home stereo system 120 W per channel speakers I have owned.
So I asked for opinions about those speakers and some say "they
suck, they have frequency dropout in the low mid range". At the same
time, I have heard a multitude of positive comments which say the
opposite.

Seems to me that anyone who is technically inclined and interested
could easily test speakers for frequency dropout, at very little
cost.

... make a frequency sweep recording
... play that recording through different speaker systems
... make a recording of that playback
... make a graph of the frequency responses in the recordings

I'm sure there are important variables, but a basic test seems
straightforward, easy, and inexpensive.

Go for it. Much of the results depends on your immediate
environment, anyway, so only a measurement of your own
setup would be valid for you. You can Google for one of
the applications that generates frequency sweeps and hear
the crossover gap(s) and ragged response for yourself.

Most people who do this sort of thing on a regular basis
would consider it a waste of time on a set of cheap plastic
"comptuer speakers". But there are some "reviews" of
these kinds of products which include some rudimentary
"measurements".

Note that real measurements must be done in a place and/
or manner which eliminates the local environment where
the test is conducted. (i.e. inside an anechoic chamber,
or using test methodology which eliminates environmental
reflections, noise, etc. like LMS, et.al.)

Richard Crowley wrote:

"John Doe" wrote ...

I'm looking at some inexpensive computer speakers (Creative I-Trigue
L3500), clearly not nearly as nice as the multiple thousand dollar
Pioneer home stereo system 120 W per channel speakers I have owned.
So I asked for opinions about those speakers and some say "they
suck, they have frequency dropout in the low mid range". At the same
time, I have heard a multitude of positive comments which say the
opposite.
Seems to me that anyone who is technically inclined and interested
could easily test speakers for frequency dropout, at very little
cost.
... make a frequency sweep recording
... play that recording through different speaker systems
... make a recording of that playback
... make a graph of the frequency responses in the recordings

I'm sure there are important variables, but a basic test seems
straightforward, easy, and inexpensive.


Go for it. Much of the results depends on your immediate
environment, anyway, so only a measurement of your own setup would be
valid for you. You can Google for one of
the applications that generates frequency sweeps and hear the crossover
gap(s) and ragged response for yourself.

Most people who do this sort of thing on a regular basis would consider
it a waste of time on a set of cheap plastic "comptuer speakers". But
there are some "reviews" of these kinds of products which include some
rudimentary
"measurements".
Note that real measurements must be done in a place and/
or manner which eliminates the local environment where the test is
conducted. (i.e. inside an anechoic chamber, or using test methodology
which eliminates environmental reflections, noise, etc. like LMS, et.al.)

http://www.trueaudio.com/

--
Dirk

The Consensus:-
The political party for the new millenium
http://www.theconsensus.org

Dirk Bruere at Neopax wrote:


http://www.trueaudio.com/

Thanks.

I'm not sure why some audiophiles are offended by the mention of
computer speakers. Nonamplified speakers have been around for a very
long time, so I guess it's part immaturity. I guess a stand-alone
amplifier is best, but including an amplifier in the speaker box
probably is better than including the amplifier in a receiver. One
very cool thing about modern/amplified computer speakers (which in
fact vary greatly in quality) is that you can hook them up to almost
any device, unlike conventional unamplified speakers. Computer
speakers can be used for a wide variety of devices which include
earphone/headphone output. The computer speakers you replace
oftentimes do well plugged into your TV set to very easily improve
TV audio quality. Whether bad sound makes your ears cringe with pain
depends at least in part on what you expect from the device you're
listening to.

"John Doe" wrote ...
I'm not sure why some audiophiles are offended by the
mention of computer speakers. Nonamplified speakers
have been around for a very long time, so I guess it's
part immaturity.

No, the difference is *not* passive vs. active speakers.
Many people here (and in the pro audio business in general)
use powered monitors. Several of them are considered to
be "best in class" and even "reference quality".

I guess a stand-alone amplifier is best, but including an
amplifier in the speaker box probably is better than including
the amplifier in a receiver.

No, an external amplifier is NOT necessarily "best".
Some of the highest-regarded monitor speakers include
bi-amped (active, line-level crossover), internal amplifiers.

The reaction you note is due to the abysmal quality of
virtually all speakers designed for the "computer market".

One very cool thing about modern/amplified computer
speakers .......

All of which is equally true for quality, active speakers as
well as for toy plastic "computer speakers".

I challenge you to do a simple A/B comparison between
ANY "computer speaker" and a real, active audio monitor
speaker. It will be immediately obvious why there is such
distain for the whole genre of "computer speakers".

"Richard Crowley" rcrowley xpr7t.net wrote:

"John Doe" wrote ...
I'm not sure why some audiophiles are offended by the
mention of computer speakers. Nonamplified speakers
have been around for a very long time, so I guess it's
part immaturity.

No, the difference is *not* passive vs. active speakers.
Many people here (and in the pro audio business in general)
use powered monitors. Several of them are considered to
be "best in class" and even "reference quality".

Best in class of powered monitors? Are you playing semantics?


I guess a stand-alone amplifier is best, but including an
amplifier in the speaker box probably is better than including
the amplifier in a receiver.

No, an external amplifier is NOT necessarily "best".

Is the word "best" supposed to be difficult to understand?


Some of the highest-regarded monitor speakers include
bi-amped (active, line-level crossover), internal amplifiers.

The reaction you note is due to the abysmal quality of
virtually all speakers designed for the "computer market".

That's obviously a personal problem. In fact, there is a huge
difference among computer speakers, and it's obvious. The best
computer speakers aren't the best for every application, but no
computer literate person would expect them to be.

In fact, some computer speakers sound much better than some speakers
designed for the stereo system market. Go figure.


One very cool thing about modern/amplified computer
speakers .......

All of which is equally true for quality, active speakers as
well as for toy plastic "computer speakers".

Why did you snip the context? And there's nothing difficult to
understand about the phrase "computer speakers". Sometimes also
referred to as "multimedia speakers". You can tell because they are
denoted by decimal numbers like 2.1 and 5.1 and so on.


I challenge you to do a simple A/B comparison between
ANY "computer speaker" and a real, active audio monitor
speaker. It will be immediately obvious why there is such
distain for the whole genre of "computer speakers".

Apparently, for some the *disdain* is out of lofty ignorance. In
fact, not all computer speakers are made of plastic. Not all
computer speakers sound the same. Most computer speakers sound
better than TV speakers. As I said, and you snipped, computer
speakers can be very handy for connecting to a multitude of devices
which include a simple earphone/headphone output, greatly improving
the sound at a fraction of the cost of your ideal speakers.

Currently, computer speakers aren't the best, but most of us can
adjust our expectations according to the device we're listening to.

If you're trolling for an explanation about why computer speakers on
average are worse than stereo system speakers, the reason is the
application demand. Most computer users need to hear sounds, special
effects, and some music. A few need no sound at all. Most people who
buy stereo systems are interested in quality music. The supply
follows the demand in a market economy.

However, there have been great advances in computer speakers over
the years. The first IBM PC didn't even have speakers or sound
output. My computer is light years ahead of my prior multi-thousand
dollars stereo systems for handling music. I would much rather have
music coming from my computer speakers than some functionally
crippled stereo system. I can do very cool stuff with sound, music,
and even multimedia on my computer that I never would have
dreamed of doing with my old hi-fi stereo systems.











Path: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prod igy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!ne wscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed.cw.n et!cw.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.de!feed.news.schlund.de!schlund.de!news. addix.net!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.gigan ews.com!sn-ams-06!sn-xt-ams-03!sn-post-ams-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Richard Crowley" rcrowley xpr7t.net
Newsgroups: rec.audio.tech
Subject: Easy way to test speakers?
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 19:15:40 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: 11s10uv3pcprjd6 corp.supernews.com
References: Xns97448FAD8B7CEfollydom 207.115.17.102 11s08os1v73jkd2 corp.supernews.com 42asqmF1i3ugmU1 individual.net Xns9744CEE9D7D73follydom 207.115.17.102
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 32
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com rec.audio.tech:226662

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
"Richard Crowley" rcrowley xpr7t.net wrote:

"John Doe" wrote ...
I'm not sure why some audiophiles are offended by the
mention of computer speakers. Nonamplified speakers
have been around for a very long time, so I guess it's
part immaturity.

No, the difference is *not* passive vs. active speakers.
Many people here (and in the pro audio business in general)
use powered monitors. Several of them are considered to
be "best in class" and even "reference quality".

Best in class of powered monitors? Are you playing semantics?

No. Go ahead. Ask the experts here what are considered
to be the "best" nearfield monitors. You will find the list
to include several (or even the majority) self-powered
variety.



I guess a stand-alone amplifier is best, but including an
amplifier in the speaker box probably is better than including
the amplifier in a receiver.

No, an external amplifier is NOT necessarily "best".

Is the word "best" supposed to be difficult to understand?


Some of the highest-regarded monitor speakers include
bi-amped (active, line-level crossover), internal amplifiers.

The reaction you note is due to the abysmal quality of
virtually all speakers designed for the "computer market".

That's obviously a personal problem. In fact, there is a huge
difference among computer speakers, and it's obvious. The best
computer speakers aren't the best for every application, but no
computer literate person would expect them to be.

Fortunately, you don't have to take my word for it.
Go to groups.google.com and search back the last
few years and see what the collective wisdom is
when it comes to "computer speakers".


In fact, some computer speakers sound much better than some speakers
designed for the stereo system market. Go figure.

Name them.



One very cool thing about modern/amplified computer
speakers .......

All of which is equally true for quality, active speakers as
well as for toy plastic "computer speakers".

Why did you snip the context?

Because nothing you said is limited to "computer speakers"

And there's nothing difficult to
understand about the phrase "computer speakers". Sometimes also
referred to as "multimedia speakers". You can tell because they are
denoted by decimal numbers like 2.1 and 5.1 and so on.

And that is part of the problem. How much quality do you
think you are getting for your $100 or $250 or even $500
when you split it 5.1 ways? 7.1 ways? "Computer speakers
are about what looks cool, fits next to your monitor, and
has as many channels as they think you will buy.

Apparently, for some the *disdain* is out of lofty ignorance. In
fact, not all computer speakers are made of plastic.

It is "poetic license". All the wood in the forest doesn't
make a 5-inch driver into a decent "subwoofer".

Not all
computer speakers sound the same. Most computer
speakers sound better than TV speakers.

Are you trolling us? Lookup the expression "damning
with feint praise".

As I said, and you snipped, computer
speakers can be very handy for connecting to a multitude of devices
which include a simple earphone/headphone output, greatly improving
the sound at a fraction of the cost of your ideal speakers.

And we do exactly the same thing with powered monitors
which run circles around any "computer speaker" you can
name. And frequently at lower prices.

Currently, computer speakers aren't the best, but most of us can
adjust our expectations according to the device we're listening to.

Fine, if you just want to hear bleeps and explosions from
your favorite shoot-em-up game, go for it. You might want
to take your discussion to a computer or gaming forum.
Good luck.

If you're trolling for an explanation about why computer speakers on
average are worse than stereo system speakers, the reason is the
application demand. Most computer users need to hear sounds, special
effects, and some music. A few need no sound at all. Most people who
buy stereo systems are interested in quality music. The supply
follows the demand in a market economy.

However, there have been great advances in computer speakers over
the years.

They look much cooler. They have many more channels. They
have "subwoofers". They still sound terrible. In fact some of
the newest and coolest-looking ones actually sound worse than
those of several years ago.

The first IBM PC didn't even have speakers or sound
output. My computer is light years ahead of my prior multi-thousand
dollars stereo systems for handling music. I would much rather have
music coming from my computer speakers than some functionally
crippled stereo system. I can do very cool stuff with sound, music,
and even multimedia on my computer that I never would have
dreamed of doing with my old hi-fi stereo systems.

Suggest connecting even the most modest "bookshelf stereo"
speakers to your computer and hear what you've been missing.

"Richard Crowley" rcrowley xpr7t.net wrote:

"John Doe" jdoe usenet.love.invalid wrote in message
news:Xns9744E9D9ABD72follydom 207.115.17.102...
"Richard Crowley" rcrowley xpr7t.net wrote:


Some of the highest-regarded monitor speakers include bi-amped
(active, line-level crossover), internal amplifiers. The
reaction you note is due to the abysmal quality of virtually all
speakers designed for the "computer market".

That's obviously a personal problem. In fact, there is a huge
difference among computer speakers, and it's obvious. The best
computer speakers aren't the best for every application, but no
computer literate person would expect them to be.

Fortunately, you don't have to take my word for it. Go to
groups.google.com and search back the last few years and see what
the collective wisdom is when it comes to "computer speakers".

Computer sound and multimedia has improved greatly over the last few
years.


In fact, some computer speakers sound much better than some
speakers designed for the stereo system market. Go figure.

Name them.

There are lots of cheap stereo system speakers.


And there's nothing difficult to understand about the phrase
"computer speakers". Sometimes also referred to as "multimedia
speakers". You can tell because they are denoted by decimal
numbers like 2.1 and 5.1 and so on.

And that is part of the problem. How much quality do you think
you are getting for your $100 or $250 or even $500 when you split
it 5.1 ways? 7.1 ways? "Computer speakers are about what looks
cool, fits next to your monitor, and has as many channels as they
think you will buy.

There are lots of 2.1 speaker systems. Sounds like good innovation
to me. If base is nondirectional, why have bass speakers in both
cabinets? (Note: I'm not arguing that the typical 2.1 speaker set
includes a good bass speaker.)

Trying to look cool isn't necessarily wasteful if it means leaving
the tweeter covers off. I suppose looking cool complements the fact
computers are multimedia devices, not just sound. Then again, I'm
sure some hi-fi stereo's go to lengths to look cool. Brushed
aluminum used to look cool.


It is "poetic license". All the wood in the forest doesn't make a
5-inch driver into a decent "subwoofer".

Subwoofer is the idea so you really don't have to put quotes around
it.


Not all computer speakers sound the same. Most computer speakers
sound better than TV speakers.

Are you trolling us?

No, actually I wanted a little discussion about testing speakers.
Seems like it would be pretty easy. Instead I got your "all computer
speakers are plastic crap" venting.


As I said, and you snipped, computer speakers can be very handy
for connecting to a multitude of devices which include a simple
earphone/headphone output, greatly improving the sound at a
fraction of the cost of your ideal speakers.

And we do exactly the same thing with powered monitors which run
circles around any "computer speaker" you can name. And
frequently at lower prices.

If that were true, you could name them them easier than I could name
them. But you don't.


Currently, computer speakers aren't the best, but most of us can
adjust our expectations according to the device we're listening
to.

Fine, if you just want to hear bleeps and explosions from your
favorite shoot-em-up game, go for it. You might want to take your
discussion to a computer or gaming forum. Good luck.

While playing a game, one does not look at the speakers. So I'm not
sure why fancy looks would be better than great sounds. Apparently
you haven't played modern computer games if you think that bleeps
and explosions are the current level of gaming sound complexity.

"See the world, they said..."


If you're trolling for an explanation about why computer speakers
on average are worse than stereo system speakers, the reason is
the application demand. Most computer users need to hear sounds,
special effects, and some music. A few need no sound at all. Most
people who buy stereo systems are interested in quality music.
The supply follows the demand in a market economy.

However, there have been great advances in computer speakers over
the years.

They look much cooler. They have many more channels. They have
"subwoofers". They still sound terrible. In fact some of the
newest and coolest-looking ones actually sound worse than those of
several years ago.

That's just nonsense. Obviously, for whatever strange reason, you
have a serious need to bash computer speakers. If you think the
market needs better, why don't you go into business designing and
manufacturing them. You could disguise them as very cool looking
speakers.


The first IBM PC didn't even have speakers or sound output. My
computer is light years ahead of my prior multi-thousand dollars
stereo systems for handling music. I would much rather have music
coming from my computer speakers than some functionally crippled
stereo system. I can do very cool stuff with sound, music, and
even multimedia on my computer that I never would have dreamed of
doing with my old hi-fi stereo systems.

Suggest connecting even the most modest "bookshelf stereo"
speakers to your computer and hear what you've been missing.

I guess you missed the part about me having 120 W per channel
Pioneer stereo systems, including floor standing speaker cabinets
with big bass speakers. That was life before personal computing.











Path: newssvr14.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst01.news.prod igy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!ne wscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu. edu!newsfeed.news2me.com!sn-xt-sjc-15!sn-xt-sjc-09!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Richard Crowley" rcrowley xpr7t.net
Newsgroups: rec.audio.tech
Subject: Easy way to test speakers?
Date: Sat, 7 Jan 2006 21:36:44 -0800
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: 11s197i9oli8edb corp.supernews.com
References: Xns97448FAD8B7CEfollydom 207.115.17.102 11s08os1v73jkd2 corp.supernews.com 42asqmF1i3ugmU1 individual.net Xns9744CEE9D7D73follydom 207.115.17.102 11s10uv3pcprjd6 corp.supernews.com Xns9744E9D9ABD72follydom 207.115.17.102
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Complaints-To: abuse supernews.com
Lines: 135
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com rec.audio.tech:226666

First, to answer your actual question, the best way to test a speaker
is to run white or pink noise through it, put a test microphone in
front of the speaker and then run that through a spectrum analyzer.
There are cheap test mics out there (I have been hearing about a good
cheap one, but forget the name - search at
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...=rec.audio.pro
for more info on that).

A good freeware tone generator is the audio editing program called
Audacity. It's easily available free on the web.

Even without a spectrum analyzer and mic, you can run the different
tones and see what you can hear. There's a lot of difference between
hearing and the actual, measurable frequency curve, but that will give
you some idea of what is coming out of your speakers.

Now, the computer speaker issue. The reason computer speakers don't
sound as good as excellent home stereo speakers or control monitors is
price. Typical computer speakers cost between $25 and $200. I don't
know of any great speakers at that price, especially amplified ones. I
have a variety of recording monitors which are worth between $3000
(self powered Genelecs) and $500 (passive Tannoy Reveals).

That said, computer speakers can sound pretty good. I have a set of
Altec Lansing computer monitors (2 satelite speakers and a subwoofer).
The list for about $100, and are typically sold for about $50. I got
mine at a yard sale for $5! They are very pleasant to listen to. They
have plenty of bass, and a very nice high end. They're not
particularly loud, but loud enough to enjoy the music in a normal room.

The basic reason that many of these computer speakers are missing the
low mids is size. The very small satelite speakers aren't big enough
to let the lower frequencies develop in the cabinet. The subwoofer is
tuned to produce only low bass. That leaves a hole in the lower mids.
This is a problem with virtually all very small speaker systems (you'll
see the same problem with Cambridge Soundworks home speakers). I sure
that some of the fancy designs from Genelec or Bose have used complex
computer chips to fix this problem, but they cost pretty much.

John,

I'm sure there are important variables, but a basic test seems
straightforward, easy, and inexpensive.

Testing loudspeakers is anything but straight forward. First, as soon as you
put them in a room the room's severe resonances and destructive interference
will cause the low end to vary by 30 dB or more. The speaker could be
perfectly flat, but you'd never know it because of the room. Then there's
the issue of comb filtering, which causes additional peaks and deep nulls at
higher frequencies. Even if you tested outdoors on a quiet day, it's still
not trivial. One of the most important loudspeaker specs is distortion, and
that's not easy to measure either. Just as important is off-axis response,
and that requires many separate measurements. And all the tests have to be
done with a high quality small diaphragm condenser microphone. Cheap
microphones roll off and start to vary as low as a few KHz.

This is not to discourage you from experimenting! But understand there's
MUCH more to testing loudspeakers than sticking a microphone in front and
sweeping some sine waves.

--Ethan

"John Doe" wrote in message


There are lots of 2.1 speaker systems. Sounds like good
innovation to me. If base is nondirectional, why have
bass speakers in both cabinets? (Note: I'm not arguing
that the typical 2.1 speaker set includes a good bass
speaker.)

A 2.1 speaker system hasn't been an innovation for more than 40 years.

The first commercial 2.1 system I am aware of was marketed by Weathers in
the late 1950s.

http://www.ce.org/Press/CEA_Pubs/864.asp

"In the late 1950s, Paul Weathers developed and marketed the first consumer
subwoofer/satellite system, a configuration allowing for a pair of small,
unobtrusive stereo speakers and a larger, hideaway subwoofer that delivered
low-bass sound. Today, the sub/sat configuration is an industry standard."

"John Doe" wrote in message


I'm looking at some inexpensive computer speakers
(Creative I-Trigue L3500), clearly not nearly as nice as
the multiple thousand dollar Pioneer home stereo system
120 W per channel speakers I have owned. So I asked for
opinions about those speakers and some say "they suck,
they have frequency dropout in the low mid range". At the
same time, I have heard a multitude of positive comments
which say the opposite.

There's a speaker test facility in the freeware Audio Rightmark program:

http://audio.rightmark.org/download.shtml

"Arny Krueger" arnyk hotpop.com wrote:

"John Doe" jdoe usenet.love.invalid wrote in message
news:Xns9745147A6A9ADfollydom 207.115.17.102

There are lots of 2.1 speaker systems. Sounds like good
innovation to me. If base is nondirectional, why have
bass speakers in both cabinets? (Note: I'm not arguing
that the typical 2.1 speaker set includes a good bass
speaker.)

A 2.1 speaker system hasn't been an innovation for more than 40
years.
The first commercial 2.1 system I am aware of was marketed by
Weathers in the late 1950s.
http://www.ce.org/Press/CEA_Pubs/864.asp
"In the late 1950s, Paul Weathers developed and marketed the first
consumer subwoofer/satellite system, a configuration allowing for
a pair of small, unobtrusive stereo speakers and a larger,
hideaway subwoofer that delivered low-bass sound. Today, the
sub/sat configuration is an industry standard."

Maybe the concept was developed over 40 years ago.
Who did the marketing?

In my hi-fi days, I don't recall seeing any 2.1 speaker systems in
stores.











Path: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy. com!newsdst01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.pro digy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!pr odigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.gigan ews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast .com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 10:29:17 -0600
From: "Arny Krueger" arnyk hotpop.com
Newsgroups: rec.audio.tech
References: Xns97448FAD8B7CEfollydom 207.115.17.102 11s08os1v73jkd2 corp.supernews.com 42asqmF1i3ugmU1 individual.net Xns9744CEE9D7D73follydom 207.115.17.102 11s10uv3pcprjd6 corp.supernews.com Xns9744E9D9ABD72follydom 207.115.17.102 11s197i9oli8edb corp.supernews.com Xns9745147A6A9ADfollydom 207.115.17.102
Subject: Easy way to test speakers?
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 11:29:19 -0500
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670
Message-ID: XdydncWce_DAEl_enZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d comcast.com
Lines: 24
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.241.251.154
X-Trace: sv3-LZZZdh2zAkaKo9tW8oRE9W6Hg3LwSAYbJFArAFVGQkDPvAqoC1 6vTiohJNKvlUeysmdXy7F9S619S2c!zRwkpwNKa0H35Sa79hzX Gz1dwjmhwDxXLDL9LUqMxbccBsnnlSVqHr0DK3r1n6UxzMtPVw PHXpwi!8H6T4noCsJA=
X-Complaints-To: abuse comcast.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca comcast.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com rec.audio.tech:226742

"John Doe" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" arnyk hotpop.com wrote:

"John Doe" jdoe usenet.love.invalid wrote in message
news:Xns9745147A6A9ADfollydom 207.115.17.102

There are lots of 2.1 speaker systems. Sounds like good
innovation to me. If base is nondirectional, why have
bass speakers in both cabinets? (Note: I'm not arguing
that the typical 2.1 speaker set includes a good bass
speaker.)

A 2.1 speaker system hasn't been an innovation for more
than 40
years.
The first commercial 2.1 system I am aware of was
marketed by
Weathers in the late 1950s.
http://www.ce.org/Press/CEA_Pubs/864.asp
"In the late 1950s, Paul Weathers developed and marketed
the first
consumer subwoofer/satellite system, a configuration
allowing for
a pair of small, unobtrusive stereo speakers and a
larger,
hideaway subwoofer that delivered low-bass sound. Today,
the
sub/sat configuration is an industry standard."

Maybe the concept was developed over 40 years ago.

And reiterated many times since.

For just one example, these guys have been doing sub/sats since the mid-70s:

http://www.mksound.com/timeline.htm

Who did the marketing?

At the time the Weathers Sub/Sat speakers were advertised in the major audio
magazines, demoed in stores, and listed in the major catalogs.

In my hi-fi days, I don't recall seeing any 2.1 speaker
systems in stores.

I dunno which stores you visited but I've seen sub/sats in many stores
and/or catalogs every decade since the 50s. I built my first one in the
70s.

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 11:29:19 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"John Doe" wrote in message


There are lots of 2.1 speaker systems. Sounds like good
innovation to me. If base is nondirectional, why have
bass speakers in both cabinets? (Note: I'm not arguing
that the typical 2.1 speaker set includes a good bass
speaker.)

A 2.1 speaker system hasn't been an innovation for more than 40 years.

The first commercial 2.1 system I am aware of was marketed by Weathers in
the late 1950s.

http://www.ce.org/Press/CEA_Pubs/864.asp

"In the late 1950s, Paul Weathers developed and marketed the first consumer
subwoofer/satellite system, a configuration allowing for a pair of small,
unobtrusive stereo speakers and a larger, hideaway subwoofer that delivered
low-bass sound. Today, the sub/sat configuration is an industry standard."

Yup. I owned a set which included a pair of satellites the size and
shape of the Columbia Encyclopedia and a small flat band-pass woofer.
I still have some literature about it around here somewhere. Wonder
what it would sound like to contemporary ears.

Kal

"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Doe" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" arnyk hotpop.com wrote:

"John Doe" jdoe usenet.love.invalid wrote in message
news:Xns9745147A6A9ADfollydom 207.115.17.102

There are lots of 2.1 speaker systems. Sounds like good
innovation to me. If base is nondirectional, why have bass
speakers in both cabinets? (Note: I'm not arguing that the
typical 2.1 speaker set includes a good bass speaker.)

A 2.1 speaker system hasn't been an innovation for more than 40
years. The first commercial 2.1 system I am aware of was
marketed by Weathers in the late 1950s.
http://www.ce.org/Press/CEA_Pubs/864.asp "In the late 1950s,
Paul Weathers developed and marketed the first consumer
subwoofer/satellite system, a configuration allowing for a pair
of small, unobtrusive stereo speakers and a larger, hideaway
subwoofer that delivered low-bass sound. Today, the sub/sat
configuration is an industry standard."

Maybe the concept was developed over 40 years ago.

And reiterated many times since.

For just one example, these guys have been doing sub/sats since
the mid-70s:

http://www.mksound.com/timeline.htm

Who did the marketing?

At the time the Weathers Sub/Sat speakers were advertised in the
major audio magazines, demoed in stores, and listed in the major
catalogs.

Well, umm, okay. I'll take your word for it.


In my hi-fi days, I don't recall seeing any 2.1 speaker systems
in stores.

I dunno which stores you visited

Stores that sell hi-fi speakers.


but I've seen sub/sats in many stores and/or catalogs every decade
since the 50s. I built my first one in the 70s.

I guess I missed it. However, after taking a quick look, apparently
floor standing speakers are pretty much all still multiway speakers
including woofers and are sold in singles or pairs. That appears to
be true with bookshelf speakers as well, which are sold in pairs.

Enjoy.

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Doe" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" arnyk hotpop.com wrote:

"John Doe" jdoe usenet.love.invalid wrote in message
news:Xns9745147A6A9ADfollydom 207.115.17.102

There are lots of 2.1 speaker systems. Sounds like good
innovation to me. If base is nondirectional, why have bass
speakers in both cabinets? (Note: I'm not arguing that the
typical 2.1 speaker set includes a good bass speaker.)

A 2.1 speaker system hasn't been an innovation for more than 40
years. The first commercial 2.1 system I am aware of was
marketed by Weathers in the late 1950s.
http://www.ce.org/Press/CEA_Pubs/864.asp "In the late 1950s,
Paul Weathers developed and marketed the first consumer
subwoofer/satellite system, a configuration allowing for a pair
of small, unobtrusive stereo speakers and a larger, hideaway
subwoofer that delivered low-bass sound. Today, the sub/sat
configuration is an industry standard."

Maybe the concept was developed over 40 years ago.

And reiterated many times since.

For just one example, these guys have been doing sub/sats since
the mid-70s:

http://www.mksound.com/timeline.htm

Who did the marketing?

At the time the Weathers Sub/Sat speakers were advertised in the
major audio magazines, demoed in stores, and listed in the major
catalogs.

Well, umm, okay. I'll take your word for it.


In my hi-fi days, I don't recall seeing any 2.1 speaker systems
in stores.

I dunno which stores you visited

Stores that sell hi-fi speakers.

Did they sell subwoofers?


but I've seen sub/sats in many stores and/or catalogs every decade
since the 50s. I built my first one in the 70s.

I guess I missed it. However, after taking a quick look, apparently
floor standing speakers are pretty much all still multiway speakers
including woofers and are sold in singles or pairs. That appears to
be true with bookshelf speakers as well, which are sold in pairs.

What evolved is that sub-sat systems were often sold as independent
satellites that doubled as the only speakers in a small or medium system.
The subwoofer was sold separately, as an upgrade.

Recently zillions of sub/sat systems have been sold as HTIB and PC speakers.