Recommendations for Computer Speakers?

[Curmudgeon]

All -

Sorry for the extensive crossposting, but I wasn't sure which group was
best targeted by this request for information and opinions.

Thanks to the generosity of my brother, I have $200 to spend at Amazon
and I have determined that my primary need is a new set of speakers for
my Macintosh. I have loaded my entire CD library into iTunes and would
like to begin using it as the playback-system-of-choice so I can begin
selling off these little silver coasters. Everything's been encoded as
AAC (128 kbps, 44.100 kHz), so the quality should be pretty decent.

I have been running an original Cambridge SoundWorks system until just
recently, but unfortunately it began cutting out on me as it warmed up.
I'm certain that I could have it repaired, but I wanted to see if there
might be a better system available to replace it. (In the meantime, I
have been limited to an original set of Bose Roommates. They make some
noise, but it isn't very pleasing!)

The only demands I'll place on my new system are music reproduction (of
all genres). I am not a game player, nor do I expect to use the system
for surround-sound DVD playback. I just want a set of speakers that I
can plug in, sit back, and enjoy.

Please let me know what you would recommend and, more importantly, what
you'd avoid. If I need to spend a bit more than $200, that's OK.

And for the record, this is a 466 MHz G4 Macintosh running OSX 10.4.11
and iTunes 7.5 (although I can't imagine why any of that should matter
very much).

Cheers, and Happy New Year to all!

Mudge

[jakdedert]

Curmudgeon wrote:
> All -
>
> Sorry for the extensive crossposting, but I wasn't sure which group was
> best targeted by this request for information and opinions.
>
'nuff said. Do some research and get back to us.

jak

[Curmudgeon]

In article >, jakdedert
> wrote:

> Curmudgeon wrote:
> > All -
> >
> > Sorry for the extensive crossposting, but I wasn't sure which group was
> > best targeted by this request for information and opinions.
> >
> 'nuff said. Do some research and get back to us.

Thanks for all your "help" but that's exactly what I'm trying to do. I
don't trust commercial reviews and am looking for the opinions of plain
old users. You want to be contrary? OK, but I'm sure that others will
be more helpful.

Jeers!

Mudge

[jeff]

I have a quicksilver using OS 10.4.11 and what I did was
get an old receiver, one that has jacks for speakers and AUX input.
I got a cable that hooks into the headphone jack of my computer, and
into the AUX of the receiver and I hooked up two old speakers, in my
case, Bose 201, which, although small,and old still produce a great
sound. Everything works great, I have enough power to shake the walls,
and the area where everything is is only about 10-12 feet.
Both the receiver and the speakers are on the floor at my feet,
while the G4 quicksilver is on the desk next to the monitor.
Since I had the speakers, my only cost was $ 40 for the receiver
(found on CRAIGSLIST) and about 6 dollars for the cable.
jeff

Curmudgeon wrote:
> In article >, jakdedert
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Curmudgeon wrote:
>>
>>>All -
>>>
>>>Sorry for the extensive crossposting, but I wasn't sure which group was
>>>best targeted by this request for information and opinions.
>>>
>>
>>'nuff said. Do some research and get back to us.
>
>
> Thanks for all your "help" but that's exactly what I'm trying to do. I
> don't trust commercial reviews and am looking for the opinions of plain
> old users. You want to be contrary? OK, but I'm sure that others will
> be more helpful.
>
> Jeers!
>
> Mudge

[Curmudgeon]

In article <2yyej.1508$jX4.1306@trnddc07>, jeff >
wrote:

> I have a quicksilver using OS 10.4.11 and what I did was
> get an old receiver, one that has jacks for speakers and AUX input.
> I got a cable that hooks into the headphone jack of my computer, and
> into the AUX of the receiver and I hooked up two old speakers, in my
> case, Bose 201, which, although small,and old still produce a great
> sound. Everything works great, I have enough power to shake the walls,
> and the area where everything is is only about 10-12 feet.
> Both the receiver and the speakers are on the floor at my feet,
> while the G4 quicksilver is on the desk next to the monitor.
> Since I had the speakers, my only cost was $ 40 for the receiver
> (found on CRAIGSLIST) and about 6 dollars for the cable.

Thanks, Jeff, but I don't have an old receiver or a pair of old speakers
so I'm looking for the "latest and greatest" computer-oriented system.

Nor am I looking to "shake the walls" but just want a good, accurate set
of speakers to reproduce the music as it should be heard.

I don't particularly care what it costs. I just want a system that will
accurately reproduce Bach's Mass in B minor and U2's "Pride (in the Name
of Love)" in such a way as I can enjoy them as they ought be enjoyed.

Cheers!

Mudge

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article >,
Curmudgeon > wrote:

> Thanks to the generosity of my brother, I have $200 to spend at Amazon
> and I have determined that my primary need is a new set of speakers for
> my Macintosh.

I have had a set of Klipsch ProMedia THX 4.1 speakers connected to my
main workstation here at home (Power Mac G5) for a few years, and they
have been great - enough power, a good sub, and low enough noise:

<http://www.klipsch.com/products/discontinued/details/promedia-4-1.aspx>

Amazon seems to have a selection of Klipsch speakers:

<http://tinyurl.com/2ykkxz>

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

[jakdedert]

Curmudgeon wrote:
> In article >, jakdedert
> > wrote:
>
>> Curmudgeon wrote:
>>> All -
>>>
>>> Sorry for the extensive crossposting, but I wasn't sure which group was
>>> best targeted by this request for information and opinions.
>>>
>> 'nuff said. Do some research and get back to us.
>
> Thanks for all your "help" but that's exactly what I'm trying to do. I
> don't trust commercial reviews and am looking for the opinions of plain
> old users. You want to be contrary? OK, but I'm sure that others will
> be more helpful.
>
> Jeers!
>
> Mudge

Thanks for all your crossposting.

If you can't even do enough research to avoid broadcasting to every
group even remotely connected to the subject, why do you expect someone
to do it for you? 'Computer' speakers generally suck. You're not going
to find any that sound even remotely as good as a decent pair of hifi
speakers and an amp...or decent powered hifi speakers.

Your first line is sufficient to tell that you know xposting to be
undesirable. You could have just stopped there.....

In any case, speakers are extremely subjective, once you get past the
junk. There are dozens of review sites on the web. Google is your
friend. I'm not....

jak

[Curmudgeon]

In article >, jakdedert
> wrote:

> Curmudgeon wrote:
> > In article >, jakdedert
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Curmudgeon wrote:
> >>> All -
> >>>
> >>> Sorry for the extensive crossposting, but I wasn't sure which group was
> >>> best targeted by this request for information and opinions.
> >>>
> >> 'nuff said. Do some research and get back to us.
> >
> > Thanks for all your "help" but that's exactly what I'm trying to do. I
> > don't trust commercial reviews and am looking for the opinions of plain
> > old users. You want to be contrary? OK, but I'm sure that others will
> > be more helpful.
> >
> > Jeers!
> >
> > Mudge
>
> Thanks for all your crossposting.
>
> If you can't even do enough research to avoid broadcasting to every
> group even remotely connected to the subject, why do you expect someone
> to do it for you? 'Computer' speakers generally suck. You're not going
> to find any that sound even remotely as good as a decent pair of hifi
> speakers and an amp...or decent powered hifi speakers.
>
> Your first line is sufficient to tell that you know xposting to be
> undesirable. You could have just stopped there.....
>
> In any case, speakers are extremely subjective, once you get past the
> junk. There are dozens of review sites on the web. Google is your
> friend. I'm not....

Fair enough, JAK. I'll no longer consider you a friend, but I'm sad to
have to do that. Thankfully, there are others who've taken my request
seriously and have given me good information. If you'd had an opinion
about some good powered hifi speakers, I'd have been glad to have heard
it but it seems all you want to do is play "net-nanny" so more power to
you! As I said, I want opinions from real users, not commercial
flacks.

So there you go . . .

Cheers!

Mudge

[Michael Black]

Curmudgeon ) writes:
> In article >, jakdedert
> > wrote:
>
>> Curmudgeon wrote:
>> > In article >, jakdedert
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Curmudgeon wrote:
>> >>> All -
>> >>>
>> >>> Sorry for the extensive crossposting, but I wasn't sure which group was
>> >>> best targeted by this request for information and opinions.
>> >>>
>> >> 'nuff said. Do some research and get back to us.
>> >
>> > Thanks for all your "help" but that's exactly what I'm trying to do. I
>> > don't trust commercial reviews and am looking for the opinions of plain
>> > old users. You want to be contrary? OK, but I'm sure that others will
>> > be more helpful.
>> >
>> > Jeers!
>> >
>> > Mudge
>>
>> Thanks for all your crossposting.
>>
>> If you can't even do enough research to avoid broadcasting to every
>> group even remotely connected to the subject, why do you expect someone
>> to do it for you? 'Computer' speakers generally suck. You're not going
>> to find any that sound even remotely as good as a decent pair of hifi
>> speakers and an amp...or decent powered hifi speakers.
>>
>> Your first line is sufficient to tell that you know xposting to be
>> undesirable. You could have just stopped there.....
>>
>> In any case, speakers are extremely subjective, once you get past the
>> junk. There are dozens of review sites on the web. Google is your
>> friend. I'm not....
>
> Fair enough, JAK. I'll no longer consider you a friend, but I'm sad to
> have to do that. Thankfully, there are others who've taken my request
> seriously and have given me good information. If you'd had an opinion
> about some good powered hifi speakers, I'd have been glad to have heard
> it but it seems all you want to do is play "net-nanny" so more power to
> you! As I said, I want opinions from real users, not commercial
> flacks.
>
Come on, you can't even decide whether this is a computer issue or
an audio issue.

If you had at least narrowed it down to one or the other, you'd find
very likely two very differing answers.

One group is going to go on about the "best computer speakers". The
other will tell you reasonable alternatives that make a lot of
sense if you can get beyond the notion of "computer speakers".

Since you are focused on "computers", you will spend your money
on something that generally isn't all that great, but carries
a premium price tag because they are "computer speakers".

YOu could go out tomorrow, and drop $200 on speakers, and while
they'd not be the best, they'd be better than most "computer speakers".
The amplifier, like someone pointed out, comes free or almost free
on the used market. You don't even have to spend the money on the
speakers, you can find plenty of them used, so you either get better
speakers for the same money when buying used, or don't spend much
of that money. You basically will get a better system than spending
the same amount of "computer speakers".

The common illusion seems to be that people think they need "computer
speakers", the same way now all kinds of "ipod speakers" have risen up.
There is no special requirement, it's just a scheme to sell something
new to consumers. At the very most, "computer speakers" mean a compact
package, which isn't necessarily the best thing for "good sound".

Michael

[xxxxxx]

you need a set of "powered" monitors
look on ebay
look for review of swan divas


--
LD Pierce
PO 86
Gage OK 73843
800 570-1861
"jakdedert" > wrote in message
. ..
> Curmudgeon wrote:
>> In article >, jakdedert
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Curmudgeon wrote:
>>>> All -
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the extensive crossposting, but I wasn't sure which group was
>>>> best targeted by this request for information and opinions.
>>>>
>>> 'nuff said. Do some research and get back to us.
>>
>> Thanks for all your "help" but that's exactly what I'm trying to do. I
>> don't trust commercial reviews and am looking for the opinions of plain
>> old users. You want to be contrary? OK, but I'm sure that others will
>> be more helpful.
>>
>> Jeers!
>>
>> Mudge
>
> Thanks for all your crossposting.
>
> If you can't even do enough research to avoid broadcasting to every group
> even remotely connected to the subject, why do you expect someone to do it
> for you? 'Computer' speakers generally suck. You're not going to find
> any that sound even remotely as good as a decent pair of hifi speakers and
> an amp...or decent powered hifi speakers.
>
> Your first line is sufficient to tell that you know xposting to be
> undesirable. You could have just stopped there.....
>
> In any case, speakers are extremely subjective, once you get past the
> junk. There are dozens of review sites on the web. Google is your
> friend. I'm not....
>
> jak

[Paul Förster]

Hi Mudge,

On 2008-01-01 21:55:45 +0100, Curmudgeon > said:

> The only demands I'll place on my new system are music reproduction (of
> all genres). I am not a game player, nor do I expect to use the system
> for surround-sound DVD playback. I just want a set of speakers that I
> can plug in, sit back, and enjoy.

.... I have the Soundsticks II from Harmann Kardon. They rock...

http://www.harmankardon.com/product_detail.aspx?cat=MME&sType=PCS&prod=SOUNDSTICKSII

I

gave them also to a friend as a birthday present and she likes them
just as much as I do. Hope this helps.
--
cul8er

Paul

[Eeyore]

Paul Förster wrote:

> Hi Mudge,
>
> Curmudgeon > said:
>
> > The only demands I'll place on my new system are music reproduction (of
> > all genres). I am not a game player, nor do I expect to use the system
> > for surround-sound DVD playback. I just want a set of speakers that I
> > can plug in, sit back, and enjoy.
>
> ... I have the Soundsticks II from Harmann Kardon. They rock...
>
> http://www.harmankardon.com/product_detail.aspx?cat=MME&sType=PCS&prod=SOUNDSTICKSII

Absurd rubbish made to look 'pretty' only.

Graham

[Felix[_6_]]

Logitech's Z-10 speakers are exceedingly stylish, sound great and are tightly integrated with most Windows-based software audio players."

http://www.fleximusic.com

"Curmudgeon" > wrote in message ...
> All -
>
> Sorry for the extensive crossposting, but I wasn't sure which group was
> best targeted by this request for information and opinions.
>
> Thanks to the generosity of my brother, I have $200 to spend at Amazon
> and I have determined that my primary need is a new set of speakers for
> my Macintosh. I have loaded my entire CD library into iTunes and would
> like to begin using it as the playback-system-of-choice so I can begin
> selling off these little silver coasters. Everything's been encoded as
> AAC (128 kbps, 44.100 kHz), so the quality should be pretty decent.
>
> I have been running an original Cambridge SoundWorks system until just
> recently, but unfortunately it began cutting out on me as it warmed up.
> I'm certain that I could have it repaired, but I wanted to see if there
> might be a better system available to replace it. (In the meantime, I
> have been limited to an original set of Bose Roommates. They make some
> noise, but it isn't very pleasing!)
>
> The only demands I'll place on my new system are music reproduction (of
> all genres). I am not a game player, nor do I expect to use the system
> for surround-sound DVD playback. I just want a set of speakers that I
> can plug in, sit back, and enjoy.
>
> Please let me know what you would recommend and, more importantly, what
> you'd avoid. If I need to spend a bit more than $200, that's OK.
>
> And for the record, this is a 466 MHz G4 Macintosh running OSX 10.4.11
> and iTunes 7.5 (although I can't imagine why any of that should matter
> very much).
>
> Cheers, and Happy New Year to all!
>
> Mudge

[Jeff Wiseman]

These are definately out of your desired price range but they may
be of interest to you if you are willing to save a little more :-)

http://www.xhifi.com/

- Jeff


Curmudgeon wrote:
> All -
>
> Sorry for the extensive crossposting, but I wasn't sure which group was
> best targeted by this request for information and opinions.
>
> Thanks to the generosity of my brother, I have $200 to spend at Amazon
> and I have determined that my primary need is a new set of speakers for
> my Macintosh. I have loaded my entire CD library into iTunes and would
> like to begin using it as the playback-system-of-choice so I can begin
> selling off these little silver coasters. Everything's been encoded as
> AAC (128 kbps, 44.100 kHz), so the quality should be pretty decent.
>
> I have been running an original Cambridge SoundWorks system until just
> recently, but unfortunately it began cutting out on me as it warmed up.
> I'm certain that I could have it repaired, but I wanted to see if there
> might be a better system available to replace it. (In the meantime, I
> have been limited to an original set of Bose Roommates. They make some
> noise, but it isn't very pleasing!)
>
> The only demands I'll place on my new system are music reproduction (of
> all genres). I am not a game player, nor do I expect to use the system
> for surround-sound DVD playback. I just want a set of speakers that I
> can plug in, sit back, and enjoy.
>
> Please let me know what you would recommend and, more importantly, what
> you'd avoid. If I need to spend a bit more than $200, that's OK.
>
> And for the record, this is a 466 MHz G4 Macintosh running OSX 10.4.11
> and iTunes 7.5 (although I can't imagine why any of that should matter
> very much).
>
> Cheers, and Happy New Year to all!
>
> Mudge


--
Jeff Wiseman
to reply, just remove ALLTHESPAM

[Madwen]

In article >,
Curmudgeon > wrote:

> Thanks to the generosity of my brother, I have $200 to spend at Amazon
> and I have determined that my primary need is a new set of speakers for
> my Macintosh.

I have a pair of Apple speakers attached to my G4 Quicksilver. They
work great although one walked right off the top of my bookshelf and
nearly hit me in the head when I was playing Placebo's Meds album one
time. So I put it on one of those rubber jar opener thingies and it
hasn't moved since. These are the round, soft-ball sized, lexan
speakers. I don't know what kind Apple has now, if any, but these are
great *for the price*.

We have three other sets of small-type speakers for our iPods: Altec
Lansing, Logitech, and Polk. They ranged in price from about $90 to $130
IIRC. I'd recommend the Altec and Logitech only for talk, however, with
the Logitech being the better of the two models I have. The Polk is the
best of the three and the smallest. My husband uses them for travel
with his iPod (in hotels). The sound quality is absolutely awesome for
such small speakers. He listens primarily to classical. So you might
want to have a look at Polk to see if they might have anything in your
price range. When I finally decide to replace my large old JBL LX-55s,
I'm going to look at Polk. I think I got the little ones at Crutchfield.

<http://www.crutchfield.com>

Be sure to let us know what you finally get and how the sound quality is.

[Curmudgeon]

In article >, Michael Black
> wrote:

> Curmudgeon ) writes:
> >> >>> Sorry for the extensive crossposting, but I wasn't sure which group was
> >> >>> best targeted by this request for information and opinions.

[snip]

> Come on, you can't even decide whether this is a computer issue or
> an audio issue.
>
> If you had at least narrowed it down to one or the other, you'd find
> very likely two very differing answers.
>
> One group is going to go on about the "best computer speakers". The
> other will tell you reasonable alternatives that make a lot of
> sense if you can get beyond the notion of "computer speakers".
>
> Since you are focused on "computers", you will spend your money
> on something that generally isn't all that great, but carries
> a premium price tag because they are "computer speakers".
>
> YOu could go out tomorrow, and drop $200 on speakers, and while
> they'd not be the best, they'd be better than most "computer speakers".
> The amplifier, like someone pointed out, comes free or almost free
> on the used market. You don't even have to spend the money on the
> speakers, you can find plenty of them used, so you either get better
> speakers for the same money when buying used, or don't spend much
> of that money. You basically will get a better system than spending
> the same amount of "computer speakers".
>
> The common illusion seems to be that people think they need "computer
> speakers", the same way now all kinds of "ipod speakers" have risen up.
> There is no special requirement, it's just a scheme to sell something
> new to consumers. At the very most, "computer speakers" mean a compact
> package, which isn't necessarily the best thing for "good sound".

If I were truly focused on "computer speakers" then I probably wouldn't
have posted to the audio groups, but in fact I have been an audiophile
for a very long time and have owned some wonderful loudspeakers (Spica
TC-50s w/Sub; Vandersteen 2Cs) so I know what good sound is. The very
reason I posted to both the mac and audio groups is because I'd like to
hear from both "sides" of the argument.

I've done a lot of surfing this morning and find myself attracted to an
"audio" solution, the M-Audio Studiophile AV-40 Monitors, as well as to
three "computer" solutions, the Altec Lansing FX-4021, the Klipsch Pro-
Media, and the Logitech Z-2300 2.1 systems. All are within my budget.

My workspace is probably better served by a 2.1 system since I've got a
lot of room for a sub but much less for satellites, but the audiophile
in me prefers the elegant simplicity of M-Audio's monitors despite size
concerns.

What to do, what to do . . .

Cheers!

Mudge

[Michael Dines]

Curmudgeon > wrote:

> All -
>
> Sorry for the extensive crossposting, but I wasn't sure which group was
> best targeted by this request for information and opinions.
>
> Thanks to the generosity of my brother, I have $200 to spend at Amazon
> and I have determined that my primary need is a new set of speakers for
> my Macintosh. I have loaded my entire CD library into iTunes and would
> like to begin using it as the playback-system-of-choice so I can begin
> selling off these little silver coasters. Everything's been encoded as
> AAC (128 kbps, 44.100 kHz), so the quality should be pretty decent.
>
> I have been running an original Cambridge SoundWorks system until just
> recently, but unfortunately it began cutting out on me as it warmed up.
> I'm certain that I could have it repaired, but I wanted to see if there
> might be a better system available to replace it. (In the meantime, I
> have been limited to an original set of Bose Roommates. They make some
> noise, but it isn't very pleasing!)
>
> The only demands I'll place on my new system are music reproduction (of
> all genres). I am not a game player, nor do I expect to use the system
> for surround-sound DVD playback. I just want a set of speakers that I
> can plug in, sit back, and enjoy.
>
> Please let me know what you would recommend and, more importantly, what
> you'd avoid. If I need to spend a bit more than $200, that's OK.
>
> And for the record, this is a 466 MHz G4 Macintosh running OSX 10.4.11
> and iTunes 7.5 (although I can't imagine why any of that should matter
> very much).
>
> Cheers, and Happy New Year to all!
>
> Mudge

Rather than 'computer' speakers, check out active near field monitors. A
pair of smallish Roland/Edirols should be in your range and if you eBay
you might get lucky and get Tannoys.

And, if you got digital Rolands, with a soundcard you could output
digital to them and use their d/a converter.

[jakdedert]

Felix wrote:
> Logitech's Z-10 speakers are exceedingly stylish, sound great and are
> tightly integrated with most Windows-based software audio players."
>
> http://www.fleximusic.com

I looked these up:
<http://reviews.cnet.com/pc-speakers/logitech-z-10/4505-3179_7-32062002.html?tag=sub>
The OP has a MAC. These don't work on a MAC, believe it or not.

They're gimmicky USB speakers with 'track indicators' and only 15 watts
per unit--smallish, with no subwoofer. Very little other info is
included except that users report that they 'sound great'. These are
truly 'computer' speakers...with much more attention paid to the
'computer' than the 'speaker' part. IMO, not what someone would want
for their 'playback system of choice'.

BUT, YMMV.....

That's the problem with crossposting to a bunch of different groups.
You get opinions that have no bearing on the original issue, which is
listening to music...on a MAC.

jak
>
> "Curmudgeon" >> wrote in message
> ...
> > All -
> >
> > Sorry for the extensive crossposting, but I wasn't sure which group was
> > best targeted by this request for information and opinions.
> >
> > Thanks to the generosity of my brother, I have $200 to spend at Amazon
> > and I have determined that my primary need is a new set of speakers for
> > my Macintosh. I have loaded my entire CD library into iTunes and would
> > like to begin using it as the playback-system-of-choice so I can begin
> > selling off these little silver coasters. Everything's been encoded as
> > AAC (128 kbps, 44.100 kHz), so the quality should be pretty decent.
> >
> > I have been running an original Cambridge SoundWorks system until just
> > recently, but unfortunately it began cutting out on me as it warmed up.
> > I'm certain that I could have it repaired, but I wanted to see if there
> > might be a better system available to replace it. (In the meantime, I
> > have been limited to an original set of Bose Roommates. They make some
> > noise, but it isn't very pleasing!)
> >
> > The only demands I'll place on my new system are music reproduction (of
> > all genres). I am not a game player, nor do I expect to use the system
> > for surround-sound DVD playback. I just want a set of speakers that I
> > can plug in, sit back, and enjoy.
> >
> > Please let me know what you would recommend and, more importantly, what
> > you'd avoid. If I need to spend a bit more than $200, that's OK.
> >
> > And for the record, this is a 466 MHz G4 Macintosh running OSX 10.4.11
> > and iTunes 7.5 (although I can't imagine why any of that should matter
> > very much).
> >
> > Cheers, and Happy New Year to all!
> >
> > Mudge

[Curmudgeon]

In article >, Curmudgeon
> wrote:

> I've done a lot of surfing this morning and find myself attracted to an
> "audio" solution, the M-Audio Studiophile AV-40 Monitors, as well as to
> three "computer" solutions, the Altec Lansing FX-4021, the Klipsch Pro-
> Media, and the Logitech Z-2300 2.1 systems. All are within my budget.
>
> My workspace is probably better served by a 2.1 system since I've got a
> lot of room for a sub but much less for satellites, but the audiophile
> in me prefers the elegant simplicity of M-Audio's monitors despite size
> concerns.
>
> What to do, what to do . . .

Well, after giving it some serious thought and doing a lot of research,
I decided that the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 system best fit the bill, and I
was able to get it for a terrific price from Amazon so I've just pushed
the "Place My Order" button. It should be here in a week or so. Once
I've had a chance to audition it, I'll let you know how it sounds.

Many thanks to all the folks who took the time to reply and especially
to those who pushed me to do my own research and reach my own decision.

Cheers!

Mudge

[Eeyore]

Curmudgeon wrote:

> Curmudgeon wrote:
>
> > I've done a lot of surfing this morning and find myself attracted to an
> > "audio" solution, the M-Audio Studiophile AV-40 Monitors, as well as to
> > three "computer" solutions, the Altec Lansing FX-4021, the Klipsch Pro-
> > Media, and the Logitech Z-2300 2.1 systems. All are within my budget.
> >
> > My workspace is probably better served by a 2.1 system since I've got a
> > lot of room for a sub but much less for satellites, but the audiophile
> > in me prefers the elegant simplicity of M-Audio's monitors despite size
> > concerns.
> >
> > What to do, what to do . . .
>
> Well, after giving it some serious thought and doing a lot of research,
> I decided that the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 system best fit the bill, and I
> was able to get it for a terrific price from Amazon so I've just pushed
> the "Place My Order" button. It should be here in a week or so. Once
> I've had a chance to audition it, I'll let you know how it sounds.
>
> Many thanks to all the folks who took the time to reply and especially
> to those who pushed me to do my own research and reach my own decision.

I'm sorry to have to say it looks like a truly rubbish choice. I dare say
it'll boom and tizz a bit.

Graham

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article >,
Curmudgeon > wrote:

> Well, after giving it some serious thought and doing a lot of research,
> I decided that the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 system best fit the bill, and I
> was able to get it for a terrific price from Amazon so I've just pushed
> the "Place My Order" button. It should be here in a week or so. Once
> I've had a chance to audition it, I'll let you know how it sounds.

I think you'll like it, if it's anything like my ProMedia 4.1 system. Do
let us know, though. : )

> Many thanks to all the folks who took the time to reply and especially
> to those who pushed me to do my own research and reach my own decision.

Welcome!

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Curmudgeon wrote:
>
> > Well, after giving it some serious thought and doing a lot of research,
> > I decided that the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 system best fit the bill, and I
> > was able to get it for a terrific price from Amazon so I've just pushed
> > the "Place My Order" button. It should be here in a week or so. Once
> > I've had a chance to audition it, I'll let you know how it sounds.
>
> I'm sorry to have to say it looks like a truly rubbish choice. I dare say
> it'll boom and tizz a bit.

<sarcasm>
You are able to determine that just based on looks, huh? Amazing!
</sarcasm>

I, on the other hand, happen to actually *own* the same system (only
mine has four satellites rather than two, and I wouldn't describe it as
"boomy" *or* "tizzy". ; )

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

[Curmudgeon]

In article
>,
Jolly Roger > wrote:

> In article >,
> Curmudgeon > wrote:
>
> > Well, after giving it some serious thought and doing a lot of research,
> > I decided that the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 system best fit the bill, and I
> > was able to get it for a terrific price from Amazon so I've just pushed
> > the "Place My Order" button. It should be here in a week or so. Once
> > I've had a chance to audition it, I'll let you know how it sounds.
>
> I think you'll like it, if it's anything like my ProMedia 4.1 system. Do
> let us know, though. : )
>
> > Many thanks to all the folks who took the time to reply and especially
> > to those who pushed me to do my own research and reach my own decision.
>
> Welcome!

Thanks, JR! You're probably the best-natured guy I've heard from while
I was searching for the right solution. I'm really hoping that the 2.1
system I have on order will meet my needs. After an analysis of what's
available, I am convinced that the Klipsch system is the best answer.

Thank you for steering me in the right direction.

Cheers!

Mudge

[Curmudgeon]

In article
>,
Jolly Roger > wrote:

> In article >,
> Eeyore > wrote:
>
> > Curmudgeon wrote:
> >
> > > Well, after giving it some serious thought and doing a lot of research,
> > > I decided that the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 system best fit the bill, and I
> > > was able to get it for a terrific price from Amazon so I've just pushed
> > > the "Place My Order" button. It should be here in a week or so. Once
> > > I've had a chance to audition it, I'll let you know how it sounds.
> >
> > I'm sorry to have to say it looks like a truly rubbish choice. I dare say
> > it'll boom and tizz a bit.
>
> <sarcasm>
> You are able to determine that just based on looks, huh? Amazing!
> </sarcasm>
>
> I, on the other hand, happen to actually *own* the same system (only
> mine has four satellites rather than two, and I wouldn't describe it as
> "boomy" *or* "tizzy". ; )

;->

Cheers!

Mudge

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article
>,
MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article >,
> Curmudgeon > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > Jolly Roger > wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > Eeyore > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Curmudgeon wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Well, after giving it some serious thought and doing a lot of
> > > > > research,
> > > > > I decided that the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 system best fit the bill, and
> > > > > I
> > > > > was able to get it for a terrific price from Amazon so I've just
> > > > > pushed
> > > > > the "Place My Order" button. It should be here in a week or so.
> > > > > Once
> > > > > I've had a chance to audition it, I'll let you know how it sounds.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry to have to say it looks like a truly rubbish choice. I dare
> > > > say
> > > > it'll boom and tizz a bit.
> > >
> > > <sarcasm>
> > > You are able to determine that just based on looks, huh? Amazing!
> > > </sarcasm>
> > >
> > > I, on the other hand, happen to actually *own* the same system (only
> > > mine has four satellites rather than two, and I wouldn't describe it as
> > > "boomy" *or* "tizzy". ; )
> >
> > ;->
> >
> > Cheers!
>
> I'd be more concerned about matching a sub rated up to 100 Hz with
> satellites rated down to 200. That, and a frequency response spec that
> doesn't specify how lumpy that response is.

I care most about how they actually sound. They sound fine to me for my
use.

Then again, if I were looking for studio monitor quality, I wouldn't
have purchased these in the first place.

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

[Eeyore]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> In article >,
> Eeyore > wrote:
>
> > Curmudgeon wrote:
> >
> > > Well, after giving it some serious thought and doing a lot of research,
> > > I decided that the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 system best fit the bill, and I
> > > was able to get it for a terrific price from Amazon so I've just pushed
> > > the "Place My Order" button. It should be here in a week or so. Once
> > > I've had a chance to audition it, I'll let you know how it sounds.
> >
> > I'm sorry to have to say it looks like a truly rubbish choice. I dare say
> > it'll boom and tizz a bit.
>
> <sarcasm>
> You are able to determine that just based on looks, huh? Amazing!
> </sarcasm>

I can determine it based on the size of the components if nothing else and a
cursory look at the specs.

It's a joke.


> I, on the other hand, happen to actually *own* the same system (only
> mine has four satellites rather than two, and I wouldn't describe it as
> "boomy" *or* "tizzy". ; )

I'm entirely sure it also isn't 'hi-fi' by any stretch of the imagination.
It'll be a bit like Bose I suspect. Designed to appeal to those to whom really
good sound quality isn't important but cute looks are.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Curmudgeon wrote:

> Thank you for steering me in the right direction.

Yet you haven't even heard then yet !

Graham

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Eeyore > wrote:
> >
> > > Curmudgeon wrote:
> > >
> > > > Well, after giving it some serious thought and doing a lot of research,
> > > > I decided that the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 system best fit the bill, and I
> > > > was able to get it for a terrific price from Amazon so I've just pushed
> > > > the "Place My Order" button. It should be here in a week or so. Once
> > > > I've had a chance to audition it, I'll let you know how it sounds.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry to have to say it looks like a truly rubbish choice. I dare say
> > > it'll boom and tizz a bit.
> >
> > <sarcasm>
> > You are able to determine that just based on looks, huh? Amazing!
> > </sarcasm>
>
> I can determine it based on the size of the components if nothing else and a
> cursory look at the specs.
>
> It's a joke.

So by your measurement *all* speaker systems that are not hi fidelity
are jokes... I see...

> > I, on the other hand, happen to actually *own* the same system (only
> > mine has four satellites rather than two, and I wouldn't describe it as
> > "boomy" *or* "tizzy". ; )
>
> I'm entirely sure it also isn't 'hi-fi' by any stretch of the imagination.

Nor did I imply it was. Hi fi may be a requirement for you, but it's not
for everyone on the planet - especially for a computer speaker system.

> It'll be a bit like Bose I suspect. Designed to appeal to those to whom really
> good sound quality isn't important but cute looks are.

I don't think it looks cute at all. And the OP didn't state hi fi as a
requirement. In fact, here's exactly what he said:

In article >,
Curmudgeon > wrote:

> The only demands I'll place on my new system are music reproduction (of
> all genres). I am not a game player, nor do I expect to use the system
> for surround-sound DVD playback. I just want a set of speakers that I
> can plug in, sit back, and enjoy.

The Klipsch speakers I mentioned meet this requirement just fine. They
hapen to reproduce music just fine, and better than a *lot* of other
computer speaker systems.

Get over yourself...

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

[Mike Rosenberg]

Jolly Roger > wrote:

> And the OP didn't state hi fi as a requirement.

No, but perhaps you haven't noticed that this thread is crossposted to
comp.sys.mac.misc, rec.audio.opinion and rec.audio.misc. In the audio
groups, it's reasonable to speak from an audiophile perspective.

--
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/mac.cgi> Mac and geek T-shirts & gifts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/musings.cgi> Muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.net/shop/prius.cgi> Prius shirts/bumper stickers
<http://bogart-tribute.net> Tribute to Humphrey Bogart

[Howard Brazee]

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:25:56 -0500,
(Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

>No, but perhaps you haven't noticed that this thread is crossposted to
>comp.sys.mac.misc, rec.audio.opinion and rec.audio.misc. In the audio
>groups, it's reasonable to speak from an audiophile perspective.

In that case, I will change the topic.

I am willing to spend about $100 for some half-way decent ear pods. I
have spent twice that for earphones, but there are advantages to pods
as well.

Trouble is, comfort is at least as important as sound, and I'm not
spending enough for high end. Bose is the leader now - mainly
because I could go to the Bose store and actually try them. They
were comfortable and had adequate sound.

I bought some $80 ear buds that were highly recommended a few months
ago, but they were very uncomfortable and also quickly broke. This
experience means I won't spend much money without actually trying them
on.

I do use a cheap pair of Sonys when I work out - they don't go in my
ear so far, and have a hook over the ear to not fall off. But their
sound isn't that much better than what I got from Apple.

[Howard Brazee]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:06:25 -0600, MiNe 109
> wrote:

>Here's one place with recommendations:
>
>http://www.headphone.com/guide/by-headphone-type/ear-bud-type/
>
>If you want to try in-ear phones, research Etymotics, Shure, etc.
>
>Stephen

I found the ones here that didn't sound good, were very uncomfortable,
broke soon, and were highly recommended, the Sennheiser CX300-B.

They persuaded me to never buy without trying.

[AZ Nomad]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:39:26 -0700, Howard Brazee > wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 10:06:25 -0600, MiNe 109
> wrote:

>>Here's one place with recommendations:
>>
>>http://www.headphone.com/guide/by-headphone-type/ear-bud-type/
>>
>>If you want to try in-ear phones, research Etymotics, Shure, etc.
>>
>>Stephen

>I found the ones here that didn't sound good, were very uncomfortable,
>broke soon, and were highly recommended, the Sennheiser CX300-B.

>They persuaded me to never buy without trying.

I've yet to own a pair of sennheisers that didn't develop an intermittant
connection at the plug end of the cable within 3-12 months of use. I really
liked their px100 for outdoor use but gave up after three pairs all
developed bad plug connections. I tried to repair one, but the magnet wire
running down the cable is nearly impossible to work with. Apply too little
friction and the enamel insulation won't come off; apply about the same for
a second more and the wire will break. Absolute rubbish.

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article <1ia6nbd.1ht0ty41w7nfksN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult .com>,
(Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Jolly Roger > wrote:
>
> > And the OP didn't state hi fi as a requirement.
>
> No, but perhaps you haven't noticed that this thread is crossposted to
> comp.sys.mac.misc, rec.audio.opinion and rec.audio.misc. In the audio
> groups, it's reasonable to speak from an audiophile perspective.

I noticed, but it doesn't change the fact that he's not looking for a hi
fi system. ; )

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

[George M. Middius]

BozoBorg whined:

> I've yet to own a pair of sennheisers that didn't develop an intermittant
> connection at the plug end of the cable within 3-12 months of use.

Those GOD%*(&ed ripoff audiophile ass$#(*%s! They should be F$*&%ing
prosecuted for taking advantage of gullible FU%!#ing audiophiles!

FU$(* 'em all! Take 'em out back and shoot 'em!

[jakdedert]

Jolly Roger wrote:
> In article <1ia6nbd.1ht0ty41w7nfksN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult .com>,
> (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
>
>> Jolly Roger > wrote:
>>
>>> And the OP didn't state hi fi as a requirement.
>> No, but perhaps you haven't noticed that this thread is crossposted to
>> comp.sys.mac.misc, rec.audio.opinion and rec.audio.misc. In the audio
>> groups, it's reasonable to speak from an audiophile perspective.
>
> I noticed, but it doesn't change the fact that he's not looking for a hi
> fi system. ; )
>
I wonder if you noticed that *all* he will be doing with them is
listening to music...and further, he will not be listening to music on
much of anything else, since he's stored his entire music collection on
the computer? I believe he said something like 'listening system of
choice' or words to that effect.

Unless he's partially deaf or something, that sounds like a requirement
for reasonably high fidelity.

jak

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article >,
jakdedert > wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
> > In article <1ia6nbd.1ht0ty41w7nfksN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult .com>,
> > (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> >
> >> Jolly Roger > wrote:
> >>
> >>> And the OP didn't state hi fi as a requirement.
> >> No, but perhaps you haven't noticed that this thread is crossposted to
> >> comp.sys.mac.misc, rec.audio.opinion and rec.audio.misc. In the audio
> >> groups, it's reasonable to speak from an audiophile perspective.
> >
> > I noticed, but it doesn't change the fact that he's not looking for a hi
> > fi system. ; )
> >
> I wonder if you noticed that *all* he will be doing with them is
> listening to music...and further, he will not be listening to music on
> much of anything else, since he's stored his entire music collection on
> the computer? I believe he said something like 'listening system of
> choice' or words to that effect.
>
> Unless he's partially deaf or something, that sounds like a requirement
> for reasonably high fidelity.

That may be your interpretation, but it's not mine, and since he didn't
clearly state it either way, I guess we'll just have to wait until we
hear it from the horse's mouth.

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

[Curmudgeon]

In article >, jakdedert
> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
> > In article <1ia6nbd.1ht0ty41w7nfksN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult .com>,
> > (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> >
> >> Jolly Roger > wrote:
> >>
> >>> And the OP didn't state hi fi as a requirement.
> >> No, but perhaps you haven't noticed that this thread is crossposted to
> >> comp.sys.mac.misc, rec.audio.opinion and rec.audio.misc. In the audio
> >> groups, it's reasonable to speak from an audiophile perspective.
> >
> > I noticed, but it doesn't change the fact that he's not looking for a hi
> > fi system. ; )
> >
> I wonder if you noticed that *all* he will be doing with them is
> listening to music...and further, he will not be listening to music on
> much of anything else, since he's stored his entire music collection on
> the computer? I believe he said something like 'listening system of
> choice' or words to that effect.
>
> Unless he's partially deaf or something, that sounds like a requirement
> for reasonably high fidelity.

OP here. No, I'm not partially deaf, and I still have some very capable
speakers downstairs (Spica TC-50 w/powered sub and a pair of Vandersteen
2Cs in the basement), but I've been doing most of my listening up in the
loft these days since it's just so much more convenient to use iTunes to
choose what I want to hear. At the same time, I am advancing in age and
I know that my ears aren't what they used to be, so I'm happy to give in
and choose a system that will meet my needs without necessarily being an
ultra-hi-fi solution. I was pretty happy with that Cambridge SoundWorks
system I had been using, and the Klipsch ProAudio 2.1 system I've chosen
to replace looks like a big improvement. The reviews I've read have are
very complementary to the midrange which is always the forgotten portion
of music on a three-way system, so I'm very anxious to hear whether it's
true.

I expect reasonably high fidelity from the system. If I'm disappointed,
you will hear about it.

Stay tuned . . .

Cheers!

Mudge

[Philo D]

And here I thought when you said you were looking for computer speakers
it meant you wanted people to some and give a talk at your computer
club...

[Howard Brazee]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:31:21 -0600, MiNe 109
> wrote:

>> I found the ones here that didn't sound good, were very uncomfortable,
>> broke soon, and were highly recommended, the Sennheiser CX300-B.
>
>The HeadRoom review seems short of "highly recommended".

Agreed. That wasn't the review I used to make my purchase.

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article >,
Curmudgeon > wrote:

> I expect reasonably high fidelity from the system. If I'm disappointed,
> you will hear about it.

Definitely report back your findings. While I don't consider myself
much of an audiophile, I do appreciate good sounding speakers, so I'm
interested to know what you think of them.

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

[xxxxxx]

i agree the klipsch are a horrible choice



"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Curmudgeon wrote:
>
>> Curmudgeon wrote:
>>
>> > I've done a lot of surfing this morning and find myself attracted to an
>> > "audio" solution, the M-Audio Studiophile AV-40 Monitors, as well as to
>> > three "computer" solutions, the Altec Lansing FX-4021, the Klipsch Pro-
>> > Media, and the Logitech Z-2300 2.1 systems. All are within my budget.
>> >
>> > My workspace is probably better served by a 2.1 system since I've got a
>> > lot of room for a sub but much less for satellites, but the audiophile
>> > in me prefers the elegant simplicity of M-Audio's monitors despite size
>> > concerns.
>> >
>> > What to do, what to do . . .
>>
>> Well, after giving it some serious thought and doing a lot of research,
>> I decided that the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 system best fit the bill, and I
>> was able to get it for a terrific price from Amazon so I've just pushed
>> the "Place My Order" button. It should be here in a week or so. Once
>> I've had a chance to audition it, I'll let you know how it sounds.
>>
>> Many thanks to all the folks who took the time to reply and especially
>> to those who pushed me to do my own research and reach my own decision.
>
> I'm sorry to have to say it looks like a truly rubbish choice. I dare say
> it'll boom and tizz a bit.
>
> Graham
>

[Jim Redelfs]

In article >,
Jolly Roger > wrote:

> Get over yourself...

You said it. I grew up with an audiomaniac (not merely an audiophile). We
are still friends to this day. The poor man cannot enjoy music because all he
hears - and continuously analyzes - is SOUND.

The elitist/snob audiophile is to be pitied. There's SO much good music "out
there" but, unless it is an elitist-labeled, analog recording, played-back on
their own vacuum tube-powered Magneplanars, it's trash. Sad...
--
:)
JR

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article
>,
Jim Redelfs > wrote:

> In article >,
> Jolly Roger > wrote:
>
> > Get over yourself...
>
> You said it. I grew up with an audiomaniac (not merely an audiophile). We
> are still friends to this day. The poor man cannot enjoy music because all
> he
> hears - and continuously analyzes - is SOUND.
>
> The elitist/snob audiophile is to be pitied. There's SO much good music "out
> there" but, unless it is an elitist-labeled, analog recording, played-back on
> their own vacuum tube-powered Magneplanars, it's trash. Sad...

Exactly. I definitely didn't get the impression the OP was looking for
that kind of fidelity. Otherwise I wouldn't have made a peep!

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

[Eeyore]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> jakdedert > wrote:
> > Jolly Roger wrote:
> > > In article <1ia6nbd.1ht0ty41w7nfksN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult .com>,
> > > (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> > >> Jolly Roger > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> And the OP didn't state hi fi as a requirement.
> > >> No, but perhaps you haven't noticed that this thread is crossposted to
> > >> comp.sys.mac.misc, rec.audio.opinion and rec.audio.misc. In the audio
> > >> groups, it's reasonable to speak from an audiophile perspective.
> > >
> > > I noticed, but it doesn't change the fact that he's not looking for a hi
> > > fi system. ; )
> > >
> > I wonder if you noticed that *all* he will be doing with them is
> > listening to music...and further, he will not be listening to music on
> > much of anything else, since he's stored his entire music collection on
> > the computer? I believe he said something like 'listening system of
> > choice' or words to that effect.
> >
> > Unless he's partially deaf or something, that sounds like a requirement
> > for reasonably high fidelity.
>
> That may be your interpretation, but it's not mine, and since he didn't
> clearly state it either way, I guess we'll just have to wait until we
> hear it from the horse's mouth.

From the OP's very first post.

" [I] ....would like to begin using it as the playback-system-of-choice so I can
begin
selling off these little silver coasters. Everything's been encoded as
AAC (128 kbps, 44.100 kHz), so the quality should be pretty decent. "

So a boom-tizz box is clearly NOT a suitable choice.

Just noticed another point. Technically, if he's going to sell off the CDs then
he's using the music files that were on them illegally (copyright).

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jim Redelfs wrote:

> Jolly Roger > wrote:
>
> > Get over yourself...
>
> You said it. I grew up with an audiomaniac (not merely an audiophile). We
> are still friends to this day. The poor man cannot enjoy music because all he
> hears - and continuously analyzes - is SOUND.
>
> The elitist/snob audiophile is to be pitied. There's SO much good music "out
> there" but, unless it is an elitist-labeled, analog recording, played-back on
> their own vacuum tube-powered Magneplanars, it's trash. Sad...

There is nothing snobbish or geeky about appreciating good quality sound
reproduction. I have *NEVER* heard good quality sound reprduction from 'computer
speakers'. If any attempt at all has been made to influence sound quality with
these it's usually to falsely flatter (typically with very uneven frequency
resposne) which the casual listener may like for a while (in the way Bose do).

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Jim Redelfs > wrote:
> > Jolly Roger > wrote:
> >
> > > Get over yourself...
> >
> > You said it. I grew up with an audiomaniac (not merely an audiophile). We
> > are still friends to this day. The poor man cannot enjoy music because all
> > he hears - and continuously analyzes - is SOUND.
> >
> > The elitist/snob audiophile is to be pitied. There's SO much good music "out
> > there" but, unless it is an elitist-labeled, analog recording, played-back on
> > their own vacuum tube-powered Magneplanars, it's trash. Sad...
>
> Exactly. I definitely didn't get the impression the OP was looking for
> that kind of fidelity. Otherwise I wouldn't have made a peep!

He said he required "decent quality". It's there in his original post.

Graham

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
> > Jim Redelfs > wrote:
> > > Jolly Roger > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Get over yourself...
> > >
> > > You said it. I grew up with an audiomaniac (not merely an audiophile).
> > > We
> > > are still friends to this day. The poor man cannot enjoy music because
> > > all
> > > he hears - and continuously analyzes - is SOUND.
> > >
> > > The elitist/snob audiophile is to be pitied. There's SO much good music
> > > "out
> > > there" but, unless it is an elitist-labeled, analog recording,
> > > played-back on
> > > their own vacuum tube-powered Magneplanars, it's trash. Sad...
> >
> > Exactly. I definitely didn't get the impression the OP was looking for
> > that kind of fidelity. Otherwise I wouldn't have made a peep!
>
> He said he required "decent quality". It's there in his original post.

Yes, and the meaning of the word "decent" in this context is subjective
at best.

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> From the OP's very first post.
>
> " [I] ....would like to begin using it as the playback-system-of-choice so I
> can
> begin
> selling off these little silver coasters. Everything's been encoded as
> AAC (128 kbps, 44.100 kHz), so the quality should be pretty decent. "
>
> So a boom-tizz box is clearly NOT a suitable choice.

I guess we'll have to let *him* be the judge of that, huh?

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

[Eeyore]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> >
> > He said he required "decent quality". It's there in his original post.
>
> Yes, and the meaning of the word "decent" in this context is subjective
> at best.

LMFAO !

Sure, boom and tizz will do.

Graham

[jakdedert]

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote:
>>> He said he required "decent quality". It's there in his original post.
>> Yes, and the meaning of the word "decent" in this context is subjective
>> at best.
>
> LMFAO !
>
> Sure, boom and tizz will do.
>
> Graham
>
Well, there's the fact that he's getting rid 'of his little silver
coasters'. Depending on what format he ripped to--being able to
actually hear what he's done to his music might be a disadvantage.

jak

[Eeyore]

jakdedert wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Jolly Roger wrote:
> >
> >> Eeyore > wrote:
> >>> He said he required "decent quality". It's there in his original post.
> >> Yes, and the meaning of the word "decent" in this context is subjective
> >> at best.
> >
> > LMFAO !
> >
> > Sure, boom and tizz will do.
>
> Well, there's the fact that he's getting rid 'of his little silver
> coasters'. Depending on what format he ripped to--being able to
> actually hear what he's done to his music might be a disadvantage.

Now there's a thought !

Graham

[Howard Brazee]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:05:29 -0600, jakdedert
> wrote:

>Unless he's partially deaf or something, that sounds like a requirement
>for reasonably high fidelity.

It's surprising how much variety there is in the standard "reasonable
high fidelity".

Wouldn't it be nice if we had somewhere even halfway reasonable in
phone fidelity?

[Jim Redelfs]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Technically,

Add "morally" and "ethically" while you're at it.

> if he's going to sell off the CDs then he's using the music files
> that were on them illegally (copyright).

Agreed.

I keep my original discs as part of my backup strategy. Doing so paid off
once: Some years ago something crashed (me, I recall) and I nuked my iTunes
Library. I re-ripped all my CDs, the second time at higher resolution.

I always shunned SOFTWARE piracy and now try to do the same with music. I
feel better about it. Of course, there is a real CO$T for such feeling better.

Just because one can now fit a reasonably good copy of their ENTIRE collection
in their pocket is no excuse for stealing music.
--
<sigh>
JR

[George M. Middius]

Jolly Roger said:

> > > Exactly. I definitely didn't get the impression the OP was looking for
> > > that kind of fidelity. Otherwise I wouldn't have made a peep!

> > He said he required "decent quality". It's there in his original post.

> Yes, and the meaning of the word "decent" in this context is subjective
> at best.

I'm somewhat loath to agree with Poopie B'ar, but isn't it a stretch to
say the converse of "decent" is "total crap"?

[Madwen]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Jim Redelfs wrote:
>
> > You said it. I grew up with an audiomaniac (not merely an
> > audiophile). We are still friends to this day. The poor man
> > cannot enjoy music because all he hears - and continuously analyzes
> > - is SOUND.
> >
> > The elitist/snob audiophile is to be pitied. There's SO much good
> > music "out there" but, unless it is an elitist-labeled, analog
> > recording, played-back on their own vacuum tube-powered
> > Magneplanars, it's trash. Sad...
>
> There is nothing snobbish or geeky about appreciating good quality
> sound reproduction. I have *NEVER* heard good quality sound
> reprduction from 'computer speakers'. If any attempt at all has been
> made to influence sound quality with these it's usually to falsely
> flatter (typically with very uneven frequency resposne) which the
> casual listener may like for a while (in the way Bose do).

I have no doubt that among us are "super-hearers" (just as there are
super-tasters) and that the younger one is, the better is the frequency
range of one's hearing. But I suspect that the real number of
super-hearers is considerably fewer than those who profess to hear
things the rest of us may not. I used to take my Naks in for regular
calibration so I had the opportunity to be around people who thought of
themselves as special... as audiophiles, and listen to their (often
tedious) audio bloviations.

And here's the thing that has almost always stuck out like Dick Cheney
at a Freedom rally: At the same time audiophile elitists criticize
others for their subjective (poor ear) choice of speakers (or whatever),
they themselves rarely use objective terms or criteria, including
meaningful variables like environment properties, to describe their own
sound experiences or their criticisms of various equipment. To wit, the
Klipsch speakers were criticized as a "truly rubbish choice" but you
never said what, objectively, was wrong with them.

So naturally some people wonder if it was your purpose to be helpful or
to just flaunt your perceived audiophilic superiority.

[George M. Middius]

Madwen said:

> To wit, the
> Klipsch speakers were criticized as a "truly rubbish choice" but you
> never said what, objectively, was wrong with them.

Poopie meant they sound crappy. If you don't know what that "means", you
have yet to hear your second pair of speakers.

[Madwen]

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote:

> Madwen said:
>
> > To wit, the
> > Klipsch speakers were criticized as a "truly rubbish choice" but you
> > never said what, objectively, was wrong with them.
>
> Poopie meant they sound crappy. If you don't know what that "means", you
> have yet to hear your second pair of speakers.

I take my message about bloviating pseudo-audiophiles struck a nerve
::snicker:: Maybe you know what *that* means.

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote:

> Madwen said:
>
> > To wit, the
> > Klipsch speakers were criticized as a "truly rubbish choice" but you
> > never said what, objectively, was wrong with them.
>
> Poopie meant they sound crappy. If you don't know what that "means", you
> have yet to hear your second pair of speakers.

I'm pretty sure you have no idea how they actually sound, because you've
never actually listened to them. And you certainly have no idea whether
the way they sound will be sufficient for the OP, or do you claim to
know how things sound through his ears as well?

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

[George M. Middius]

Madwen said:

> > > To wit, the
> > > Klipsch speakers were criticized as a "truly rubbish choice" but you
> > > never said what, objectively, was wrong with them.
> >
> > Poopie meant they sound crappy. If you don't know what that "means", you
> > have yet to hear your second pair of speakers.
>
> I take[sic] my message about bloviating pseudo[sic]-audiophiles struck a nerve

Actually, it elicited a sneer. I used to just sigh and shake my head in
pity, but then I recognized that your class envy is motivated by animus
rather than ignorance.

> ::snicker:: Maybe you know what *that* means.

I'm familiar with snickering, thanks. I'm sorry you can't tell crappy
speakers from good ones, but at least you'll never be tempted to spend
more than a few bucks on hardware.

For your encore performance, maybe you'd care to explain the difference
between "pseudo-audiophiles" and real ones. That is, if you're not too
busy going green with envy over all the stuff you can't afford.

[George M. Middius]

Jolly Roger said:

> > > Klipsch speakers were criticized as a "truly rubbish choice" but you
> > > never said what, objectively, was wrong with them.

> > Poopie meant they sound crappy. If you don't know what that "means", you
> > have yet to hear your second pair of speakers.

> I'm pretty sure you have no idea how they actually sound, because you've
> never actually listened to them.

And why would you be "pretty sure" about that? Pulled any opinions out of
your ass lately?

> And you certainly have no idea whether
> the way they sound will be sufficient for the OP, or do you claim to
> know how things sound through his ears as well?

I make no claims about such matters. I was simply expanding on Poopie's
original statement.

However, it's entirely obvious that if the sainted OP you so revere can't
tell those itty-bitty Klipsch toys from proper loudspeakers, then all
opinions about better-sounding stuff will be completely wasted on him.
Probably wasted on you and Mädchen too.

Trying to discuss the sound of quality audio equipment with folks like you
is equivalent to "discussing" politics with somebody who thinks Fox News
really is "fair and balanced". In an objective sense, that is.

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote:

> Jolly Roger said:
>
> > > > Klipsch speakers were criticized as a "truly rubbish choice" but you
> > > > never said what, objectively, was wrong with them.
>
> > > Poopie meant they sound crappy. If you don't know what that "means", you
> > > have yet to hear your second pair of speakers.
>
> > I'm pretty sure you have no idea how they actually sound, because you've
> > never actually listened to them.
>
> And why would you be "pretty sure" about that? Pulled any opinions out of
> your ass lately?

So have you ever actually listened to them then?

> > And you certainly have no idea whether
> > the way they sound will be sufficient for the OP, or do you claim to
> > know how things sound through his ears as well?
>
> I make no claims about such matters. I was simply expanding on Poopie's
> original statement.
>
> However, it's entirely obvious that if the sainted OP you so revere can't
> tell those itty-bitty Klipsch toys from proper loudspeakers, then all
> opinions about better-sounding stuff will be completely wasted on him.
> Probably wasted on you and Mädchen too.
>
> Trying to discuss the sound of quality audio equipment with folks like you
> is equivalent to "discussing" politics with somebody who thinks Fox News
> really is "fair and balanced". In an objective sense, that is.

I don't get why this is so lost on you:

The OP asked for a decent set of *computer speakers*. This isn't a
discussion about sound quality.

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

[jakdedert]

Jolly Roger wrote:

>
> I don't get why this is so lost on you:
>
> The OP asked for a decent set of *computer speakers*. This isn't a
> discussion about sound quality.
>
You still don't get that the particular computer is his music
system...only. He doesn't intend to use it for anything else. In that
case, the computer is just the same as any other musical source...be it
a CD player, turntable, an iPod or a tape deck.

He said it was to be *solely* dedicated to musical listening.

So a reasonable amount of musical fidelity would be desirable. By that,
I'd mean being capable of a level 'somewhat' above elevated
conversational volume in the listening space intended; with a frequency
response within (plus or minus) a few dB from 50 Hz or so--to slightly
beyond the limit of his hearing capability (15 kHz or thereabouts)--and
with a distortion of less than one percent (preferably one tenth of a
percent).

That's not 'audiophile standard' by any means, but probably *well*
beyond the capability of the chosen speakers.

Anything less, and it's likely the listener will either turn them down
to barely audible levels, or that they'll be fatiguing on extended
listening (ie 'not satisfying' or simply annoying). It's not
'audiophoolery' it's human physiology with a dose of psycho-acoustics (a
very real science, incidentally).

OTOH, there's no accounting for taste, so yours and his may match...or
not. As such, your lofty pronouncements about his particular needs have
no basis in either background or expertise...especially since you don't
even appear to have even read the OP.

jak

[Curmudgeon]

In article >, jakdedert
> wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't get why this is so lost on you:
> >
> > The OP asked for a decent set of *computer speakers*. This isn't a
> > discussion about sound quality.
> >
> You still don't get that the particular computer is his music
> system...only. He doesn't intend to use it for anything else. In that
> case, the computer is just the same as any other musical source...be it
> a CD player, turntable, an iPod or a tape deck.
>
> He said it was to be *solely* dedicated to musical listening.
>
> So a reasonable amount of musical fidelity would be desirable. By that,
> I'd mean being capable of a level 'somewhat' above elevated
> conversational volume in the listening space intended; with a frequency
> response within (plus or minus) a few dB from 50 Hz or so--to slightly
> beyond the limit of his hearing capability (15 kHz or thereabouts)--and
> with a distortion of less than one percent (preferably one tenth of a
> percent).
>
> That's not 'audiophile standard' by any means, but probably *well*
> beyond the capability of the chosen speakers.
>
> Anything less, and it's likely the listener will either turn them down
> to barely audible levels, or that they'll be fatiguing on extended
> listening (ie 'not satisfying' or simply annoying). It's not
> 'audiophoolery' it's human physiology with a dose of psycho-acoustics (a
> very real science, incidentally).
>
> OTOH, there's no accounting for taste, so yours and his may match...or
> not. As such, your lofty pronouncements about his particular needs have
> no basis in either background or expertise...especially since you don't
> even appear to have even read the OP.

OP here, Sorry, Jak, but you have it all wrong. Yes, I intend to build
around using my Macintosh as my primary music playback system. However,
I use the machine for much more than that, nor do I intend to abandon my
audiophile system downstairs. What I did say is that the speakers I've
chosen for the computer will be used for music playback but not required
to be a gaming or DVD system.

It appears that it is you who have not read what I originally read very
carefully. Please lay off Jolly Roger. He was the most helpful among a
small group who originally replied, and seems to be the only poster who
really understood what my intentions were. I am now very sorry that my
original message was posted to the audio newsgroups. I apprieciate what
I've heard from you golden-ear guys (and I'm among you when it comes to
my main system), but my choice for upstairs is determined by real estate
available and financial considerations as well as the "pure sound" I can
expect from it. If I'd had the space and the money, I'd have gone with
a nice clean little amp and a pair of serious studio monitors.

I may very well find that the Klipsch system I have chosen is all "boom
and tizz" (as Graham has put it), and if so, I will be unhappy with it.
But I was quite content with the Cambridge SoundWorks system I had been
using, and the Klipsch specs out much better than it did, so I expect to
be pretty satisfied.

And with respect to piracy issues, I was not aware that selling off the
library of "little silver coasters" renders me an outlaw. I thought the
fact that I'd paid full retail price for them in the first place granted
me the right to copy them to my computer. If I turn them over and thus
truly become a pirate, I suppose I'll have to reconsider. But I'll need
to do some careful reading of copyright law before I'm convinced that is
the case.

Cheers!

Mudge

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article >,
jakdedert > wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
> > I don't get why this is so lost on you:
> >
> > The OP asked for a decent set of *computer speakers*. This isn't a
> > discussion about sound quality.
> >
> You still don't get that the particular computer is his music
> system...only. He doesn't intend to use it for anything else. In that
> case, the computer is just the same as any other musical source...be it
> a CD player, turntable, an iPod or a tape deck.
>
> He said it was to be *solely* dedicated to musical listening.

No, actually what he said was:

"I have determined that my primary need is a new set of speakers for
my Macintosh. I have loaded my entire CD library into iTunes and would
like to begin using it as the playback-system-of-choice"

I'm under the impression he'll use his Mac for many other things, as
well a listening to music. I do the same in my office at home.

> So a reasonable amount of musical fidelity would be desirable. By that,
> I'd mean being capable of a level 'somewhat' above elevated
> conversational volume in the listening space intended; with a frequency
> response within (plus or minus) a few dB from 50 Hz or so--to slightly
> beyond the limit of his hearing capability (15 kHz or thereabouts)--and
> with a distortion of less than one percent (preferably one tenth of a
> percent).
>
> That's not 'audiophile standard' by any means, but probably *well*
> beyond the capability of the chosen speakers.

The Klipsch speakers are rated:

Frequency response: 31Hz - 20kHz
Power Handling: Satellites: 55 watts/channel @ ≤ 1% THD, 200Hz - 1KHz
Subwoofer: 50 watts @ ≤ 7% THD, 40 - 100 Hz

> Anything less, and it's likely the listener will either turn them down
> to barely audible levels, or that they'll be fatiguing on extended
> listening (ie 'not satisfying' or simply annoying). It's not
> 'audiophoolery' it's human physiology with a dose of psycho-acoustics (a
> very real science, incidentally).


I play music through iTunes a little above conversational volume through
my Klipsch ProMedia 4.1 system all the time in my office. I hear very
little distortion, and they aren't fatiguing at all.

> OTOH, there's no accounting for taste, so yours and his may match...or
> not. As such, your lofty pronouncements about his particular needs have
> no basis in either background or expertise...especially since you don't
> even appear to have even read the OP.

I think we both may have read it, but I am closer to understanding it.
We'll have to wait for the OP to respond to find out if I'm right.

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

[MINe109]

On Jan 5, 4:24 pm, Curmudgeon > wrote:
> In article >, jakdedert
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > Jolly Roger wrote:
>
> > > I don't get why this is so lost on you:
>
> > > The OP asked for a decent set of *computer speakers*. This isn't a
> > > discussion about sound quality.
>
> > You still don't get that the particular computer is his music
> > system...only. He doesn't intend to use it for anything else. In that
> > case, the computer is just the same as any other musical source...be it
> > a CD player, turntable, an iPod or a tape deck.
>
> > He said it was to be *solely* dedicated to musical listening.
>
> > So a reasonable amount of musical fidelity would be desirable. By that,
> > I'd mean being capable of a level 'somewhat' above elevated
> > conversational volume in the listening space intended; with a frequency
> > response within (plus or minus) a few dB from 50 Hz or so--to slightly
> > beyond the limit of his hearing capability (15 kHz or thereabouts)--and
> > with a distortion of less than one percent (preferably one tenth of a
> > percent).
>
> > That's not 'audiophile standard' by any means, but probably *well*
> > beyond the capability of the chosen speakers.
>
> > Anything less, and it's likely the listener will either turn them down
> > to barely audible levels, or that they'll be fatiguing on extended
> > listening (ie 'not satisfying' or simply annoying). It's not
> > 'audiophoolery' it's human physiology with a dose of psycho-acoustics (a
> > very real science, incidentally).
>
> > OTOH, there's no accounting for taste, so yours and his may match...or
> > not. As such, your lofty pronouncements about his particular needs have
> > no basis in either background or expertise...especially since you don't
> > even appear to have even read the OP.
>
> OP here, Sorry, Jak, but you have it all wrong. Yes, I intend to build
> around using my Macintosh as my primary music playback system. However,
> I use the machine for much more than that, nor do I intend to abandon my
> audiophile system downstairs. What I did say is that the speakers I've
> chosen for the computer will be used for music playback but not required
> to be a gaming or DVD system.
>
> It appears that it is you who have not read what I originally read very
> carefully. Please lay off Jolly Roger. He was the most helpful among a
> small group who originally replied, and seems to be the only poster who
> really understood what my intentions were.

Do you share his reverse-snobbery?

> I am now very sorry that my
> original message was posted to the audio newsgroups. I apprieciate what
> I've heard from you golden-ear guys (and I'm among you when it comes to
> my main system), but my choice for upstairs is determined by real estate
> available and financial considerations as well as the "pure sound" I can
> expect from it. If I'd had the space and the money, I'd have gone with
> a nice clean little amp and a pair of serious studio monitors.

You were given links to two systems the fit that description and were
reasonably near your budget.

> I may very well find that the Klipsch system I have chosen is all "boom
> and tizz" (as Graham has put it), and if so, I will be unhappy with it.
> But I was quite content with the Cambridge SoundWorks system I had been
> using, and the Klipsch specs out much better than it did, so I expect to
> be pretty satisfied.

Be sure to read the CNET review.

> And with respect to piracy issues, I was not aware that selling off the
> library of "little silver coasters" renders me an outlaw. I thought the
> fact that I'd paid full retail price for them in the first place granted
> me the right to copy them to my computer. If I turn them over and thus
> truly become a pirate, I suppose I'll have to reconsider. But I'll need
> to do some careful reading of copyright law before I'm convinced that is
> the case.

The crux is whether anyone else can use them while you enjoy their
copies on your computer. You are free to destroy the originals.

Stephen

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article >,
Curmudgeon > wrote:

> OP here, Sorry, Jak, but you have it all wrong. Yes, I intend to build
> around using my Macintosh as my primary music playback system. However,
> I use the machine for much more than that, nor do I intend to abandon my
> audiophile system downstairs. What I did say is that the speakers I've
> chosen for the computer will be used for music playback but not required
> to be a gaming or DVD system.
>
> It appears that it is you who have not read what I originally read very
> carefully. Please lay off Jolly Roger. He was the most helpful among a
> small group who originally replied, and seems to be the only poster who
> really understood what my intentions were. I am now very sorry that my
> original message was posted to the audio newsgroups. I apprieciate what
> I've heard from you golden-ear guys (and I'm among you when it comes to
> my main system), but my choice for upstairs is determined by real estate
> available and financial considerations as well as the "pure sound" I can
> expect from it. If I'd had the space and the money, I'd have gone with
> a nice clean little amp and a pair of serious studio monitors.
>
> I may very well find that the Klipsch system I have chosen is all "boom
> and tizz" (as Graham has put it), and if so, I will be unhappy with it.
> But I was quite content with the Cambridge SoundWorks system I had been
> using, and the Klipsch specs out much better than it did, so I expect to
> be pretty satisfied.

Well there you have it - straight from the horse's mouth.

Mudge, please do reply once you've received the system and let the rest
of us know what you think of them. If your needs are anything like mine,
I think they'll be satisfactory. And if not, I'd still like to know, so
I can avoid recommending them to others in the future! ; )

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

[Clyde Slick]

On 5 Ian, 15:25, Jolly Roger > wrote:


>
> I don't get why this is so lost on you:
>
> The OP asked for a decent set of *computer speakers*. This isn't a
> discussion about sound quality.
>

If "decent" does not refer to sound quality, than what other 'quality'
does it refer to?
maybe all he cares about is something that won't break after six
months
Even Bose can meet that criteria.
Even some white van speakers might last more than six months.
here is a 'decent' speaker i would suggest:

http://frostfirepulse.com/images/speaker.jpg

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Madwen said:
>
> > To wit, the
> > Klipsch speakers were criticized as a "truly rubbish choice" but you
> > never said what, objectively, was wrong with them.
>
> Poopie meant they sound crappy. If you don't know what that "means", you
> have yet to hear your second pair of speakers.

ANY speaker thar uses tiny drivers for bass and midrange has inherent 'laws
of physics' problems to deal with. A small speaker is simply an ineffective
radiator. Aside from anything else it's impossible to get decent volume or
bass from them.


Graham

[Clyde Slick]

On 5 Ian, 15:25, Jolly Roger > wrote:
> In article >,
> George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote:
>
> > Jolly Roger said:
>
> > > > > Klipsch speakers were criticized as a "truly rubbish choice" but you
> > > > > never said what, objectively, was wrong with them.
>
> > > > Poopie meant they sound crappy. If you don't know what that "means", you
> > > > have yet to hear your second pair of speakers.
>
> > > I'm pretty sure you have no idea how they actually sound, because you've
> > > never actually listened to them.
>
> > And why would you be "pretty sure" about that? Pulled any opinions out of
> > your ass lately?
>
> So have you ever actually listened to them then?
>
> > > And you certainly have no idea whether
> > > the way they sound will be sufficient for the OP, or do you claim to
> > > know how things sound through his ears as well?
>
> > I make no claims about such matters. I was simply expanding on Poopie's
> > original statement.
>
> > However, it's entirely obvious that if the sainted OP you so revere can't
> > tell those itty-bitty Klipsch toys from proper loudspeakers, then all
> > opinions about better-sounding stuff will be completely wasted on him.
> > Probably wasted on you and Mädchen too.
>
> > Trying to discuss the sound of quality audio equipment with folks like you
> > is equivalent to "discussing" politics with somebody who thinks Fox News
> > really is "fair and balanced". In an objective sense, that is.
>
> I don't get why this is so lost on you:
>
> The OP asked for a decent set of *computer speakers*. This isn't a
> discussion about sound quality.
>
> --
> Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
> must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
> this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.
>
> JR

here is a speaker i would consider not so decent:

http://tinyurl.com/2l4ck8

[Eeyore]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote:
> > Madwen said:
> >
> > > To wit, the
> > > Klipsch speakers were criticized as a "truly rubbish choice" but you
> > > never said what, objectively, was wrong with them.
> >
> > Poopie meant they sound crappy. If you don't know what that "means", you
> > have yet to hear your second pair of speakers.
>
> I'm pretty sure you have no idea how they actually sound, because you've
> never actually listened to them. And you certainly have no idea whether
> the way they sound will be sufficient for the OP, or do you claim to
> know how things sound through his ears as well?

When one's heard what 3 inch speakers sound like, you don't need to repeat the
exercise.

When the spec says "FREQUENCY RESPONSE: 31Hz - 20kHz" you know why they didn't
put any dB numbers by it. Probably +/- 10dB !

These things are TOYS, not serious speakers for listening to music on. They
make a noise. That's about it.

And Klipsch is just a brand name stuck on cheap Chinese goods. As is Altec
too. As is JBL very often too these days too. Neither have any relationship to
the famous speakers of old companies with those names once built.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Trying to discuss the sound of quality audio equipment with folks like you
> is equivalent to "discussing" politics with somebody who thinks Fox News
> really is "fair and balanced". In an objective sense, that is.

LOL !

The democratisation of politics has led to a situation where any crackpot thinks
their ideas should be taken seriously no matter how much a loony they are.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> The OP asked for a decent set of *computer speakers*.

NO he did NOT. This is what he posted.

"I have determined that my primary need is a new set of speakers for
my Macintosh."


> This isn't a discussion about sound quality.

He indicated that sound quality WAS a consideration for him

"so the quality should be pretty decent "

STOP LYING !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Curmudgeon wrote:

> I may very well find that the Klipsch system I have chosen is all "boom
> and tizz" (as Graham has put it), and if so, I will be unhappy with it.
> But I was quite content with the Cambridge SoundWorks system I had been
> using,

What model ?


> and the Klipsch specs out much better than it did, so I expect to
> be pretty satisfied.

At this product level the specs are essentially meaningless marketing fluff.
They are regularly massaged numbers without meaningful qualification or simply
plain LIES.

The frequency response of those Klipschs for example is stated as 35 Hz - 20
kHz *without any dB limits*. A GOOD speaker would be say +/- 3dB meaning the
response is quite 'flat'. I'd be surprised if the Klipschs are as good as +/-
10dB.

Tiny speakers also can't make much sound. This is basic physics. I would NEVER
buy something with 3 inch drivers for most of the bass and midrange. They are
really just toys.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> The Klipsch speakers are rated:
>
> Frequency response: 31Hz - 20kHz

And if you think that means anything you're an even bigger idiot than I
thought. It's marketing fluff.


> Power Handling: Satellites: 55 watts/channel @ ≤ 1% THD, 200Hz - 1KHz
> Subwoofer: 50 watts @ ≤ 7% THD, 40 - 100 Hz

1% and 7% distortion !

Jesus wept !

I have designed a *600 watt* power amp with distortion below 0.001% midband. I
consider 0.1% distortion to be pretty poor these days never mind distortion
percentages in single digit numbers..

Graham

[George M. Middius]

MINe109 said:

> The crux is whether anyone else can use them while you enjoy their
> copies on your computer. You are free to destroy the originals.

Is that supposed to be helpful? Maybe I missed something....

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > The OP asked for a decent set of *computer speakers*. This isn't a
> > discussion about sound quality.

> If "decent" does not refer to sound quality, than what other 'quality'
> does it refer to?

In certain parts of Michigan, it means "good to store turds in".

[George M. Middius]

Poopie brayed:

> > Trying to discuss the sound of quality audio equipment with folks like you
> > is equivalent to "discussing" politics with somebody who thinks Fox News
> > really is "fair and balanced". In an objective sense, that is.

> Hnawk! hee-HNAAAAWK!

Gesundheit, Donkey.

> The democratisation of politics has led to a situation where any crackpot thinks
> their ideas should be taken seriously no matter how much a loony they are.

I'm in favor of prison sentences for "ppl" who misspell common English
words like 'democratization'.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Poopie brayed:
>
> > > Trying to discuss the sound of quality audio equipment with folks like you
> > > is equivalent to "discussing" politics with somebody who thinks Fox News
> > > really is "fair and balanced". In an objective sense, that is.
>
> > Hnawk! hee-HNAAAAWK!
>
> Gesundheit, Donkey.
>
> > The democratisation of politics has led to a situation where any crackpot thinks
> > their ideas should be taken seriously no matter how much a loony they are.
>
> I'm in favor of prison sentences for "ppl" who misspell common English
> words like 'democratization'.

I spelt it correctly.

I'm in favour of hanging colonialists who think they know better.

Graham

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 09:48:51 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george
@ comcast . net> wrote:

>
>> Yes, and the meaning of the word "decent" in this context is subjective
>> at best.
>
>I'm somewhat loath to agree with Poopie B'ar, but isn't it a stretch to
>say the converse of "decent" is "total crap"?

I've always thought "decent" was closer to "barely acceptable" than to
either extreme.

When someone knocks at your door and asks if you are decent, it is to
see if you are adequately covered - not dressed up.

Looking at a few dictionary definitions I see "enough to meet a
purpose" is the one that fits his query the best.

[George M. Middius]

Howard Brazee said:

> >> Yes, and the meaning of the word "decent" in this context is subjective
> >> at best.
> >
> >I'm somewhat loath to agree with Poopie B'ar, but isn't it a stretch to
> >say the converse of "decent" is "total crap"?
>
> I've always thought "decent" was closer to "barely acceptable" than to
> either extreme.

To me, it connotes averageness, which is broader than that.

> When someone knocks at your door and asks if you are decent, it is to
> see if you are adequately covered - not dressed up.

Does that work in Canada?

> Looking at a few dictionary definitions I see "enough to meet a
> purpose" is the one that fits his query the best.

That's a bit loopy. Do the speakers in subway cars "meet the purpose"?
Most of us say they do not.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:54:57 -0600, jakdedert
> wrote:

>OTOH, there's no accounting for taste, so yours and his may match...or
>not. As such, your lofty pronouncements about his particular needs have
>no basis in either background or expertise...especially since you don't
>even appear to have even read the OP.

If there was accounting for taste, then we wouldn't have so much music
with the gain so high to drown out the sound of snare drums. (Don't
they think I can use a volume control?) Much of the music I like -
top speakers would be wasted. But not all of the music.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:10:33 +0000, Eeyore
> wrote:

>When one's heard what 3 inch speakers sound like, you don't need to repeat the
>exercise.

Put them in some head phones.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 19:25:53 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george
@ comcast . net> wrote:

>> Looking at a few dictionary definitions I see "enough to meet a
>> purpose" is the one that fits his query the best.
>
>That's a bit loopy. Do the speakers in subway cars "meet the purpose"?
>Most of us say they do not.

If the purpose is to let us know when our stop is, then yes.

[Curmudgeon]

In article
>,
Jolly Roger > wrote:

> In article >,
> Curmudgeon > wrote:
>
> > OP here, Sorry, Jak, but you have it all wrong. Yes, I intend to build
> > around using my Macintosh as my primary music playback system. However,
> > I use the machine for much more than that, nor do I intend to abandon my
> > audiophile system downstairs. What I did say is that the speakers I've
> > chosen for the computer will be used for music playback but not required
> > to be a gaming or DVD system.
> >
> > It appears that it is you who have not read what I originally read very
> > carefully. Please lay off Jolly Roger. He was the most helpful among a
> > small group who originally replied, and seems to be the only poster who
> > really understood what my intentions were. I am now very sorry that my
> > original message was posted to the audio newsgroups. I apprieciate what
> > I've heard from you golden-ear guys (and I'm among you when it comes to
> > my main system), but my choice for upstairs is determined by real estate
> > available and financial considerations as well as the "pure sound" I can
> > expect from it. If I'd had the space and the money, I'd have gone with
> > a nice clean little amp and a pair of serious studio monitors.
> >
> > I may very well find that the Klipsch system I have chosen is all "boom
> > and tizz" (as Graham has put it), and if so, I will be unhappy with it.
> > But I was quite content with the Cambridge SoundWorks system I had been
> > using, and the Klipsch specs out much better than it did, so I expect to
> > be pretty satisfied.
>
> Well there you have it - straight from the horse's mouth.
>
> Mudge, please do reply once you've received the system and let the rest
> of us know what you think of them. If your needs are anything like mine,
> I think they'll be satisfactory. And if not, I'd still like to know, so
> I can avoid recommending them to others in the future! ; )

OP here . . .

Well, Amazon truly exceeded my expectations by delivering the Klipsch
system today, and I have it hooked up and playing as we [speak]. I am
pretty underwhelmed so far, but I'm in the process of re-EQing all of
my music from Flat+6dB to Flat+0dB since these guys are very efficient
and don't need the boost the Cambridge SoundWorks system did. Somebody
asked which CS sytem I had: It was the original SoundWorks 2.1 system,
and I've been very fond of it for many years until it developed a fault
that caused it it cut out as it warmed up. I also have not yet placed
this subwoofer where it'll ultimately sit so this is a very preliminary
report. I assume it will also take a couple of days for these guys to
break in and mellow out a bit. They're pretty shrill at the moment and
their sound is very "forward" so I'm going to experiment with satellite
placement at the very back of my desk. The subwoofer is very efficient
and needs to be dampened, especially since it will live in a much more
cornered position than where it's sitting right now. I'm determined to
fiddle with placement until they sound balanced since I will not tamper
with the EQ settings beyond Flat+/-XdB. Sting's "They Dance Alone" is
playing right now and sounds pretty good since I've moved the satellite
units back. My random play has picked Margie Raymond's "I'm Available"
(a '50s mono recording) and it sounds very good, but it's just switched
to Thomas Dolby's "She Blinded Me with Science" and it is very shrill.

This is going to be an ongoing process. Stay tuned . . .

Cheers!

Mudge

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
> > The Klipsch speakers are rated:
> >
> > Frequency response: 31Hz - 20kHz
>
> And if you think that means anything you're an even bigger idiot than I
> thought. It's marketing fluff.

Now you've stooped to name calling... you must be proud.

> > Power Handling: Satellites: 55 watts/channel @ â≈€ 1% THD, 200Hz - 1KHz
> > Subwoofer: 50 watts @ â≈€ 7% THD, 40 - 100 Hz
>
> 1% and 7% distortion !
>
> Jesus wept !
>
> I have designed a *600 watt* power amp with distortion below 0.001% midband. I
> consider 0.1% distortion to be pretty poor these days never mind distortion
> percentages in single digit numbers..

In terms of *computer speakers*? Please...

I thought 7% seemed like a high number too, but then I realized it's for
the *sub*, which is in a *vented* enclosure.

I don't notice distortion from the satelites. But that's me.

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

[Clyde Slick]

On 5 Ian, 19:37, Howard Brazee > wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 19:25:53 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george
> @ comcast . net> wrote:
>
> >> Looking at a few dictionary definitions I see "enough to meet a
> >> purpose" is the one that fits his query the best.
>
> >That's a bit loopy. Do the speakers in subway cars "meet the purpose"?
> >Most of us say they do not.
>
> If the purpose is to let us know when our stop is, then yes.

frbnteenth streeb decks up

[George M. Middius]

Howard Brazee said:

> >> Looking at a few dictionary definitions I see "enough to meet a
> >> purpose" is the one that fits his query the best.
> >
> >That's a bit loopy. Do the speakers in subway cars "meet the purpose"?
> >Most of us say they do not.
>
> If the purpose is to let us know when our stop is, then yes.

You have it backwards. Their performance is why the answer is No.

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

> > > The crux is whether anyone else can use them while you enjoy their
> > > copies on your computer. You are free to destroy the originals.
> >
> > Is that supposed to be helpful? Maybe I missed something....
>
> It's the only way he can use the copies while ridding himself of the
> originals.

Is it important to do the ridding? Seems goofy to me, unless maybe he's
packing for a trip to the space station.

[George M. Middius]

Jolly Roger said:

> > And if you think that means anything you're an even bigger idiot than I
> > thought. It's marketing fluff.
>
> Now you've stooped to name calling... you must be proud.

You'll know you've arrived in Poopie's Pantheon of Paragons when he tells
you to go boil your head in a vat of acid.

[Eeyore]

Howard Brazee wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 19:25:53 -0500, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george
> @ comcast . net> wrote:
>
> >> Looking at a few dictionary definitions I see "enough to meet a
> >> purpose" is the one that fits his query the best.
> >
> >That's a bit loopy. Do the speakers in subway cars "meet the purpose"?
> >Most of us say they do not.
>
> If the purpose is to let us know when our stop is, then yes.

They tend to be pretty poor at even that IME.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Curmudgeon wrote:

> I assume it will also take a couple of days for these guys to
> break in and mellow out a bit.

Uh ?

Where did you come across that crackpot idea ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> > Jolly Roger wrote:
> >
> > > The Klipsch speakers are rated:
> > >
> > > Frequency response: 31Hz - 20kHz
> >
> > And if you think that means anything you're an even bigger idiot than I
> > thought. It's marketing fluff.
>
> Now you've stooped to name calling... you must be proud.

So how many +/- dB do you think the spec is ?

I'll bet you didn't even know that a frequency response figure without dB limits was
meaningless did you ?


> > > Power Handling: Satellites: 55 watts/channel @ â≈€ 1% THD, 200Hz - 1KHz
> > > Subwoofer: 50 watts @ â≈€ 7% THD, 40 - 100 Hz
> >
> > 1% and 7% distortion !
> >
> > Jesus wept !
> >
> > I have designed a *600 watt* power amp with distortion below 0.001% midband. I
> > consider 0.1% distortion to be pretty poor these days never mind distortion
> > percentages in single digit numbers..
>
> In terms of *computer speakers*? Please...

In terms of what modern electronics is capable of. There is no reason for even cheap
electronics to exceed 0.1% THD at worst.

7% THD is diabolically bad.


> I thought 7% seemed like a high number too, but then I realized it's for
> the *sub*, which is in a *vented* enclosure.
>
> I don't notice distortion from the satelites. But that's me.

Seems to me that you must be deaf.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Curmudgeon wrote:

> I am pretty underwhelmed so far

This comes as no surprise to me. They are after all simply over-hyped Chinese
tat.

Graham

[Curmudgeon]

In article >, Curmudgeon
> wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Jolly Roger > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Curmudgeon > wrote:
> >
> > > OP here, Sorry, Jak, but you have it all wrong. Yes, I intend to build
> > > around using my Macintosh as my primary music playback system. However,
> > > I use the machine for much more than that, nor do I intend to abandon my
> > > audiophile system downstairs. What I did say is that the speakers I've
> > > chosen for the computer will be used for music playback but not required
> > > to be a gaming or DVD system.
> > >
> > > It appears that it is you who have not read what I originally read very
> > > carefully. Please lay off Jolly Roger. He was the most helpful among a
> > > small group who originally replied, and seems to be the only poster who
> > > really understood what my intentions were. I am now very sorry that my
> > > original message was posted to the audio newsgroups. I apprieciate what
> > > I've heard from you golden-ear guys (and I'm among you when it comes to
> > > my main system), but my choice for upstairs is determined by real estate
> > > available and financial considerations as well as the "pure sound" I can
> > > expect from it. If I'd had the space and the money, I'd have gone with
> > > a nice clean little amp and a pair of serious studio monitors.
> > >
> > > I may very well find that the Klipsch system I have chosen is all "boom
> > > and tizz" (as Graham has put it), and if so, I will be unhappy with it.
> > > But I was quite content with the Cambridge SoundWorks system I had been
> > > using, and the Klipsch specs out much better than it did, so I expect to
> > > be pretty satisfied.
> >
> > Well there you have it - straight from the horse's mouth.
> >
> > Mudge, please do reply once you've received the system and let the rest
> > of us know what you think of them. If your needs are anything like mine,
> > I think they'll be satisfactory. And if not, I'd still like to know, so
> > I can avoid recommending them to others in the future! ; )
>
> OP here . . .
>
> Well, Amazon truly exceeded my expectations by delivering the Klipsch
> system today, and I have it hooked up and playing as we [speak]. I am
> pretty underwhelmed so far, but I'm in the process of re-EQing all of
> my music from Flat+6dB to Flat+0dB since these guys are very efficient
> and don't need the boost the Cambridge SoundWorks system did. Somebody
> asked which CS sytem I had: It was the original SoundWorks 2.1 system,
> and I've been very fond of it for many years until it developed a fault
> that caused it it cut out as it warmed up. I also have not yet placed
> this subwoofer where it'll ultimately sit so this is a very preliminary
> report. I assume it will also take a couple of days for these guys to
> break in and mellow out a bit. They're pretty shrill at the moment and
> their sound is very "forward" so I'm going to experiment with satellite
> placement at the very back of my desk. The subwoofer is very efficient
> and needs to be dampened, especially since it will live in a much more
> cornered position than where it's sitting right now. I'm determined to
> fiddle with placement until they sound balanced since I will not tamper
> with the EQ settings beyond Flat+/-XdB. Sting's "They Dance Alone" is
> playing right now and sounds pretty good since I've moved the satellite
> units back. My random play has picked Margie Raymond's "I'm Available"
> (a '50s mono recording) and it sounds very good, but it's just switched
> to Thomas Dolby's "She Blinded Me with Science" and it is very shrill.
>
> This is going to be an ongoing process. Stay tuned . . .

OP here . . .

Well, I have installed these guys where they belong and I am beginning
to warm to them. Graham made fun of my contention that they'll need a
bit of time to break in, but my experience with every speaker system I
have ever owned is that new speakers take a little time to loosen up.

These guys are pretty damn accurate on everything I've thrown at them:
Bach, U2, you name it, they're doing a pretty darn good job. I've got
the Yes version of "America" going right now, and I am very happy with
both the detail of the sound and the imaging.

I think I'll give them a guarded thumbs up for now. (For those new to
the thread, I'm talking about a set of Klipsch ProAudio 2.1 monitors.)

More to follow . . .

Cheers!

Mudge

[Curmudgeon]

In article >, Curmudgeon
> wrote:

> In article >, Curmudgeon
> > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > Jolly Roger > wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > Curmudgeon > wrote:
> > >
> > > > OP here, Sorry, Jak, but you have it all wrong. Yes, I intend to build
> > > > around using my Macintosh as my primary music playback system. However,
> > > > I use the machine for much more than that, nor do I intend to abandon my
> > > > audiophile system downstairs. What I did say is that the speakers I've
> > > > chosen for the computer will be used for music playback but not required
> > > > to be a gaming or DVD system.
> > > >
> > > > It appears that it is you who have not read what I originally read very
> > > > carefully. Please lay off Jolly Roger. He was the most helpful among a
> > > > small group who originally replied, and seems to be the only poster who
> > > > really understood what my intentions were. I am now very sorry that my
> > > > original message was posted to the audio newsgroups. I apprieciate what
> > > > I've heard from you golden-ear guys (and I'm among you when it comes to
> > > > my main system), but my choice for upstairs is determined by real estate
> > > > available and financial considerations as well as the "pure sound" I can
> > > > expect from it. If I'd had the space and the money, I'd have gone with
> > > > a nice clean little amp and a pair of serious studio monitors.
> > > >
> > > > I may very well find that the Klipsch system I have chosen is all "boom
> > > > and tizz" (as Graham has put it), and if so, I will be unhappy with it.
> > > > But I was quite content with the Cambridge SoundWorks system I had been
> > > > using, and the Klipsch specs out much better than it did, so I expect to
> > > > be pretty satisfied.
> > >
> > > Well there you have it - straight from the horse's mouth.
> > >
> > > Mudge, please do reply once you've received the system and let the rest
> > > of us know what you think of them. If your needs are anything like mine,
> > > I think they'll be satisfactory. And if not, I'd still like to know, so
> > > I can avoid recommending them to others in the future! ; )
> >
> > OP here . . .
> >
> > Well, Amazon truly exceeded my expectations by delivering the Klipsch
> > system today, and I have it hooked up and playing as we [speak]. I am
> > pretty underwhelmed so far, but I'm in the process of re-EQing all of
> > my music from Flat+6dB to Flat+0dB since these guys are very efficient
> > and don't need the boost the Cambridge SoundWorks system did. Somebody
> > asked which CS sytem I had: It was the original SoundWorks 2.1 system,
> > and I've been very fond of it for many years until it developed a fault
> > that caused it it cut out as it warmed up. I also have not yet placed
> > this subwoofer where it'll ultimately sit so this is a very preliminary
> > report. I assume it will also take a couple of days for these guys to
> > break in and mellow out a bit. They're pretty shrill at the moment and
> > their sound is very "forward" so I'm going to experiment with satellite
> > placement at the very back of my desk. The subwoofer is very efficient
> > and needs to be dampened, especially since it will live in a much more
> > cornered position than where it's sitting right now. I'm determined to
> > fiddle with placement until they sound balanced since I will not tamper
> > with the EQ settings beyond Flat+/-XdB. Sting's "They Dance Alone" is
> > playing right now and sounds pretty good since I've moved the satellite
> > units back. My random play has picked Margie Raymond's "I'm Available"
> > (a '50s mono recording) and it sounds very good, but it's just switched
> > to Thomas Dolby's "She Blinded Me with Science" and it is very shrill.
> >
> > This is going to be an ongoing process. Stay tuned . . .
>
> OP here . . .
>
> Well, I have installed these guys where they belong and I am beginning
> to warm to them. Graham made fun of my contention that they'll need a
> bit of time to break in, but my experience with every speaker system I
> have ever owned is that new speakers take a little time to loosen up.
>
> These guys are pretty damn accurate on everything I've thrown at them:
> Bach, U2, you name it, they're doing a pretty darn good job. I've got
> the Yes version of "America" going right now, and I am very happy with
> both the detail of the sound and the imaging.
>
> I think I'll give them a guarded thumbs up for now. (For those new to
> the thread, I'm talking about a set of Klipsch ProAudio 2.1 monitors.)

OP here . . .

OK, I'm officially impressed. I've been trialing these guys with a very
demanding piece, B. Bartok's Cantata Profana for Tenor, Baritone, Double
Chorus and Orchestra, Sz 94 (The Nine Splendid Stags), and all I can say
is "Wow!" The imaging is truly fine, and the detail's more that I could
possibly have expected from "computer speakers" (no matter how much they
cost me).

The sound is still a bit strident, but assuming that they will settle in
with use, I think I'll be very satisfied with this system.

Cheers!

Mudge

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Jolly Roger wrote:
>
> > Eeyore > wrote:
> > > Jolly Roger wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Klipsch speakers are rated:
> > > >
> > > > Frequency response: 31Hz - 20kHz
> > >
> > > And if you think that means anything you're an even bigger idiot than I
> > > thought. It's marketing fluff.
> >
> > Now you've stooped to name calling... you must be proud.
>
> So how many +/- dB do you think the spec is ?
> I'll bet you didn't even know that a frequency response figure without dB
> limits was meaningless did you ?

Nope, I did not know that, but I do know one thing: In your mind, not
knowing makes me an idiot.

BTW, you may want to look up the definition of "idiot" and compare it to
the definition of the word "ignorant" sometime. I suspect you meant the
latter when you called me an idiot - at least I sure hope so. If not,
you may want to have a look at "ignoble" since it's how I would describe
you, based on our limited, but telling, interaction here.

> > > > Power Handling: Satellites: 55 watts/channel @ ââ≈√ââ‰*¬ 1% THD, 200Hz
> > > > - 1KHz
> > > > Subwoofer: 50 watts @ ââ≈√ââ‰*¬ 7% THD, 40 - 100
> > > > Hz
> > >
> > > 1% and 7% distortion !
> > >
> > > Jesus wept !
> > >
> > > I have designed a *600 watt* power amp with distortion below 0.001%
> > > midband. I
> > > consider 0.1% distortion to be pretty poor these days never mind
> > > distortion
> > > percentages in single digit numbers..
> >
> > In terms of *computer speakers*? Please...
>
> In terms of what modern electronics is capable of. There is no reason for
> even cheap
> electronics to exceed 0.1% THD at worst.
>
> 7% THD is diabolically bad.
>
>
> > I thought 7% seemed like a high number too, but then I realized it's for
> > the *sub*, which is in a *vented* enclosure.
> >
> > I don't notice distortion from the satelites. But that's me.
>
> Seems to me that you must be deaf.

I'm nowhere near deaf. I'm just your average non-elitist human being
who appreciates *music* more than 100% accurate sound reproduction.

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article >,
Curmudgeon > wrote:

> OP here . . .
>
> OK, I'm officially impressed. I've been trialing these guys with a very
> demanding piece, B. Bartok's Cantata Profana for Tenor, Baritone, Double
> Chorus and Orchestra, Sz 94 (The Nine Splendid Stags), and all I can say
> is "Wow!" The imaging is truly fine, and the detail's more that I could
> possibly have expected from "computer speakers" (no matter how much they
> cost me).
>
> The sound is still a bit strident, but assuming that they will settle in
> with use, I think I'll be very satisfied with this system.

Well good. That puts me at ease. After all the elitist audiophile talk
about how crappy these speakers are, I was a little afraid something
must be wrong with my ears and you'd be sorely disappointed.

I find it interesting that the only two people who have actually heard
these speakers in person are the ones who like them in the end. That
says something to me.

Anyway, thanks again for following up. : )

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

[George M. Middius]

Donkey hnawked:

> > >That's a bit loopy. Do the speakers in subway cars "meet the purpose"?
> > >Most of us say they do not.
> >
> > If the purpose is to let us know when our stop is, then yes.
>
> They tend to be pretty poor at even that IME.

Note to Howie: It's a sad state of affairs when you're less perceptive
than a dotty old donkey who can't even spell properly.

[Eric Lindsay]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Curmudgeon wrote:
>
> > I may very well find that the Klipsch system I have chosen is all "boom
> > and tizz" (as Graham has put it), and if so, I will be unhappy with it.
> > But I was quite content with the Cambridge SoundWorks system I had been
> > using,
>
> What model ?
>
>
> > and the Klipsch specs out much better than it did, so I expect to
> > be pretty satisfied.
>
> At this product level the specs are essentially meaningless marketing fluff.
> They are regularly massaged numbers without meaningful qualification or simply
> plain LIES.
>
> The frequency response of those Klipschs for example is stated as 35 Hz - 20
> kHz *without any dB limits*. A GOOD speaker would be say +/- 3dB meaning the
> response is quite 'flat'. I'd be surprised if the Klipschs are as good as +/-
> 10dB.

I am surprised that people wanting a reasonable set of computer speakers
do not more often mention AudioengineUSA. While the Audioengine 5
bookshelf at US$350 exceeds the price range the original poster
specified, the new Audioengine 2 is US$199, which does meet the
specified price range. I understand that for USA buyers, you can
organise a 30 day listening trial.

Specifications are obviously much inferior for the much smaller
Audioengine 2, and the amplifier is specified only at 15 watts RMS per
channel, rather than the 50 watts RMS of the A5. S/N >95dB (typical A
weighted). THD <0.05% Crosstalk <50dB. Frequency response 65Hz-22kHz
+/-2dB
http://audioengineusa.com/tech.htm

Stereophile did a recent description of the Audioengine 2
http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1207ae/ and compared it with
the Infinity Primus 150 and the Paradigm Atom v.3 The reviewer sounded
impressed, given the price and size of these speakers.

John Atkinson's measurements
http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1207ae/index4.html
Atkinson's measurements reveal the amplifiers provide equalisation to
drive the low frequency response above what you would normally expect
from the small box. Not a purist technique, but I think it appropriate
for powered computer speakers.

I have the larger Audioengine 5 bookshelf model as my computer speakers,
and I am very satisfied with them. I live in a very small apartment
(with a very big ocean view) and simply can not really continue to
indulge myself with large audio components taking up increasingly
precious space. The Audioengine 5 will be used for all my music from my
computer. With some loss in quality, I can even feed them remotely from
my Airport Express to avoid stringing cables
http://stereophile.com/digitalprocessors/505apple/
If I want better results than that, I can always use headphones
http://stereophile.com/headphones/602grado/

--
http://www.ericlindsay.com

[George M. Middius]

Jolly Roger said:

> > > > > Frequency response: 31Hz - 20kHz
> > > >
> > > > And if you think that means anything you're an even bigger idiot than I
> > > > thought. It's marketing fluff.
> > >
> > > Now you've stooped to name calling... you must be proud.
> >
> > So how many +/- dB do you think the spec is ?
> > I'll bet you didn't even know that a frequency response figure without dB
> > limits was meaningless did you ?
>
> Nope, I did not know that, but I do know one thing: In your mind, not
> knowing makes me an idiot.

You're the one who quoted the specification as if it were meaningful. If
you don't know how to interpret it, why did you quote it to begin with?

I disagree that your error makes you an idiot. To get your Idiot Star™
for that post, you'd have had to go on to state explicitly that the quoted
specs were impressive or some such. But don't let Poopie's bad temper put
you off learning. He's a little whacked. He takes personal affront when
'ppl' make posts that show a level of knowledge inferior to his own. If
you want to find out what kind of non-idiot Poopie is, just ask him how he
can be so daft as to dismiss the man-made component of global warming.

[George M. Middius]

Donkey brayed:

> They are after all simply over-hyped Chinese tat.

Did you say "tat"?

[George M. Middius]

Curmudgeon said:

> Well, I have installed these guys where they belong and I am beginning
> to warm to them. Graham made fun of my contention that they'll need a
> bit of time to break in, but my experience with every speaker system I
> have ever owned is that new speakers take a little time to loosen up.

The reason Poopie pooh-poohed your comment is that he 'knows' it's not the
speakers that need breaking in; it's the listener.

> These guys are pretty damn accurate on everything I've thrown at them:

How do you know they're "accurate"?

[George M. Middius]

Jolly Roger said:

> I find it interesting that the only two people who have actually heard
> these speakers in person are the ones who like them in the end. That
> says something to me.

How often does somebody admit to disliking something he put time and money
into acquiring?

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said:

> > The sound is still a bit strident, but assuming that they will settle in
> > with use, I think I'll be very satisfied with this system.
>
> With horn tweeters, there's always the Charmin mod.

Scented Charmin or un?

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article >,
George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote:

> Jolly Roger said:
>
> > > > > > Frequency response: 31Hz - 20kHz
> > > > >
> > > > > And if you think that means anything you're an even bigger idiot than
> > > > > I
> > > > > thought. It's marketing fluff.
> > > >
> > > > Now you've stooped to name calling... you must be proud.
> > >
> > > So how many +/- dB do you think the spec is ?
> > > I'll bet you didn't even know that a frequency response figure without dB
> > > limits was meaningless did you ?
> >
> > Nope, I did not know that, but I do know one thing: In your mind, not
> > knowing makes me an idiot.
>
> You're the one who quoted the specification as if it were meaningful. If
> you don't know how to interpret it, why did you quote it to begin with?

He speculated about the specifications, so I copied and pasted them from
the Klipsch web site.

--
Note: Please send all responses to the relevant news group. If you
must contact me through e-mail, let me know when you send email to
this address so that your email doesn't get eaten by my SPAM filter.

JR

[jakdedert]

Curmudgeon wrote:
> In article >, jakdedert
> > wrote:
>
>> Jolly Roger wrote:
>>
>>> I don't get why this is so lost on you:
>>>
>>> The OP asked for a decent set of *computer speakers*. This isn't a
>>> discussion about sound quality.
>>>
>> You still don't get that the particular computer is his music
>> system...only. He doesn't intend to use it for anything else. In that
>> case, the computer is just the same as any other musical source...be it
>> a CD player, turntable, an iPod or a tape deck.
>>
>> He said it was to be *solely* dedicated to musical listening.
>>
>> So a reasonable amount of musical fidelity would be desirable. By that,
>> I'd mean being capable of a level 'somewhat' above elevated
>> conversational volume in the listening space intended; with a frequency
>> response within (plus or minus) a few dB from 50 Hz or so--to slightly
>> beyond the limit of his hearing capability (15 kHz or thereabouts)--and
>> with a distortion of less than one percent (preferably one tenth of a
>> percent).
>>
>> That's not 'audiophile standard' by any means, but probably *well*
>> beyond the capability of the chosen speakers.
>>
>> Anything less, and it's likely the listener will either turn them down
>> to barely audible levels, or that they'll be fatiguing on extended
>> listening (ie 'not satisfying' or simply annoying). It's not
>> 'audiophoolery' it's human physiology with a dose of psycho-acoustics (a
>> very real science, incidentally).
>>
>> OTOH, there's no accounting for taste, so yours and his may match...or
>> not. As such, your lofty pronouncements about his particular needs have
>> no basis in either background or expertise...especially since you don't
>> even appear to have even read the OP.
>
> OP here, Sorry, Jak, but you have it all wrong. Yes, I intend to build
> around using my Macintosh as my primary music playback system. However,
> I use the machine for much more than that, nor do I intend to abandon my
> audiophile system downstairs. What I did say is that the speakers I've
> chosen for the computer will be used for music playback but not required
> to be a gaming or DVD system.

From your original post: "The only demands I'll place on my new system
are music reproduction (of all genres)." and "...I have loaded my entire
CD library into iTunes and would like to begin using it as the
playback-system-of-choice so I can begin selling off these little silver
coasters."

OK, if by 'new system' you were only referring to the speakers
themselves, then I stand corrected; but nothing in the above or the rest
of the post indicates that you were going to do anything else with the
computer and speakers...what most people would call a 'system'.
>
> It appears that it is you who have not read what I originally read very
> carefully.

As indicated above, you were not very clear in your OP, which I did read
very carefully.

> Please lay off Jolly Roger. He was the most helpful among a
> small group who originally replied, and seems to be the only poster who
> really understood what my intentions were. I am now very sorry that my
> original message was posted to the audio newsgroups. I apprieciate what
> I've heard from you golden-ear guys (and I'm among you when it comes to
> my main system), but my choice for upstairs is determined by real estate
> available and financial considerations as well as the "pure sound" I can
> expect from it. If I'd had the space and the money, I'd have gone with
> a nice clean little amp and a pair of serious studio monitors.
>
Since you are selling off your CD collection, what program material are
you intending to play on the 'main system'? And while we're on the
subject, most people would equate 'main system' and 'system of choice'
as the same thing.

If fact, you didn't refer to another system until later in the thread,
so do you still think your intentions were all that clear?

> I may very well find that the Klipsch system I have chosen is all "boom
> and tizz" (as Graham has put it), and if so, I will be unhappy with it.
> But I was quite content with the Cambridge SoundWorks system I had been
> using, and the Klipsch specs out much better than it did, so I expect to
> be pretty satisfied.
>
As well you may be...to each his own.

> And with respect to piracy issues, I was not aware that selling off the
> library of "little silver coasters" renders me an outlaw. I thought the
> fact that I'd paid full retail price for them in the first place granted
> me the right to copy them to my computer. If I turn them over and thus
> truly become a pirate, I suppose I'll have to reconsider. But I'll need
> to do some careful reading of copyright law before I'm convinced that is
> the case.
>
Common opinion has it that you do indeed have license to copy the music,
but NOT to sell the originals...any more than you are legally entitled
to copy someone else's CD. Once you sell the original media you are
legally bound to destroy any copies you have made, since you no longer
own the 'license' implied with the purchase of the disk.

Recently the RIAA has been making noise about it being illegal to even
copy your own legally purchased material. IMO, this is an extreme
position, but....

jak
> Cheers!
>
> Mudge

[Eeyore]

Curmudgeon wrote:

> Graham made fun of my contention that they'll need a
> bit of time to break in, but my experience with every speaker system I
> have ever owned is that new speakers take a little time to loosen up.

This is a total myth. Yet more nonsense from the audiophool brigade.


> These guys are pretty damn accurate on everything I've thrown at them:

One thing I'll guarantee is that they are not even remotely *accurate* ! OTOH you
may never have had the advantage of listening on reference level speakers so you
probably have no suitable benchmark on which to base such a comment and it's just
wishful thinking on your part.

If Klipsch computer speaker were accurate, why would anyone pay tens of thousands
for anything else ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Curmudgeon wrote:

> The sound is still a bit strident, but assuming that they will settle in
> with use

More wishful thinking.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> Eeyore > wrote:
> > Jolly Roger wrote:
> > > Eeyore > wrote:
> > > > Jolly Roger wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The Klipsch speakers are rated:
> > > > >
> > > > > Frequency response: 31Hz - 20kHz
> > > >
> > > > And if you think that means anything you're an even bigger idiot than I
> > > > thought. It's marketing fluff.
> > >
> > > Now you've stooped to name calling... you must be proud.
> >
> > So how many +/- dB do you think the spec is ?
> > I'll bet you didn't even know that a frequency response figure without dB
> > limits was meaningless did you ?
>
> Nope, I did not know that, but I do know one thing: In your mind, not
> knowing makes me an idiot.

If you didn't know that dB limits are important wrt a frequency reponse you certainly
shouldn't have been giving advice based on that ignorance.

I hope you've learnt something here. You should beware any frequency response spec that isn't
properly defined with dB limits. The audio mixers I design are typically 20Hz - 20 kHz +/-
0.1 dB for instance. That's about as flat as flat gets in practice, although I could make it
+/- 0.05dB if I thought it was important.


> BTW, you may want to look up the definition of "idiot" and compare it to
> the definition of the word "ignorant" sometime.

I'll happily replace idiot with ignorant if it makes you feel better.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Donkey brayed:
>
> > They are after all simply over-hyped Chinese tat.
>
> Did you say "tat"?

I did.

Graham

[Eeyore]

MiNe 109 wrote:

> In article >,
> Curmudgeon > wrote:
>
> > In article >, Curmudgeon
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > In article >, Curmudgeon
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > Jolly Roger > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > Curmudgeon > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > OP here, Sorry, Jak, but you have it all wrong. Yes, I intend to
> > > > > > build
> > > > > > around using my Macintosh as my primary music playback system.
> > > > > > However,
> > > > > > I use the machine for much more than that, nor do I intend to abandon
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > audiophile system downstairs. What I did say is that the speakers
> > > > > > I've
> > > > > > chosen for the computer will be used for music playback but not
> > > > > > required
> > > > > > to be a gaming or DVD system.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It appears that it is you who have not read what I originally read
> > > > > > very
> > > > > > carefully. Please lay off Jolly Roger. He was the most helpful
> > > > > > among a
> > > > > > small group who originally replied, and seems to be the only poster
> > > > > > who
> > > > > > really understood what my intentions were. I am now very sorry that
> > > > > > my
> > > > > > original message was posted to the audio newsgroups. I apprieciate
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > I've heard from you golden-ear guys (and I'm among you when it comes
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > my main system), but my choice for upstairs is determined by real
> > > > > > estate
> > > > > > available and financial considerations as well as the "pure sound" I
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > expect from it. If I'd had the space and the money, I'd have gone
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > a nice clean little amp and a pair of serious studio monitors.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I may very well find that the Klipsch system I have chosen is all
> > > > > > "boom
> > > > > > and tizz" (as Graham has put it), and if so, I will be unhappy with
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > > But I was quite content with the Cambridge SoundWorks system I had
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > using, and the Klipsch specs out much better than it did, so I expect
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > be pretty satisfied.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well there you have it - straight from the horse's mouth.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mudge, please do reply once you've received the system and let the rest
> > > > > of us know what you think of them. If your needs are anything like
> > > > > mine,
> > > > > I think they'll be satisfactory. And if not, I'd still like to know, so
> > > > > I can avoid recommending them to others in the future! ; )
> > > >
> > > > OP here . . .
> > > >
> > > > Well, Amazon truly exceeded my expectations by delivering the Klipsch
> > > > system today, and I have it hooked up and playing as we [speak]. I am
> > > > pretty underwhelmed so far, but I'm in the process of re-EQing all of
> > > > my music from Flat+6dB to Flat+0dB since these guys are very efficient
> > > > and don't need the boost the Cambridge SoundWorks system did. Somebody
> > > > asked which CS sytem I had: It was the original SoundWorks 2.1 system,
> > > > and I've been very fond of it for many years until it developed a fault
> > > > that caused it it cut out as it warmed up. I also have not yet placed
> > > > this subwoofer where it'll ultimately sit so this is a very preliminary
> > > > report. I assume it will also take a couple of days for these guys to
> > > > break in and mellow out a bit. They're pretty shrill at the moment and
> > > > their sound is very "forward" so I'm going to experiment with satellite
> > > > placement at the very back of my desk. The subwoofer is very efficient
> > > > and needs to be dampened, especially since it will live in a much more
> > > > cornered position than where it's sitting right now. I'm determined to
> > > > fiddle with placement until they sound balanced since I will not tamper
> > > > with the EQ settings beyond Flat+/-XdB. Sting's "They Dance Alone" is
> > > > playing right now and sounds pretty good since I've moved the satellite
> > > > units back. My random play has picked Margie Raymond's "I'm Available"
> > > > (a '50s mono recording) and it sounds very good, but it's just switched
> > > > to Thomas Dolby's "She Blinded Me with Science" and it is very shrill.
> > > >
> > > > This is going to be an ongoing process. Stay tuned . . .
> > >
> > > OP here . . .
> > >
> > > Well, I have installed these guys where they belong and I am beginning
> > > to warm to them. Graham made fun of my contention that they'll need a
> > > bit of time to break in, but my experience with every speaker system I
> > > have ever owned is that new speakers take a little time to loosen up.
> > >
> > > These guys are pretty damn accurate on everything I've thrown at them:
> > > Bach, U2, you name it, they're doing a pretty darn good job. I've got
> > > the Yes version of "America" going right now, and I am very happy with
> > > both the detail of the sound and the imaging.
> > >
> > > I think I'll give them a guarded thumbs up for now. (For those new to
> > > the thread, I'm talking about a set of Klipsch ProAudio 2.1 monitors.)
> >
> > OP here . . .
> >
> > OK, I'm officially impressed. I've been trialing these guys with a very
> > demanding piece, B. Bartok's Cantata Profana for Tenor, Baritone, Double
> > Chorus and Orchestra, Sz 94 (The Nine Splendid Stags), and all I can say
> > is "Wow!" The imaging is truly fine, and the detail's more that I could
> > possibly have expected from "computer speakers" (no matter how much they
> > cost me).
> >
> > The sound is still a bit strident, but assuming that they will settle in
> > with use, I think I'll be very satisfied with this system.
>
> With horn tweeters, there's always the Charmin mod.

Tissue paper ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jolly Roger wrote:

> George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote:
> > Jolly Roger said:
>
> > > > > > > Frequency response: 31Hz - 20kHz
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And if you think that means anything you're an even bigger idiot than
> > > > > > I thought. It's marketing fluff.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now you've stooped to name calling... you must be proud.
> > > >
> > > > So how many +/- dB do you think the spec is ?
> > > > I'll bet you didn't even know that a frequency response figure without dB
> > > > limits was meaningless did you ?
> > >
> > > Nope, I did not know that, but I do know one thing: In your mind, not
> > > knowing makes me an idiot.
> >
> > You're the one who quoted the specification as if it were meaningful. If
> > you don't know how to interpret it, why did you quote it to begin with?
>
> He speculated about the specifications, so I copied and pasted them from
> the Klipsch web site.

I'd already read them and knew they were of no value, other than impressing the
terminally clueless.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Eric Lindsay wrote:

> I am surprised that people wanting a reasonable set of computer speakers
> do not more often mention AudioengineUSA. While the Audioengine 5
> bookshelf at US$350 exceeds the price range the original poster
> specified, the new Audioengine 2 is US$199, which does meet the
> specified price range. I understand that for USA buyers, you can
> organise a 30 day listening trial.
>
> Specifications are obviously much inferior for the much smaller
> Audioengine 2, and the amplifier is specified only at 15 watts RMS per
> channel, rather than the 50 watts RMS of the A5. S/N >95dB (typical A
> weighted). THD <0.05% Crosstalk <50dB. Frequency response 65Hz-22kHz
> +/-2dB
> http://audioengineusa.com/tech.htm

A good call Those specs are very credible indeed. The +/- 2dB spec for the frequency
response is in 'monitor class' speaker territory, so I'm a little sceptical about
the number 2 here, but the general impression I get from their site is that they are
a very workmanlike and competent product. I'd buy them if I was in the market for
this kind of product.

The entire product description is also technically meaningful and isn't marketing
fluff.

I especially like this "You won't hear any enhanced super-mega-hyper-monster boomy
bass from these speakers."

The trouble is that those Klipschs and Altecs etc are marketed at people who
probably do want boom and tizz and squawk.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> If you want to find out what kind of non-idiot Poopie is, just ask him how he
> can be so daft as to dismiss the man-made component of global warming.

Who said I was dismissing it ? The question is, how big a component is it ? Is it
10% or 90% ? I certainly don't trust the IPCC's position.

Graham

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Curmudgeon said:
>
> > Well, I have installed these guys where they belong and I am beginning
> > to warm to them. Graham made fun of my contention that they'll need a
> > bit of time to break in, but my experience with every speaker system I
> > have ever owned is that new speakers take a little time to loosen up.
>
> The reason Poopie pooh-poohed your comment is that he 'knows' it's not the
> speakers that need breaking in; it's the listener.

Absolutely. He may get accustomed to the awful row they assuredly make,
although his comment about them sounding IIRC forward and strident (typically
this means an elevated level of midrange) suggests to me that he knows damn
well they are actually rubbish.


> > These guys are pretty damn accurate on everything I've thrown at them:
>
> How do you know they're "accurate"?

There's no way he can of course. It's a face saving tactic.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Donkey brayed:

> > > They are after all simply over-hyped Chinese tat.

> > Did you say "tat"?

> I did.

And what did you mean by "tat"? I'm asking on behalf of we who speak only
standard English.

[George M. Middius]

Yapper barks at the dark side of the moon.

> >> These guys are pretty damn accurate on everything I've thrown at them:

> > How do you know they're "accurate"?

> With support from Stephen and Graham...a subjectivist
> discussion has been thoroughly trashed.

Another Xmas passes and no brain surgery for Scottie. Such a pity.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 6, 10:50*am, "ScottW" > wrote:

> Could be the very reason he can no longer afford his
> perversions.

Ah, thank you. I knew the hypocritical christian in you would die out
after the first.

Now that you've illuminated us on this topic, what is the cause of
your intense stupidity?

Could be abuse as a child.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 6, 10:19*am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in messagenews:k8m0o3lhiu1e6et487e94ph1klbbhcnqrl@4ax .com...
>
>
>
> > Curmudgeon said:
>
> >> Well, I have installed these guys where they belong and I am beginning
> >> to warm to them. *Graham made fun of my contention that they'll need a
> >> bit of time to break in, but my experience with every speaker system I
> >> have ever owned is that new speakers take a little time to loosen up.
>
> > The reason Poopie pooh-poohed your comment is that he 'knows' it's not the
> > speakers that need breaking in; it's the listener.
>
> >> These guys are pretty damn accurate on everything I've thrown at them:
>
> > How do you know they're "accurate"?
>
> * No Krueger...no problem. *Middiot can play the part.
> With support from Stephen and Graham...a subjectivist
> discussion has been thoroughly trashed.
>
> *Good Job boys, your mentor Arny is surely proud.

You haven't had your ass licked recently. You always get so churlish
when it's been too long for you.

Perhaps there's a stray in the neighborhood whose balls you could
lick. Maybe that'll help.

Imbecile.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 6, 10:53*am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in messagenews:l812o3duup5vij4p29ja5lmmdn7tbfuk9m@4ax .com...
>
>
>
> > Yapper barks at the dark side of the moon.
>
> >> >> These guys are pretty damn accurate on everything I've thrown at them:
>
> >> > How do you know they're "accurate"?
>
> >> With support from Stephen and Graham...a subjectivist
> >> discussion has been thoroughly trashed.
>
> > Another Xmas passes and no brain surgery for Scottie. Such a pity.
>
> Face facts Midget mind....you're so desperate to engage in ridicule,
> you'll even play Arny. *You're almost as pathetic as the
> fools who follow your lead.

Um, 2pid, I learned how dumb you were all on my own. I'd imagine
everybody else did too.

Those of us who point out your stupidity (or GOIA's insanity for that
matter) are not "following" anyone, but I suppose you're too dense to
see that. Now go back to church and pray for forgiveness. BTW, it's
not god's fault your a bonehead. That can be blamed on your parents
and your lack of curiousity.

Since Clyde "follows George's lead" in ridiculing good old insane
Arns, are you still friends?

[George M. Middius]

It's time for Scottie to get his annual flea-dip.

> > >> > How do you know they're "accurate"?

> > >> With support from Stephen and Graham...a subjectivist
> > >> discussion has been thoroughly trashed.

The power I wield! I amaze even myself.

> > > Another Xmas passes and no brain surgery for Scottie. Such a pity.

> > Face facts Midget mind....you're so desperate to engage in ridicule,
> > you'll even play Arny. *You're almost as pathetic as the
> > fools who follow your lead.
>
> Um, 2pid, I learned how dumb you were all on my own. I'd imagine
> everybody else did too.

Yes indeed. Many newbies have queried or castigated me on my seemingly
harsh treatment of Witlessmongrel. They were wrong to do so, of course.
They erroneously assumed Scottie is a normal person, capable of
understanding what you say to him and responding in a conversational or
constructive tone. When they realize the Truth About Scottie, these
newbies usually apologize to me and then take appropriate action on their
own. Same scenario for Krooger, of course.

> Those of us who point out your stupidity (or GOIA's insanity for that
> matter) are not "following" anyone, but I suppose you're too dense to
> see that. Now go back to church and pray for forgiveness. BTW, it's
> not god's fault your a bonehead. That can be blamed on your parents
> and your lack of curiousity.

Now we know Scottie has been diagnosed with Asperger's and his trashy mama
gave him FAS.

> Since Clyde "follows George's lead" in ridiculing good old insane
> Arns, are you still friends?

Uh-oh. You're going to make Scottie's head explode. ;-)

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> Donkey brayed:
>
> > > > They are after all simply over-hyped Chinese tat.
>
> > > Did you say "tat"?
>
> > I did.
>
> And what did you mean by "tat"? I'm asking on behalf of we who speak only
> standard English.

WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This

tat
noun

1. tastelessness <sic>by virtue of being cheap and vulgar

a tasteless thing

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> "George M. Middius" wrote
> > Curmudgeon said:
> >
> >> Well, I have installed these guys where they belong and I am beginning
> >> to warm to them. Graham made fun of my contention that they'll need a
> >> bit of time to break in, but my experience with every speaker system I
> >> have ever owned is that new speakers take a little time to loosen up.
> >
> > The reason Poopie pooh-poohed your comment is that he 'knows' it's not the
> > speakers that need breaking in; it's the listener.
> >
> >> These guys are pretty damn accurate on everything I've thrown at them:
> >
> > How do you know they're "accurate"?
>
> No Krueger...no problem. Middiot can play the part.
> With support from Stephen and Graham...a subjectivist
> discussion has been thoroughly trashed.
>
> Good Job boys, your mentor Arny is surely proud.

LOL @ suggesting Middius is a Kroogerist.

So, do you reckon a speaker with a freq respose like the Rockies might sound
accurate ? And how might that be ?

Graham

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

> Painted a Muhammad charicature yet?

How did our rabid contributor manage to introduce Islam into the thread so
fast ?

Graham

[Todd H.]

Eeyore > writes:

> "George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> > Donkey brayed:
> >
> > > > > They are after all simply over-hyped Chinese tat.
> >
> > > > Did you say "tat"?
> >
> > > I did.
> >
> > And what did you mean by "tat"? I'm asking on behalf of we who speak only
> > standard English.
>
> WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
>
> tat
> noun
>
> 1. tastelessness <sic>by virtue of being cheap and vulgar
>
> a tasteless thing

Okay, on behalf of millions of men who want to know, I need to ask
"So where can I get this 'tat' and more importantly, where can
I trade it for the other?"

--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette |
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | http://myspace.com/bmiawmb

[Clyde Slick]

On 6 Ian, 08:33, MiNe 109 > wrote:

> > > With horn tweeters, there's always the Charmin mod.
>
> > Scented Charmin or un?
>
> Aroma therapy can be calming, note.
>
> Stephen

Did you first learn of this mod on www.pcabx.com?

[Clyde Slick]

On 6 Ian, 12:50, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:

> > Since Clyde "follows George's lead" in ridiculing good old insane
> > Arns, are you still friends?
>
> Uh-oh. You're going to make Scottie's head explode. ;-)

Since my skull's content is lighter than air, mine is 'imploding'
right now.

[Clyde Slick]

On 6 Ian, 13:06, Eeyore >
wrote:

>
> So, do you reckon a speaker with a freq respose like the Rockies might sound
> accurate ? And how might that be ?
>

well, he could be listening to calls of the wild elk.

[Clyde Slick]

On 6 Ian, 13:29, "ScottW" > wrote:


>
> For another example...I heard these at Marc's.
>
> http://www.devorefidelity.com/gibbons.html
>
> They sounded great.
> We had a debate about flat low bass and when I found a review
> that did an in room FR...they simply aren't very flat.
> Note that DeVore doesn't even provide a spec on FR.
> Just output. *But they really sounded
> great with an ability to create that realistic illusion of an instrument in
> space
> like few other speakers I've heard, including my Quads.
>

is that the ones he used with the SET amp.
Or did we hear that with other amplification?

[MINe109]

On Jan 6, 12:49 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 6 Ian, 08:33, MiNe 109 > wrote:
>
> > > > With horn tweeters, there's always the Charmin mod.
>
> > > Scented Charmin or un?
>
> > Aroma therapy can be calming, note.

> Did you first learn of this mod on www.pcabx.com?

No, from discussions of the Yamaha NS-10.

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

The Queen sends her emissary to enlighten the dark-dwelling denizens of
Usenet.

> > And what did you mean by "tat"? I'm asking on behalf of we who speak only
> > standard English.

> tat
> noun
> 1. tastelessness <sic>by virtue of being cheap and vulgar
> a tasteless thing

If that's the meaning you meant, your usage is inapt. Is English your
first language?

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

> > > > With horn tweeters, there's always the Charmin mod.

> > > Scented Charmin or un?

> > Aroma therapy can be calming, note.

> Did you first learn of this mod on www.pcabx.com?

Doubtful. Krooger doesn't believe in flushing away valuable ... uh ...
material.

[Todd H.]

jobar > writes:

> Todd H. wrote:
> > Eeyore > writes:
> >
> >> "George M. Middius" wrote:
> >>
> >>> Donkey brayed:
> >>>
> >>>>>> They are after all simply over-hyped Chinese tat.
> >>>>> Did you say "tat"?
> >>>> I did.
> >>> And what did you mean by "tat"? I'm asking on behalf of we who speak only
> >>> standard English.
> >> WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
> >>
> >> tat
> >> noun
> >>
> >> 1. tastelessness <sic>by virtue of being cheap and vulgar
> >>
> >> a tasteless thing
> > Okay, on behalf of millions of men who want to know, I need to ask
> > "So where can I get this 'tat' and more importantly, where can
> > I trade it for the other?"
> >
>
> Sometimes 'tit' for 'tat' will be traded.

Shhhh. It's not funny if you have to explain it to em!

--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette |
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | http://myspace.com/bmiawmb

[George M. Middius]

Witlessmongrel yapped:

> I missed you ridiculing a subjectivist.

.... and you only imagined me doing it, apparently.

What's eating you so early in the new year, moron? You've been foaming
about the islamists you dread, but nothing has happened in our hemisphere
to set you off. Will you be calling Shushie a "closet wetback" tomorrow?

[George M. Middius]

MiNe 109 said to Witlessmongrel:

> I see giving up flaming wasn't one of your resolutions.

I think he resolved to adopt preemptive flaming in every thread. Notice
that after he tried to preempt me and Shhh, we both observed that his IQ
still hasn't improved. Cause and effect are thus commingled to the point
that "yappity-yappity-yap" means the same thing coming and going.

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

> If that's the meaning you meant, your usage is inapt.

It's 100% correct.

Chinese tat = cheap, vulgar, tasteless item made in China.


Graham

[jobar]

Todd H. wrote:
> Eeyore > writes:
>
>> "George M. Middius" wrote:
>>
>>> Donkey brayed:
>>>
>>>>>> They are after all simply over-hyped Chinese tat.
>>>>> Did you say "tat"?
>>>> I did.
>>> And what did you mean by "tat"? I'm asking on behalf of we who speak only
>>> standard English.
>> WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This
>>
>> tat
>> noun
>>
>> 1. tastelessness <sic>by virtue of being cheap and vulgar
>>
>> a tasteless thing
>
> Okay, on behalf of millions of men who want to know, I need to ask
> "So where can I get this 'tat' and more importantly, where can
> I trade it for the other?"
>

Sometimes 'tit' for 'tat' will be traded.

[Clyde Slick]

On 6 Ian, 15:05, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:
> Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > With horn tweeters, there's always the Charmin mod.
> > > > Scented Charmin or un?
> > > Aroma therapy can be calming, note.
> > Did you first learn of this mod onwww.pcabx.com?
>
> Doubtful. Krooger doesn't believe in flushing away valuable ... uh ...
> material.

tho he does wipe his ass with $100 checks.
Instead of flushing them, he goes to the bank to try and cash them,
despite the smell.

[George M. Middius]

Poopie goes splat.

> > If that's the meaning you meant, your usage is inapt.
>
> It's 100% correct.
> Chinese tat = cheap, vulgar, tasteless item made in China.

The modifiers "vulgar, tasteless" are meaningless with respect to
electronics. Cheapness implies poor performance, poor reliability, and/or
poor longevity. One out of three is pretty bad.

> > Is English your first language?

Barn owl got your tongue, Donkey?

[MINe109]

On Jan 6, 8:23 pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > In article >,
> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> "MiNe 109" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> >> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in message
> >> ...
>
> >> >> > Curmudgeon said:
>
> >> >> >> Well, I have installed these guys where they belong and I am beginning
> >> >> >> to warm to them. Graham made fun of my contention that they'll need a
> >> >> >> bit of time to break in, but my experience with every speaker system I
> >> >> >> have ever owned is that new speakers take a little time to loosen up.
>
> >> >> > The reason Poopie pooh-poohed your comment is that he 'knows' it's not
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > speakers that need breaking in; it's the listener.
>
> >> >> >> These guys are pretty damn accurate on everything I've thrown at them:
>
> >> >> > How do you know they're "accurate"?
>
> >> >> No Krueger...no problem. Middiot can play the part.
> >> >> With support from Stephen and Graham...a subjectivist
> >> >> discussion has been thoroughly trashed.
>
> >> > WTF? I posted good links.
>
> >> You can't hang with scum without getting slimy.
>
> > I see giving up flaming wasn't one of your resolutions.
>
> Flaming truth burns hottest. Try not to blister.

Still coming to terms with haiku, I see. Never mind the syllables, at
least use three lines:

Flaming truth burns hot.
Though off the mark it may be,
Try not to blister.

Stephen

[Marc Neveux]

On 2008-01-01 12:55:45 -0800, Curmudgeon > said:

> All -
>
> Sorry for the extensive crossposting, but I wasn't sure which group was
> best targeted by this request for information and opinions.
>
> Thanks to the generosity of my brother, I have $200 to spend at Amazon
> and I have determined that my primary need is a new set of speakers for
> my Macintosh. I have loaded my entire CD library into iTunes and would
> like to begin using it as the playback-system-of-choice so I can begin
> selling off these little silver coasters. Everything's been encoded as
> AAC (128 kbps, 44.100 kHz), so the quality should be pretty decent.
>
> I have been running an original Cambridge SoundWorks system until just
> recently, but unfortunately it began cutting out on me as it warmed up.
> I'm certain that I could have it repaired, but I wanted to see if there
> might be a better system available to replace it. (In the meantime, I
> have been limited to an original set of Bose Roommates. They make some
> noise, but it isn't very pleasing!)
>
> The only demands I'll place on my new system are music reproduction (of
> all genres). I am not a game player, nor do I expect to use the system
> for surround-sound DVD playback. I just want a set of speakers that I
> can plug in, sit back, and enjoy.
>
> Please let me know what you would recommend and, more importantly, what
> you'd avoid. If I need to spend a bit more than $200, that's OK.
>
> And for the record, this is a 466 MHz G4 Macintosh running OSX 10.4.11
> and iTunes 7.5 (although I can't imagine why any of that should matter
> very much).
>
> Cheers, and Happy New Year to all!
>
> Mudge

For the last year I've been using the Bose Companion 3's and they are
by far the best speakers for a computer I have ever used. The are
connected to an iMac G5 and are primarily used for music via iTunes.

[Arny Krueger]

"ScottW" > wrote in message


> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
> wrote in message
> ...

>> Curmudgeon said:

>>> Well, I have installed these guys where they belong and
>>> I am beginning to warm to them. Graham made fun of my
>>> contention that they'll need a bit of time to break in,
>>> but my experience with every speaker system I have ever
>>> owned is that new speakers take a little time to loosen
>>> up.

>> The reason Poopie pooh-poohed your comment is that he
>> 'knows' it's not the speakers that need breaking in;
>> it's the listener.

The Middiot actually gets something right, but then there's the obvious
snot.

>>> These guys are pretty damn accurate on everything I've
>>> thrown at them:

>> How do you know they're "accurate"?

> No Krueger...no problem.

Whatever that snot means.

> Middiot can play the part.

...usually he plays the fool. This time he actually got something right, but
spoiled it with the snot.

> With support from Stephen and Graham...a subjectivist
> discussion has been thoroughly trashed.

Garbage in, garbage out.

> Good Job boys, your mentor Arny is surely proud.

More snot.
>
> ScottW

[George M. Middius]

MINe109 said:

> > > I see giving up flaming wasn't one of your resolutions.

> > Flaming truth burns hottest. Try not to blister.

> Still coming to terms with haiku, I see. Never mind the syllables, at
> least use three lines:
>
> Flaming truth burns hot.
> Though off the mark it may be,
> Try not to blister.

Scottie so stupid
He lies down with fleas, and then
Whines about the burn.


These are easier than limericks, note.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg flicks its tail at Terrierdork.

> >> The reason Poopie pooh-poohed your comment is that he
> >> 'knows' it's not the speakers that need breaking in;
> >> it's the listener.

> [George] actually gets something right

Tell us about your prostitution for 2008, Arnii.

> but then there's the obvious snot.

Actually, it's not that obvious. That's why I had to point it out to the
non-RAO poster.

Since when does snottiness bother you? You wallow in it, whether it's your
own or Poopie's or some other member of your concrete-head tribe.

> > No Krueger...no problem.

> Whatever that snot[sic] means.

Although it wasn't snotty, the comment shows how far duh-Scottie has
ranged from his former existence as a human being.

> spoiled it with the snot.

Arnii, you seem to be having trouble following. It was Poopie B'ar who
snotted. I merely explicated Poopie's dorkfulness to the other guy.

> More snot.

You really go find out what hunan beings mean by "snot" and "snotty" and
"snottiness" in the context of verbal exchanges. Once you do learn this
rarefied bit of knowledge, there's a chance you'll be a hair less dorky.
Isn't that appealing, Arnii? ;-)

[George M. Middius]

Bwian croaked:

> You can't do anything right, can you?

He can post under his own name, unlike certain psychos from Australia.

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg flicks its tail at Terrierdork.

> >> The reason Poopie pooh-poohed your comment is that he
> >> 'knows' it's not the speakers that need breaking in;
> >> it's the listener.

> [George] actually gets something right

Tell us about your prostitution for 2008, Arnii.

> but then there's the obvious snot.

Actually, it's not that obvious. That's why I had to point it out to the
non-RAO poster.

Since when does snottiness bother you? You wallow in it, whether it's your
own or Poopie's or some other member of your concrete-head tribe.

> > No Krueger...no problem.

> Whatever that snot[sic] means.

Although it wasn't snotty, the comment shows how far duh-Scottie has
ranged from his former existence as a human being.

> spoiled it with the snot.

Arnii, you seem to be having trouble following. It was Poopie B'ar who
snotted. I merely explicated Poopie's dorkfulness to the other guy.

> More snot.

You really ought to go find out what hunan beings mean by "snot" and
"snotty" and "snottiness" in the context of verbal exchanges. Once you do
learn this rarefied bit of knowledge, there's a chance you'll be a hair
less dorky. Isn't that appealing, Arnii? ;-)

[stevericks]

I imagine what you are hunting is someone to say -X are great, get them; y
are horrible so avoid.

In making your decision, keep in mind the following:
1) How good are your ears? You can end up throwing dollars at sound you
will never really hear. After 20 years of music training, I can "hear"
music pretty good. I have visited some friends houses where they wanted to
show off their new expensive Bose system. My first reaction (and that of
another well trained musician there also) was -ugh, you got rooked (of
course we acted like we liked them, to be polite).

2) What type of music do you listen to? If you want the throbbing
bass-then, there are speakers that do that more effectively than others.

3) What size room and how loud do you listen? This will likely play a role
in the RMS watts. If it is a bedroom and you don't plan on breaking glass,
under 100 watts will likely be plenty.

I picked up a pair of inexpensive Phillips MMS321 desktop speakers at
Christmas to listen to music in my home office, played through the computer,
under $60. It is a 2.0 system with 40 watts RMS, 80 peek. As I wanted
something to fit on my desk and wasn't interested in a subwoofer, these have
been fairly good. No, they don't give the thump, thump, bass vibration that
you can "feel." But I mainly listen to big band and jazz, especially
trumpet playing. They do very well in the mid and upper range, and cover
enough of the bass that I can live with it. Again, bought for want I
want -limited space, 12 ' x 12' room, not wanting to knock the wall down,
main frequency interest in mid and high range.

Best of luck. Let us know what you get.
Steve

"Curmudgeon" > wrote in message
...
> All -
>
> Sorry for the extensive crossposting, but I wasn't sure which group was
> best targeted by this request for information and opinions.
>
> Thanks to the generosity of my brother, I have $200 to spend at Amazon
> and I have determined that my primary need is a new set of speakers for
> my Macintosh. I have loaded my entire CD library into iTunes and would
> like to begin using it as the playback-system-of-choice so I can begin
> selling off these little silver coasters. Everything's been encoded as
> AAC (128 kbps, 44.100 kHz), so the quality should be pretty decent.
>
> I have been running an original Cambridge SoundWorks system until just
> recently, but unfortunately it began cutting out on me as it warmed up.
> I'm certain that I could have it repaired, but I wanted to see if there
> might be a better system available to replace it. (In the meantime, I
> have been limited to an original set of Bose Roommates. They make some
> noise, but it isn't very pleasing!)
>
> The only demands I'll place on my new system are music reproduction (of
> all genres). I am not a game player, nor do I expect to use the system
> for surround-sound DVD playback. I just want a set of speakers that I
> can plug in, sit back, and enjoy.
>
> Please let me know what you would recommend and, more importantly, what
> you'd avoid. If I need to spend a bit more than $200, that's OK.
>
> And for the record, this is a 466 MHz G4 Macintosh running OSX 10.4.11
> and iTunes 7.5 (although I can't imagine why any of that should matter
> very much).
>
> Cheers, and Happy New Year to all!
>
> Mudge

[jakdedert]

stevericks wrote:
> I imagine what you are hunting is someone to say -X are great, get them; y
> are horrible so avoid.
>
> In making your decision, keep in mind the following:
> 1) How good are your ears? You can end up throwing dollars at sound you
> will never really hear. After 20 years of music training, I can "hear"
> music pretty good. I have visited some friends houses where they wanted to
> show off their new expensive Bose system. My first reaction (and that of
> another well trained musician there also) was -ugh, you got rooked (of
> course we acted like we liked them, to be polite).
>
> 2) What type of music do you listen to? If you want the throbbing
> bass-then, there are speakers that do that more effectively than others.
>
> 3) What size room and how loud do you listen? This will likely play a role
> in the RMS watts. If it is a bedroom and you don't plan on breaking glass,
> under 100 watts will likely be plenty.
>
> I picked up a pair of inexpensive Phillips MMS321 desktop speakers at
> Christmas to listen to music in my home office, played through the computer,
> under $60. It is a 2.0 system with 40 watts RMS, 80 peek. As I wanted
> something to fit on my desk and wasn't interested in a subwoofer, these have
> been fairly good. No, they don't give the thump, thump, bass vibration that
> you can "feel." But I mainly listen to big band and jazz, especially
> trumpet playing. They do very well in the mid and upper range, and cover
> enough of the bass that I can live with it. Again, bought for want I
> want -limited space, 12 ' x 12' room, not wanting to knock the wall down,
> main frequency interest in mid and high range.


Dude, Dude...do try to keep up. This thread is about a hundred posts
long, and the OP has already selected, ordered and received his
preferred speakers. He's even given a couple of listening reviews.

I know it's tempting to reply if you don't check the group often...at
least scroll down to the bottom and work up before.....

jak

[David C.]

Curmudgeon > writes:
>
> Thanks to the generosity of my brother, I have $200 to spend at Amazon
> and I have determined that my primary need is a new set of speakers for
> my Macintosh. I have loaded my entire CD library into iTunes and would
> like to begin using it as the playback-system-of-choice so I can begin
> selling off these little silver coasters. Everything's been encoded as
> AAC (128 kbps, 44.100 kHz), so the quality should be pretty decent.

I've been very happy with Klipsch's ProMedia 2.1 system.

-- David

[Warren Oates]

In article
>,
MINe109 > wrote:

> No, from discussions of the Yamaha NS-10.

I have those in my living room. Very nice. I've never padded them,
though. The pair I have are more than 20 years old.
--
W. Oates

[Eeyore]

Marc Neveux wrote:

> On 2008-01-01 12:55:45 -0800, Curmudgeon > said:
>
> > All -
> >
> > Sorry for the extensive crossposting, but I wasn't sure which group was
> > best targeted by this request for information and opinions.
> >
> > Thanks to the generosity of my brother, I have $200 to spend at Amazon
> > and I have determined that my primary need is a new set of speakers for
> > my Macintosh. I have loaded my entire CD library into iTunes and would
> > like to begin using it as the playback-system-of-choice so I can begin
> > selling off these little silver coasters. Everything's been encoded as
> > AAC (128 kbps, 44.100 kHz), so the quality should be pretty decent.
> >
> > I have been running an original Cambridge SoundWorks system until just
> > recently, but unfortunately it began cutting out on me as it warmed up.
> > I'm certain that I could have it repaired, but I wanted to see if there
> > might be a better system available to replace it. (In the meantime, I
> > have been limited to an original set of Bose Roommates. They make some
> > noise, but it isn't very pleasing!)
> >
> > The only demands I'll place on my new system are music reproduction (of
> > all genres). I am not a game player, nor do I expect to use the system
> > for surround-sound DVD playback. I just want a set of speakers that I
> > can plug in, sit back, and enjoy.
> >
> > Please let me know what you would recommend and, more importantly, what
> > you'd avoid. If I need to spend a bit more than $200, that's OK.
> >
> > And for the record, this is a 466 MHz G4 Macintosh running OSX 10.4.11
> > and iTunes 7.5 (although I can't imagine why any of that should matter
> > very much).
> >
> > Cheers, and Happy New Year to all!
> >
> > Mudge
>
> For the last year I've been using the Bose Companion 3's and they are
> by far the best speakers for a computer I have ever used. The are
> connected to an iMac G5 and are primarily used for music via iTunes.

"no highs, no lows, it must be BOSE".

Some people are gluttons for aural punishment.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Warren Oates wrote:

> MINe109 > wrote:
>
> > No, from discussions of the Yamaha NS-10.
>
> I have those in my living room. Very nice. I've never padded them,
> though. The pair I have are more than 20 years old.

They are shockingly coloured. The reason studios often had a pair was to
see what a mix sounded like on indifferent hi-fi speakers.

Graham

[Warren Oates]

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> They are shockingly coloured. The reason studios often had a pair was to
> see what a mix sounded like on indifferent hi-fi speakers.

I know. We called them "****-box" speakers (we also had these tiny
little Auratones), but they sound great in my living room with my QED
amp, which is also about 20 years old now.
--
W. Oates

[Eeyore]

MiNe 109 wrote:

> Warren Oates > wrote:
> > MINe109 > wrote:
> >
> > > No, from discussions of the Yamaha NS-10.
> >
> > I have those in my living room. Very nice. I've never padded them,
> > though. The pair I have are more than 20 years old.
>
> "If Your Mixes Sound Good on These, They Sound Good on Anything"
>
> There's a variety of opinions on these once ubiquitous monitors. Not my
> cup of tea, but I've seen them put to good use by audio pros.

The tissue paper mod is also popular with them.

Graham

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg flicks its tail at Terrierdork.

> >> The reason Poopie pooh-poohed your comment is that he
> >> 'knows' it's not the speakers that need breaking in;
> >> it's the listener.

> [George] actually gets something right

Tell us about your prostitution for 2008, Arnii.

> but then there's the obvious snot.

Actually, it's not that obvious. That's why I had to point it out to the
non-RAO poster.

Since when does snottiness bother you? You wallow in it, whether it's your
own or Poopie's or some other member of your concrete-head tribe.

> > No Krueger...no problem.

> Whatever that snot[sic] means.

Although it wasn't snotty, the comment shows how far duh-Scottie has
ranged from his former existence as a human being.

> spoiled it with the snot.

Arnii, you seem to be having trouble following. It was Poopie B'ar who
snotted. I merely explicated Poopie's dorkfulness to the other guy.

> More snot.

You really ought to go find out what hunan beings mean by "snot" and
"snotty" and "snottiness" in the context of verbal exchanges. Once you do
learn this rarefied bit of knowledge, there's a chance you'll be a hair
less dorky. Isn't that appealing, Arnii? ;-)

[Curmudgeon]

In article >, David C. >
wrote:

> Curmudgeon > writes:
> >
> > Thanks to the generosity of my brother, I have $200 to spend at Amazon
> > and I have determined that my primary need is a new set of speakers for
> > my Macintosh. I have loaded my entire CD library into iTunes and would
> > like to begin using it as the playback-system-of-choice so I can begin
> > selling off these little silver coasters. Everything's been encoded as
> > AAC (128 kbps, 44.100 kHz), so the quality should be pretty decent.
>
> I've been very happy with Klipsch's ProMedia 2.1 system.
>
> -- David

Thanks, David! That's exactly the system I settled on, and I have been
using (and tuning) it for a couple of days now. I've discovered that as
much as I stubbornly wanted to continue using a totally flat EQ profile
in iTunes, the system sounds best if I use the "Loudness" profile. I've
got the subwoofer volume set to the recommended 10:00 position.

I also initially believed that I wouldn't need to boost the preamp gain,
but discovered that at 0dB the sound doesn't audibly distort even at the
highest volume setting -- this is a very gradual volume control -- so I
am playing around with boosting the preamp. I think I've settled on +11
as an optimal setting, just short of full blast. (I have the computer's
output set to 100% for maximum flexibility.)

One thing that has really impressed me about the Klipsch system is that
it seems to do its very best work with the most challenging material. I
listen to a wide variety of music, but have found these guys are awesome
with respect to reproducing "classical" stuff, and the more dynamic the
better. (I've been listening to a lot of Bartok for the past few days.)

I'd be very happy to hear back from you about how you've got your system
set up. I'm pretty sure you're also a Mac guy since I believe I've seen
a "David C." contributing to the Mac groups I frequent.

For the record, I've got a 466 MHz G4 w/1 GB RAM running OSX 10.4.11 and
iTunes 7.5. My library currently stands at 21,061 selections (all AAC @
128 kbps and 44,100 kHz), and just past 72 days if I select the "Random"
function and let it go.

Cheers!

Mudge

[dizzy]

Eeyore wrote:

>"no highs, no lows, it must be BOSE".

Hehe. Don't forget the missing mid-bass, which, if it was there,
would be above the flatulent, one-note woofs of the "Accoustimass
module", but below the capabilities of the ****ty little "tweeters" in
their ****ty little plastic cubes.

>Some people are gluttons for aural punishment.

Well, there's one born every minute, it's been said...

[stevericks]

The last number of posts addressed the original question, just as I did.
Sorry-I have a life and don't always read 50 posts on every topic, though I
did read the most recent. If it offends you, don't read them. Dude
"stevericks" > wrote in message
. ..
>I imagine what you are hunting is someone to say -X are great, get them; y
>are horrible so avoid.
>
> In making your decision, keep in mind the following:
> 1) How good are your ears? You can end up throwing dollars at sound you
> will never really hear. After 20 years of music training, I can "hear"
> music pretty good. I have visited some friends houses where they wanted
> to show off their new expensive Bose system. My first reaction (and that
> of another well trained musician there also) was -ugh, you got rooked (of
> course we acted like we liked them, to be polite).
>
> 2) What type of music do you listen to? If you want the throbbing
> bass-then, there are speakers that do that more effectively than others.
>
> 3) What size room and how loud do you listen? This will likely play a
> role in the RMS watts. If it is a bedroom and you don't plan on breaking
> glass, under 100 watts will likely be plenty.
>
> I picked up a pair of inexpensive Phillips MMS321 desktop speakers at
> Christmas to listen to music in my home office, played through the
> computer, under $60. It is a 2.0 system with 40 watts RMS, 80 peek. As I
> wanted something to fit on my desk and wasn't interested in a subwoofer,
> these have been fairly good. No, they don't give the thump, thump, bass
> vibration that you can "feel." But I mainly listen to big band and jazz,
> especially trumpet playing. They do very well in the mid and upper range,
> and cover enough of the bass that I can live with it. Again, bought for
> want I want -limited space, 12 ' x 12' room, not wanting to knock the wall
> down, main frequency interest in mid and high range.
>
> Best of luck. Let us know what you get.
> Steve
>
> "Curmudgeon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> All -
>>
>> Sorry for the extensive crossposting, but I wasn't sure which group was
>> best targeted by this request for information and opinions.
>>
>> Thanks to the generosity of my brother, I have $200 to spend at Amazon
>> and I have determined that my primary need is a new set of speakers for
>> my Macintosh. I have loaded my entire CD library into iTunes and would
>> like to begin using it as the playback-system-of-choice so I can begin
>> selling off these little silver coasters. Everything's been encoded as
>> AAC (128 kbps, 44.100 kHz), so the quality should be pretty decent.
>>
>> I have been running an original Cambridge SoundWorks system until just
>> recently, but unfortunately it began cutting out on me as it warmed up.
>> I'm certain that I could have it repaired, but I wanted to see if there
>> might be a better system available to replace it. (In the meantime, I
>> have been limited to an original set of Bose Roommates. They make some
>> noise, but it isn't very pleasing!)
>>
>> The only demands I'll place on my new system are music reproduction (of
>> all genres). I am not a game player, nor do I expect to use the system
>> for surround-sound DVD playback. I just want a set of speakers that I
>> can plug in, sit back, and enjoy.
>>
>> Please let me know what you would recommend and, more importantly, what
>> you'd avoid. If I need to spend a bit more than $200, that's OK.
>>
>> And for the record, this is a 466 MHz G4 Macintosh running OSX 10.4.11
>> and iTunes 7.5 (although I can't imagine why any of that should matter
>> very much).
>>
>> Cheers, and Happy New Year to all!
>>
>> Mudge
>
>

[George M. Middius]

The Krooborg flicks its tail at Terrierdork.

> >> The reason Poopie pooh-poohed your comment is that he
> >> 'knows' it's not the speakers that need breaking in;
> >> it's the listener.

> [George] actually gets something right

Tell us about your prostitution for 2008, Arnii.

> but then there's the obvious snot.

Actually, it's not that obvious. That's why I had to point it out to the
non-RAO poster.

Since when does snottiness bother you? You wallow in it, whether it's your
own or Poopie's or some other member of your concrete-head tribe.

> > No Krueger...no problem.

> Whatever that snot[sic] means.

Although it wasn't snotty, the comment shows how far duh-Scottie has
ranged from his former existence as a human being.

> spoiled it with the snot.

Arnii, you seem to be having trouble following. It was Poopie B'ar who
snotted. I merely explicated Poopie's dorkfulness to the other guy.

> More snot.

You really ought to go find out what hunan beings mean by "snot" and
"snotty" and "snottiness" in the context of verbal exchanges. Once you do
learn this rarefied bit of knowledge, there's a chance you'll be a hair
less dorky. Isn't that appealing, Arnii? ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 6, 12:10*pm, Eeyore >
wrote:
> ScottW wrote:
> > Painted a Muhammad charicature yet?
>
> How did our rabid contributor manage to introduce Islam into the thread so
> fast ?

Some people have foot fetishes, some like to wear women's panties...

2pid like to give oral sex to stray dogs. He also has a Muslim fetish.
Note how he likes to fantasize about me being a muslim. If you'll
recall, he also asked me to lick his ass.

2pid's a fetish factory.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 6, 11:31*am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
> On Jan 6, 10:53 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in
> > messagenews:l812o3duup5vij4p29ja5lmmdn7tbfuk9m@4ax .com...
>
> > > Yapper barks at the dark side of the moon.
>
> > >> >> These guys are pretty damn accurate on everything I've thrown at them:
>
> > >> > How do you know they're "accurate"?
>
> > >> With support from Stephen and Graham...a subjectivist
> > >> discussion has been thoroughly trashed.
>
> > > Another Xmas passes and no brain surgery for Scottie. Such a pity.
>
> > Face facts Midget mind....you're so desperate to engage in ridicule,
> > you'll even play Arny. You're almost as pathetic as the
> > fools who follow your lead.
>
> :Um, 2pid, I learned how dumb you were all on my own. I'd imagine
> :everybody else did too.
>
> Same 'ol crap from the closet muslim. Day in day out.

Um, 2pid, have you by chance observed your own OT posts?

I know, I know, an IKYABWAI, but really...

> I could write a batch program that would be more original
> after a year of execution than you.

lol Lol LoL LOL!

> :Those of us who point out your stupidity (or GOIA's insanity for that
> :matter) are not "following" anyone, but I suppose you're too dense to
> :see that.
>
> lol, Lol, loL, LoL, LOL.

I see you've learned yet another incorrect spelling. Congratulations.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 6, 4:19*pm, MiNe 109 > wrote:

> *"ScottW" > wrote:

> > You can't hang with scum without getting slimy.
>
> I see giving up flaming wasn't one of your resolutions.

After 2pid opened all of his presents, his need for christianity was
done with for another year.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 6, 9:17*pm, George M. Middius <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net>
wrote:
> MINe109 said:
>
> > > > I see giving up flaming wasn't one of your resolutions.
> > > *Flaming truth burns hottest. *Try not to blister.
> > Still coming to terms with haiku, I see. Never mind the syllables, at
> > least use three lines:
>
> > Flaming truth burns hot.
> > Though off the mark it may be,
> > Try not to blister.
>
> Scottie so stupid
> He lies down with fleas, and then
> Whines about the burn.
>
> These are easier than limericks, note.

The stray was pretty
Burning hot, 2pid received
The dog's stiff member

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 6, 12:30*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Eeyore" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > ScottW wrote:
>
> >> Painted a Muhammad charicature yet?
>
> > How did our rabid contributor manage to introduce Islam into the thread so
> > fast ?
>
> Easy when dealing with a closet islamist like ssshhhhtard.

I see pointing out your selfishness really upset you.

Are you already compiling your next-year's christmas list, so you can
keep tally of how much love you "got"?

lol Lol LoL LOL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 6, 12:05*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:

> *Poor Middiot, he only got delusions for Xmas.

Afraid to use christ's name? That's not a very good christian.

> *I see he'll be spewing nothing but turds for the new year.

Don't worry, 2pid, there are plenty of asses left to lick. the men x
mongrel population on earth leaves you plenty of victims to "seduce".

> Same as last year...and the year before that...and the year before that...
> and the year before that....

Perhaps you'd find alt.doggie-styles more to your liking.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 6, 1:28*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Clyde Slick" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On 6 Ian, 12:50, George M. Middius <cmndr _ *george @ comcast . net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> > Since Clyde "follows George's lead" in ridiculing good old insane
> >> > Arns, are you still friends?
>
> >> Uh-oh. You're going to make Scottie's head explode. ;-)
>
> > Since my skull's content is lighter than air, mine is 'imploding'
> > right now.
>
> *I missed you ridiculing a subjectivist. *Or is ssshhhtard
> just having trouble following along again?

Did you miss Clyde "following George's lead" in ridiculing GOIA?

Poor 2pid. The year is barely a week old and he has already melted
down. This may be an RAO record.

Can anybody recall an earlier RAO poster's meltdown?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 6, 3:01*pm, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in messagenews:09d2o31gdsksffr9tbvltc0k772bf68mvc@4ax .com...
>
>
>
> > Witlessmongrel yapped:
>
> >> *I missed you ridiculing a subjectivist.
>
> > ... and you only imagined me doing it, apparently.
>
> You've long lost awareness of *which direction your crap
> is spewn.

I will strive to endeavor to follow your example, 2pid. I will promise
to be more tolerant, just like you.

lol Lol LoL LOL!

> > What's eating you so early in the new year, moron? You've been foaming
> > about the islamists you dread, but nothing has happened in our hemisphere
> > to set you off. Will you be calling Shushie a "closet wetback" tomorrow?
>
> Nah...but I suspect reparations is also on his agenda.

And what do you consider my "agenda" to be, 2pid?

(Hint: answering "pointing out 2pid's stupidity" will get you 100
points.)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jan 6, 11:21*am, "ScottW" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
> On Jan 6, 10:19 am, "ScottW" > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "George M. Middius" <cmndr _ george @ comcast . net> wrote in
> > messagenews:k8m0o3lhiu1e6et487e94ph1klbbhcnqrl@4ax .com...
>
> > > Curmudgeon said:
>
> > >> Well, I have installed these guys where they belong and I am beginning
> > >> to warm to them. Graham made fun of my contention that they'll need a
> > >> bit of time to break in, but my experience with every speaker system I
> > >> have ever owned is that new speakers take a little time to loosen up.
>
> > > The reason Poopie pooh-poohed your comment is that he 'knows' it's not the
> > > speakers that need breaking in; it's the listener.
>
> > >> These guys are pretty damn accurate on everything I've thrown at them:
>
> > > How do you know they're "accurate"?
>
> > No Krueger...no problem. Middiot can play the part.
> > With support from Stephen and Graham...a subjectivist
> > discussion has been thoroughly trashed.
>
> > Good Job boys, your mentor Arny is surely proud.
>
> :You haven't had your ass licked recently.
>
> Another of the Midget minions joins the fray!

Don't forget Clyde, 2pid. He's a "Midget minion" too.

> Welcome to the new improved RAO.

Created in your own likeness.

> Nothing but trash talking in standard english only.

While we (the smart people) speak in standard english (sic), we (the
smart people) recognize your inability to recognize it. The English
language is turning in the grave you dug for it.;-)

> That just sounds like so much fun.
> lol, Lol, LoL, LOL at losers.

Ah, while the warm glow of christmas fellowship has left you. we can
see the feeling of superiority it gave you has not. "I get more love
than any of my neighbors," said 2pid to himself with a smug sense of
selfish superiority. "I know this because I got more presents."

In what other ways are you superior to everyone, 2pid? Who here is
smarter than you are?

lol Lol LoL LOL!

[David C.]

Curmudgeon writes:
> David C. wrote:
>>
>> I've been very happy with Klipsch's ProMedia 2.1 system.
>
> I'd be very happy to hear back from you about how you've got your system
> set up. I'm pretty sure you're also a Mac guy since I believe I've seen
> a "David C." contributing to the Mac groups I frequent.

I didn't spend nearly as much time tuning mine. I also set the
"subwoofer" knob to the "10:00" position indicated on the control. The
subwoofer sits under my desk, with the speakers on a small shelf just
above my monitor.

For setting the volume, I set the Mac to it's maximum output, and set
the volume knob to a position that makes my system alert-chime come out
at an acceptable level, and leave it there. I use application-specific
volume controls (in iTunes, the DVD player, etc.) to make adjustments
from there.

Yes, I'm a Mac guy. And you've probably seen lots of my posts (I'm
reading this thread via comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc). I'm also a Linux,
Solaris, OS/2 and Windows guy, but I don't spend much time on those
newsgroups anymore. (Don't bother searching for posts, I had a
different e-mail address back then.)

> For the record, I've got a 466 MHz G4 w/1 GB RAM running OSX 10.4.11
> and iTunes 7.5. My library currently stands at 21,061 selections (all
> AAC @ 128 kbps and 44,100 kHz), and just past 72 days if I select the
> "Random" function and let it go.

Dual 1GHz PowerMac G4 (QuickSilver 2002), 1.5G RAM, OS X 10.4.11, iTunes
7.5.

You've got me beat for the music collection. I've got 9227 tracks
(about 40.5GB), with a total play-time of about 30 days. Plus six more
CDs that I haven't yet ripped. The older material was ripped at 128K
AAC. The material ripped more recently is using 128K VBR AAC.

(And it's all legal. Ripped from about 800 CDs, plus about 90 iTunes
Store purchases.)

-- David

[Howard Brazee]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:19:35 -0700, Howard Brazee >
wrote:

>I just got a 24" iMac and noticed it had one speaker plug. The
>speakers I have available are a pair of Acoustic Research Powered
>Partner 570s, and a Logitech Z640 5.1 system that's plugged into a
>Phillips PCS805 Aruilium sound card that's USB'd to one of the two
>Windows machines I'm giving away.
>
>What options do I have without spending more money?


Note: Obviously, since the Logitech has front and back input plugs,
I can't plug them all into the iMac directly.

[Howard Brazee]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:09:55 -0600, MiNe 109
> wrote:

>That "speaker plug" is a mini stereo output that can also drive
>headphones.
>
>You'll need a mini stereo to RCA(s) patch cord to hook up the Powered
>Partners. I'd try that first, as those sounded pretty good.

That is easy, they sound good, but I would be giving up 5.1 stereo and
some tight desk space.

One thing that is inconvenient is that the headphone jack is in the
back, next to the speaker jack. That would be OK if my speakers had
a headphone jack in them the way the Logitech speakers do, but is a
pain when I want to switch between the two. I'm new to Macs - maybe
I could plug in an extension cord for my headphones and switch via
software.

[Howard Brazee]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 12:25:03 -0600, MiNe 109
> wrote:

>I'm still confused. My iMac doesn't have separate headphone and speaker
>jacks, just the one and a line in. If you're willing to spend some
>money, an AirPort station could feed the Partners, freeing up the
>headphone jack.

It's hard to read those little symbols back there with my aging eyes,
and my computer is brand new. One symbol looked like headphones,
another looked like speakers.

>The Phillips PCS805 Aurilium should work with your system, although my
>USB preamp (Yamaha CAVIT) lost its USB ability when I upgraded to
>10.4.11. Maybe someone from the mac groups can help me!

I guessed it might - but wanted advice from people who have more
experience than I have. Maybe there's no reason for 5.1 on a Mac.
Maybe I'd loose significant fidelity. Certainly my AR speakers sound
good, even if they don't have the convenience of a headphones jack.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:25:03 -0800, MiNe 109 wrote
(in article >):

> In article >,
> Howard Brazee > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:09:55 -0600, MiNe 109
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> That "speaker plug" is a mini stereo output that can also drive
>>> headphones.
>>>
>>> You'll need a mini stereo to RCA(s) patch cord to hook up the Powered
>>> Partners. I'd try that first, as those sounded pretty good.
>>
>> That is easy, they sound good, but I would be giving up 5.1 stereo and
>> some tight desk space.
>>
>> One thing that is inconvenient is that the headphone jack is in the
>> back, next to the speaker jack. That would be OK if my speakers had
>> a headphone jack in them the way the Logitech speakers do, but is a
>> pain when I want to switch between the two. I'm new to Macs - maybe
>> I could plug in an extension cord for my headphones and switch via
>> software.
>
> I'm still confused. My iMac doesn't have separate headphone and speaker
> jacks, just the one and a line in. If you're willing to spend some
> money, an AirPort station could feed the Partners, freeing up the
> headphone jack.

Or, you could buy a pair of USB speakers.
>
> The Phillips PCS805 Aurilium should work with your system, although my
> USB preamp (Yamaha CAVIT) lost its USB ability when I upgraded to
> 10.4.11. Maybe someone from the mac groups can help me!
>
> Stephen

[Chris Kidd[_2_]]

"Sonnova" > wrote in message
. net...
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:25:03 -0800, MiNe 109 wrote
> (in article
> >):
>
>> In article >,
>> Howard Brazee > wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:09:55 -0600, MiNe 109
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> That "speaker plug" is a mini stereo output that can also drive
>>>> headphones.
>>>>
>>>> You'll need a mini stereo to RCA(s) patch cord to hook up the Powered
>>>> Partners. I'd try that first, as those sounded pretty good.
>>>
>>> That is easy, they sound good, but I would be giving up 5.1 stereo and
>>> some tight desk space.
>>>
>>> One thing that is inconvenient is that the headphone jack is in the
>>> back, next to the speaker jack. That would be OK if my speakers had
>>> a headphone jack in them the way the Logitech speakers do, but is a
>>> pain when I want to switch between the two. I'm new to Macs - maybe
>>> I could plug in an extension cord for my headphones and switch via
>>> software.
>>
>> I'm still confused. My iMac doesn't have separate headphone and speaker
>> jacks, just the one and a line in. If you're willing to spend some
>> money, an AirPort station could feed the Partners, freeing up the
>> headphone jack.
>
> Or, you could buy a pair of USB speakers.
>>
>> The Phillips PCS805 Aurilium should work with your system, although my
>> USB preamp (Yamaha CAVIT) lost its USB ability when I upgraded to
>> 10.4.11. Maybe someone from the mac groups can help me!
>>
>> Stephen
>
>
Use an 1/8" stereo y connector (1 male to 2 females). Plug the phones into
one jack and the speakers into the other with the 1/8" to rca males. Turn
off the speakers when you want phones only.