audiophile (?) desktop speakers

[rino sassi]

when i'm not on my DAW at my studio, i listen to my mp3 through my
headphones on my computer at home, but i think it's time to set my ears free
and buy a couple of little speakers.

can you guess a desktop speakers system with a decent midrange under 100$?
i can easily live without a subwoofer.

thanks in advance
rino

[Arkansan Raider]

rino sassi wrote:
> when i'm not on my DAW at my studio, i listen to my mp3 through my
> headphones on my computer at home, but i think it's time to set my ears free
> and buy a couple of little speakers.
>
> can you guess a desktop speakers system with a decent midrange under 100$?
> i can easily live without a subwoofer.
>
> thanks in advance
> rino
>
>

I've two sets of Creative SBS 340 systems with subs, and I've been very
happy with 'em. They were right around $25 per set. They may be out of
production now, but you might find them on Ebay.

The bass is pretty heavy with these, but I've been using them in my
office at the jail and in my bedroom at home to hook up my iPod.

People come by the office and they can't believe the sound I'm getting,
so it must be okay. <g>

Now, it's not pretending to replace my Outlaw/McIntosh/Polk Audio setup
anytime soon, but I'm pretty happy with it.

---Jeff

[William Sommerwerck]

I get tired of "I want something really great, but I don't have a lot of
money to spend." You can't get audiophile "anything" (except maybe a phono
pickup) for $100.

You might look for a used pair of Monsoon 2000s. They're the closest I've
heard to "audiophile" computer speakers.

You might also look at Best Buy (or a similar store) for small conventional
speakers, and pair them with a small amplifier. I'd recommend the KLH Audio
900B speakers, but the company is out of business.

[rino sassi]

thanks to everyone for your hints.
now i have at least two or three systems to choose from.

"William Sommerwerck" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...

>I get tired of "I want something really great, but I don't have a lot of
> money to spend." You can't get audiophile "anything" (except maybe a phono
> pickup) for $100.

i do not want something really great.
as you can read in my first post, i would like to find a _decent_ pair of
speakers for my desktop, provided i have a DAW and a good system in my
listening room for my pleasure.

tchuss
r

[Richard Crowley]

rino sassi wrote:
> thanks to everyone for your hints.
> now i have at least two or three systems to choose from.
>
> "William Sommerwerck" ha scritto ...
>> I get tired of "I want something really great, but I don't have a
>> lot of money to spend." You can't get audiophile "anything" (except
>> maybe a phono pickup) for $100.
>
> i do not want something really great.
> as you can read in my first post, i would like to find a _decent_
> pair of speakers for my desktop, provided i have a DAW and a good
> system in my listening room for my pleasure.

It is probably the majority opinion of people here that there
are not ANY "computer speakers" that are _decent_. The
minimum "decent" speaker for computer use is probably a
pair of small self-powered studio monitors, and that is already
well beyond your budget.

[William Sommerwerck]

> > "William Sommerwerck" ha scritto ...
>>> I get tired of "I want something really great, but I don't have a
>>> lot of money to spend." You can't get audiophile "anything"
>>> (except maybe a phono pickup) for $100.

>> i do not want something really great.
>> as you can read in my first post, i would like to find a _decent_
>> pair of speakers for my desktop, provided i have a DAW and
>> a good system in my listening room for my pleasure.

> It is probably the majority opinion of people here that there
> are not ANY "computer speakers" that are _decent_. The
> minimum "decent" speaker for computer use is probably a
> pair of small self-powered studio monitors, and that is already
> well beyond your budget.

I mentioned the Monsoon 2000 -- no longer made -- because it's a decent
speaker. It sold for around $300 new. I own them, and when the time comes
for a new speaker, it's unlikely I'll replace them.

I just looked a bit, and it seems that there are few, if any, used ones.

http://www.atpm.com/6.11/monsoon.shtml

[Scott Dorsey]

rino sassi > wrote:
>when i'm not on my DAW at my studio, i listen to my mp3 through my
>headphones on my computer at home, but i think it's time to set my ears free
>and buy a couple of little speakers.
>
>can you guess a desktop speakers system with a decent midrange under 100$?
>i can easily live without a subwoofer.

No. In that price range, though, you could probably get some okay headphones.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

rino sassi wrote:
> when i'm not on my DAW at my studio, i listen to my mp3 through my
> headphones on my computer at home, but i think it's time to set my ears free
> and buy a couple of little speakers.
>
> can you guess a desktop speakers system with a decent midrange under 100$?
> i can easily live without a subwoofer.
>
> thanks in advance
> rino
>
>

Wander down to Best Buy and/or Staples or wherever and audition them. If
the desk is big enough ( and your budget ) a set of Blue Sky monitors
sound pretty dern good. But there are pretty effective cheap computer
speakers out there. The ones with subs don't cost that much more,
either.


These look promising:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9382232&type=product&id=1218095770265

but you never know.

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

rino sassi wrote:
> thanks to everyone for your hints.
> now i have at least two or three systems to choose from.
>
> "William Sommerwerck" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> ...
>
>> I get tired of "I want something really great, but I don't have a lot of
>> money to spend." You can't get audiophile "anything" (except maybe a phono
>> pickup) for $100.
>
> i do not want something really great.
> as you can read in my first post, i would like to find a _decent_ pair of
> speakers for my desktop, provided i have a DAW and a good system in my
> listening room for my pleasure.
>
> tchuss
> r
>
>


But for a DAW, you really need a set of monitors. I use passive
Tannoy Reveals.

--
Les Cargill

[soundhaspriority]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
. ..
> rino sassi wrote:
>> thanks to everyone for your hints.
>> now i have at least two or three systems to choose from.
>>
>> "William Sommerwerck" ha scritto ...
>>> I get tired of "I want something really great, but I don't have a
>>> lot of money to spend." You can't get audiophile "anything" (except
>>> maybe a phono pickup) for $100.
>>
>> i do not want something really great.
>> as you can read in my first post, i would like to find a _decent_
>> pair of speakers for my desktop, provided i have a DAW and a good
>> system in my listening room for my pleasure.
>
> It is probably the majority opinion of people here that there
> are not ANY "computer speakers" that are _decent_. The
> minimum "decent" speaker for computer use is probably a
> pair of small self-powered studio monitors, and that is already
> well beyond your budget.
I used to agree with that. But I've put a lot of hours on these:
http://www.alteclansing.com/index.php?file=north_product_detail&iproduct_id=vs4221

I would have expected them to start grating, but it hasn't happened.
However, an away-from-corner, concrete floor for the sub is required for the
magic. In my upstairs office, they sounded as bad as one would expect.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511

[nebulax]

On Oct 17, 1:22*am, "rino sassi" > wrote:
> when i'm not on my DAW at my studio, i listen to my mp3 through my
> headphones on my computer at home, but i think it's time to set my ears free
> and buy a couple of little speakers.
>
> can you guess a desktop speakers system with a decent midrange under 100$?
> i can easily live without a subwoofer.
>
> thanks in advance
> *rino


Most boxes I see designated as 'computer speakers' contain something
like a 2" cone driver inside them, and some manufacturers feel
compelled to add an even smaller tweeter to the system. To my ears, a
2" driver works better as a single full-range driver, rather than an
ersatz woofer. So, if you're looking for a basic 2.0 computer speaker
system, I'd suggest getting one without a tweeter, like the Creative
Labs T12 - http://store.apple.com/us/product/TW410VC/A

-Neb

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>I get tired of "I want something really great, but I don't have a lot of
>money to spend." You can't get audiophile "anything" (except maybe a phono
>pickup) for $100.

I entirely disagree. There's plenty of cheap gear with good specs that sounds
fantastic. The key is to purchase with your ears rather than your status
conscious mind.

Orlando

[Scott Dorsey]

Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote:
>William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>>I get tired of "I want something really great, but I don't have a lot of
>>money to spend." You can't get audiophile "anything" (except maybe a phono
>>pickup) for $100.
>
>I entirely disagree. There's plenty of cheap gear with good specs that sounds
>fantastic. The key is to purchase with your ears rather than your status
>conscious mind.

Can you recommend something, then?

I have heard a number of the speaker systems recommended in this thread
and couldn't stand any of them.

I'd love to see a good cheap desktop speaker system, but I haven't yet
heard anything reasonable even approaching this fellow's price range.

For the most part, most of the devices that contain "subwoofers" actually
have mono woofers and a crossover that is around 300-500 Hz. If you
cross a thing over at 500 Hz, it is NOT a subwoofer. And most of them,
not surprisingly, have severe issues around the crossover region, which
is especially bad when it's stuck in the vocal range.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> I get tired of "I want something really great, but I don't have a
>> lot of money to spend." You can't get audiophile "anything" (except
>> maybe a phono pickup) for $100.
>
> I entirely disagree. There's plenty of cheap gear with good specs
> that sounds fantastic. The key is to purchase with your ears rather
> than your status conscious mind.

Go ahead, put your money where your ears are.
Cite three "fantastic sounding" computer speakers for <$100
If you can't find three, even one would do.

Most (all?) of us have never heard $100 "computer speakers"
that sound significantly better than a $10 portable radio. Most
of them are pure, unadulterated trash.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:35:23 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> I get tired of "I want something really great, but I don't have a
>>> lot of money to spend." You can't get audiophile "anything" (except
>>> maybe a phono pickup) for $100.
>>
>> I entirely disagree. There's plenty of cheap gear with good specs
>> that sounds fantastic. The key is to purchase with your ears rather
>> than your status conscious mind.
>
>Go ahead, put your money where your ears are.
>Cite three "fantastic sounding" computer speakers for <$100
>If you can't find three, even one would do.
>
>Most (all?) of us have never heard $100 "computer speakers"
>that sound significantly better than a $10 portable radio. Most
>of them are pure, unadulterated trash.
>

I don't even understand the term "computer speaker". A speaker is a
speaker. and it is defined by two factors - the room it is to work in,
and the material that is to be played through it. The source of the
signal is immaterial.

For listening here at my desk I have a pair of Kef Cresta II that do
extremely well. The Cyrus II amp is exactly the right size and sits
tucked nicely away out of sight.

d

[Richard Crowley]

Don Pearce wrote:
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>> Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
>>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>> I get tired of "I want something really great, but I don't have a
>>>> lot of money to spend." You can't get audiophile "anything" (except
>>>> maybe a phono pickup) for $100.
>>>
>>> I entirely disagree. There's plenty of cheap gear with good specs
>>> that sounds fantastic. The key is to purchase with your ears rather
>>> than your status conscious mind.
>>
>> Go ahead, put your money where your ears are.
>> Cite three "fantastic sounding" computer speakers for <$100
>> If you can't find three, even one would do.
>>
>> Most (all?) of us have never heard $100 "computer speakers"
>> that sound significantly better than a $10 portable radio. Most
>> of them are pure, unadulterated trash.
>>
>
> I don't even understand the term "computer speaker".

Sure you do. It is a pair of plastic boxes (with or without a
"subwoofer) designed to plug into the line-level 3.5mm stereo
phone output on all modern computers.

And furthermore, you appear to agree in principle (if not in
fact) that one should NOT look for "computer" speakers, but
just *speakers* which fit the requirements (including budget)
and then connect them to whatever source (like a computer).

But the problem remains: Whatever you call them, nobody
has yet to suggest a "decent" pair of powered speakers at
a price of ~$100/pair.

Just casually browsing through Swee****er's website shows
6-8 powered speaker pair that go for ~$100 Without being
able to hear them, I might be tempted to choose one over
some of the plastic computer brands ("Creative" et.al.), but
I would be surprised if any of them were halfway decent
(i.e. smooth reproduction through maybe 100-10K Hz)

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:14:57 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>> I don't even understand the term "computer speaker".
>
>Sure you do.

I just said I don't. I've never seen any with computers in, and I've
never seen any I would consider plugging into a computer. And my
computer doesn't even have a 3.5mm line out - it has a pair of phonos.

Oh, sure I've seen plenty of speakers labelled computer speakers, but
the term is entirely devoid of meaning for me.

Unless of course you are simply using it as a euphemism for ****
speakers.

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"Orlando Enrique Fiol" > wrote in message
. ..
> William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>> I get tired of "I want something really great, but I don't have a lot of
>> money to spend." You can't get audiophile "anything" (except maybe
>> a phono pickup) for $100.

> I entirely disagree. There's plenty of cheap gear with good specs that
> sounds fantastic. The key is to purchase with your ears rather than
> your status-conscious mind.

I used to review audio equipment for "Stereophile". Though I discovered that
good equipment need not be horribly expensive, the fact is that there is
little or nothing -- of any kind of product -- below $100 that is of
"audiophile" quality. Certainly not a new pair of computer speakers.

[William Sommerwerck]

>>> I don't even understand the term "computer speaker".

>> Sure you do.

> I just said I don't. I've never seen any with computers in, and I've
> never seen any I would consider plugging into a computer. And
> my computer doesn't even have a 3.5mm line out -- it has a pair
> of phonos. Oh, sure I've seen plenty of speakers labelled computer
> speakers, but the term is entirely devoid of meaning for me.
> Unless of course you are simply using it as a euphemism for ****
> speakers.

<ahem> The term "computer speaker" has a commonly accepted meaning --
speakers, almost always self-powered, intended to be plugged into a
computer's audio jack.

Bang & Olufson makes a speaker system that includes integral automatic room
EQ, which might reasonably be called a "computer speaker".

The AudioEngine speakers might be a good choice for the OP, but they go well
beyond the $100 price limit.

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>Oh, sure I've seen plenty of speakers labelled computer speakers, but
>the term is entirely devoid of meaning for me.
>
>Unless of course you are simply using it as a euphemism for ****
>speakers.

That does, indeed, appear to be what vendors are doing.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:28:11 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>Bang & Olufson makes a speaker system that includes integral automatic room
>EQ, which might reasonably be called a "computer speaker".

They say they do - and who knows, they may even believe they do. But
they don't; there isn't and can never be such a thing, because a room
doesn't have a response to equalize. Every different path between any
two points in a room has its own response. Points even mere inches
apart can be tens of dBs apart in level at various frequencies.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:28:11 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:
>
>>Bang & Olufson makes a speaker system that includes integral automatic room
>>EQ, which might reasonably be called a "computer speaker".
>
>They say they do - and who knows, they may even believe they do. But
>they don't; there isn't and can never be such a thing, because a room
>doesn't have a response to equalize. Every different path between any
>two points in a room has its own response. Points even mere inches
>apart can be tens of dBs apart in level at various frequencies.

Most of these systems, when they actually do something useful, just
have a single low-frequency filter which they adjust to compensate for
boundary effects. JBL's auto-room EQ does this... the B&O seems to be
fairly close. There's no real attempt to do any more than that, and
doing that may have some benefit.

There are some systems that do attempt more, and I am not mentioning
any names, but they are misguided at best.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

Richard Crowley > wrote:
>Go ahead, put your money where your ears are.
>Cite three "fantastic sounding" computer speakers for <$100
>If you can't find three, even one would do.
>Most (all?) of us have never heard $100 "computer speakers"
>that sound significantly better than a $10 portable radio. Most
>of them are pure, unadulterated trash.

I personally love my Bose speakers which represent a wide sonic spectrum and do
not distort at my typical listening volume. However, they cost around $300.
What you might be missing is that I'm addressing a larger point. Audiophile
snobs seem to discourage the purchase of cheaper gear under financial
constraints. For many of us, listening through what some would consider trashy
speakers is better than not listening at all.

Orlando

[rino sassi]

well, it's a known paradox.
this is the wrong ng, but it is the right one.

if i put my question in a, say, computer-related ng, i get answers from
people who do not know anything about sound.
when i put my question here, i get answers from people i usually know and
esteem a lot, but the most of them speaks - of course - from a specialistc
point of view and cannot help me.

maybe i could restate my question this way:
is a small, self-powered, very cheap pair of speakers that don't sound too
boomy or boxed or harsh out there?
but i see this question cannot be posted here.

i'll stay with my headphones, but thanks to everyone for the discussion.

r

[Richard Crowley]

Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
> I personally love my Bose speakers

You must be new around here.

[Richard Crowley]

rino sassi wrote:
> well, it's a known paradox.
> this is the wrong ng, but it is the right one.
>
> if i put my question in a, say, computer-related ng, i get answers
> from people who do not know anything about sound.

Why would ask a sound question in a computer ng?

> when i put my question here, i get answers from people i usually know
> and esteem a lot, but the most of them speaks - of course - from a
> specialistc point of view and cannot help me.

You are asking for something that nobody here has ever
heard of.

> maybe i could restate my question this way:
> is a small, self-powered, very cheap pair of speakers that don't
> sound too boomy or boxed or harsh out there?

No. Such a thing does not exist.

> but i see this question cannot be posted here.

It appears that the problem is that you don't like the answer.

> i'll stay with my headphones, but thanks to everyone for the
> discussion.

Don't trust people who ignore the facts and just tell you what
you want to hear.

[rino sassi]

"Richard Crowley" > ha scritto nel messaggio
. ..

> Why would ask a sound question in a computer ng?

because i'm asking about a thing that i want to connect to my computer but
i'm not asking about a matched-pair studio monitor. "computer people" listen
to music and some of them want to listen decently, even if not perfectly.
quality is not binary.

because i do not like conceived people too much and their conceived answers,
and it's not the first time i get harsh answers in this ng.

so it's not true i do not like the answers. i do not like the way some
people give them.

r

[Anahata]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 11:48:09 +0200, rino sassi wrote:

> i'm asking about a thing that i want to connect to my computer
> but i'm not asking about a matched-pair studio monitor. "computer
> people" listen to music and some of them want to listen decently, even
> if not perfectly. quality is not binary.

The M-Audio Studiophile AV 40 looks like the kind of thing you might be
after.

Disclaimer: I've not heard these, but I have heard another M-Audio small
speaker with 3.5mm jack plugs ("desktop" or "computer", what you will)
that wasn't made of cheap plastic, and they sounded reasonably good for
what they were.

Whatever M-Audio choose to call them, they are not studio monitors, but
My guess is that they'll be better than a $20 plastic speaker from your
local computer store that looks and performs like it came out of a
Christmas cracker.

There's also the AV 30 if you want to spend less...

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[William Sommerwerck]

>> Go ahead, put your money where your ears are.
>> Cite three "fantastic sounding" computer speakers for <$100
>> If you can't find three, even one would do.
>> Most (all?) of us have never heard $100 "computer speakers"
>> that sound significantly better than a $10 portable radio. Most
>> of them are pure, unadulterated trash.

> I personally love my Bose speakers which represent a wide sonic
> spectrum and do not distort at my typical listening volume. However,
> they cost around $300.

$300 for Bose computer speakers?


> What you might be missing is that I'm addressing a larger point.
> Audiophile snobs seem to discourage the purchase of cheaper
> gear [when the user is] under financial constraints. For many
> of us, listening through what some would consider trashy speakers
> is better than not listening at all.

"Orlando Furioso", eh?

I'm an audiophile snob. I have no objection to someone purchasing an
inexpensive product if that's all they can afford. I do object to someone
spending a lot of money that doesn't offer significantly better performance
than a less-expensive product.

The real issue is not budget constraints, but asking to be directed to cheap
products that are of extremely high quality. There aren't many.

I'd love to hear the AudioEngine speakers. If I weren't unemployed at the
moment, I'd get a pair just to give them a listen.

[William Sommerwerck]

> maybe i could restate my question this way:
> is [there] a small, self-powered, very cheap pair of speakers
> that don't sound too boomy or boxy or harsh out there?
> but i see this question cannot be posted here.

If you had phrased the question that way in the first place -- instead of
sticking "audiophile?" in the request -- we likely wouldn't be having this
discussion.

I don't know of such a speaker system, but it might exist.

I would suggest keeping an eye on Craig's List and eBay for good products --
the Monsoon or AudioEngine speakers, for example. You might find a good
deal.

[Scott Dorsey]

Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote:
>Richard Crowley > wrote:
>>Go ahead, put your money where your ears are.
>>Cite three "fantastic sounding" computer speakers for <$100
>>If you can't find three, even one would do.
>>Most (all?) of us have never heard $100 "computer speakers"
>>that sound significantly better than a $10 portable radio. Most
>>of them are pure, unadulterated trash.
>
>I personally love my Bose speakers which represent a wide sonic spectrum and do
>not distort at my typical listening volume. However, they cost around $300.

The Bose stuff is a perfect example of everything wrong with this market.
Here's a hint: listen to a bass run on the Art Blakey at the Village Vanguard
record, or anything with a real acoustic bass. You can't tell what note
the bass is playing... he runs up and down the fretboard, but it just sounds
like "boom, boom, boom" on the Bose. Absolutely awful. You'll find also
there is less than $10 worth of parts in that $300 system.

>What you might be missing is that I'm addressing a larger point. Audiophile
>snobs seem to discourage the purchase of cheaper gear under financial
>constraints. For many of us, listening through what some would consider trashy
>speakers is better than not listening at all.

This isn't an audiophile group at all, this is a professional audio group.

And I might add that listening through good headphones beats listening through
bad speakers any day. For $60 now you can get the entry level Grados. Not
the most analytic things ever, but at least you can hear bass runs and female
vocals won't hurt your ears.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

rino sassi > wrote:
>
>maybe i could restate my question this way:
>is a small, self-powered, very cheap pair of speakers that don't sound too
>boomy or boxed or harsh out there?
>but i see this question cannot be posted here.

Sure, you can post it here. But the answer is no, unfortunately.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

rino sassi wrote:
> "Richard Crowley" ha scritto ...
>> Why would ask a sound question in a computer ng?
>
> because i'm asking about a thing that i want to connect to my
> computer

Immaterial.

> but i'm not asking about a matched-pair studio monitor.
> "computer people" listen to music and some of them want to listen
> decently, even if not perfectly. quality is not binary.

From the looks of the "computer speakers" that are sold to these
"computer people", you cannot make the case that they "want to
listen decently". They want something that looks cool. They want
speakers so they can hear explosions when playing kiddie games
on their computers.

> because i do not like conceived people too much and their conceived
> answers, and it's not the first time i get harsh answers in this ng.

Right. Better to get answers from people who don't know
what they're talking about. Brilliant.

> so it's not true i do not like the answers. i do not like the way some
> people give them.

Then you should leave Usenet if you have such thin skin.
Go to your nearest appliance store and let a sales-droid
talk you into buying some cool looking pair of plastic boxes.
He will be very nice to you, just as he was to the people who
were buying drive-thru "food" from him last week.

[Les Cargill[_2_]]

rino sassi wrote:
> "Richard Crowley" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> . ..
<snip>
>
> so it's not true i do not like the answers. i do not like the way some
> people give them.
>

So is your perception of social signalling ( with all the nonverbal cues
missing ) more important, or is the information you seek more
important?

You decide. Good luck, whichever choice you make.

> r
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Emiliano Grilli]

"rino sassi" > writes:

> is a small, self-powered, very cheap pair of speakers that don't sound too
> boomy or boxed or harsh out there?

Since you are in Italy (apparently) you can give a try to empire r1000:

http://www.empiremedia.it

They're like 49€/pair so _very cheap_ but a lot better than "computer"
speakers. Google for "empire r1000" to find reviews and buiyng options

HTH
Ciao
--
Emiliano Grilli
Linux user #209089
http://www.emillo.net

[rino sassi]

"Richard Crowley" > ha scritto nel messaggio
. ..

> Right. Better to get answers from people who don't know
> what they're talking about. Brilliant.

well. just flames. au revoir.

r

[rino sassi]

"William Sommerwerck" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...

> If you had phrased the question that way in the first place -- instead of
> sticking "audiophile?" in the request -- we likely wouldn't be having this
> discussion.

you can read a "(?)" at the right side of "audiophile".

r

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:00:07 +0200, "rino sassi" >
wrote:

>"William Sommerwerck" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
>
>> If you had phrased the question that way in the first place -- instead of
>> sticking "audiophile?" in the request -- we likely wouldn't be having this
>> discussion.
>
>you can read a "(?)" at the right side of "audiophile".
>
> r
>

Look, you've marched in here throwing attitude in all directions. It
says much for the tolerance of this group that you have actually had a
heap of good suggestions. I suggest you review the thread, absorb the
advice you have been given, then **** off.

d

[Richard Crowley]

Don Pearce wrote:
> Look, you've marched in here throwing attitude in all directions. It
> says much for the tolerance of this group that you have actually had a
> heap of good suggestions. I suggest you review the thread, absorb the
> advice you have been given, then **** off.

Maybe he thought he was in rec.audio.opinion

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:12:30 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> Look, you've marched in here throwing attitude in all directions. It
>> says much for the tolerance of this group that you have actually had a
>> heap of good suggestions. I suggest you review the thread, absorb the
>> advice you have been given, then **** off.
>
>Maybe he thought he was in rec.audio.opinion
>
Certainly looked that way.

d

[rino sassi]

"Don Pearce" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...

>>> advice you have been given, then **** off.
>>
>>Maybe he thought he was in rec.audio.opinion
>>
> Certainly looked that way.

ah. ah. ah.
my rec.audio.pro.opinion about this ng after several years cannot change.
a nest of talibans.

r

[Engineer[_2_]]

On Oct 17, 1:22*am, "rino sassi" > wrote:
> when i'm not on my DAW at my studio, i listen to my mp3 through my
> headphones on my computer at home, but i think it's time to set my ears free
> and buy a couple of little speakers.
>
> can you guess a desktop speakers system with a decent midrange under 100$?
> i can easily live without a subwoofer.
>
> thanks in advance
> *rino

For several years at the office I used a couple of Minimus 7's (I've
bought several, used, over the years for between $10 and $30 a pair)
driven by various recycled vintage AM/FM receivers (mostly Pioneer and
Sansui that cost me around $10 to $40 each on eBay or at a flea market
- I rotate them for fun!) I would never use so-called "computer
speakers" to listen to music but I'll admit to having two cheapies
plugged in for quick Internet listening to save me switching the AUX
of my present Sansui receiver from AM or FM radio. As I write the
office speakers are actually small bookshelf Axioms but only because
they are "spare" in my overly large speaker collection - I need to
sell some!
Cheers,
Roger

[david correia]

In article
>,
Engineer > wrote:

> On Oct 17, 1:22*am, "rino sassi" > wrote:
> > when i'm not on my DAW at my studio, i listen to my mp3 through my
> > headphones on my computer at home, but i think it's time to set my ears free
> > and buy a couple of little speakers.
> >
> > can you guess a desktop speakers system with a decent midrange under 100$?
> > i can easily live without a subwoofer.
> >
> > thanks in advance
> > *rino
>
> For several years at the office I used a couple of Minimus 7's (I've
> bought several, used, over the years for between $10 and $30 a pair)
> driven by various recycled vintage AM/FM receivers (mostly Pioneer and
> Sansui that cost me around $10 to $40 each on eBay or at a flea market
> - I rotate them for fun!) I would never use so-called "computer
> speakers" to listen to music but I'll admit to having two cheapies
> plugged in for quick Internet listening to save me switching the AUX
> of my present Sansui receiver from AM or FM radio. As I write the
> office speakers are actually small bookshelf Axioms but only because
> they are "spare" in my overly large speaker collection - I need to
> sell some!
> Cheers,
> Roger



I bought a pair of Cambridge Soundworks SBS52's for my son, and I was
very surprised at how nice they sound. He loves them.

They show up new on ebay for around $20 a pair w/shipping. They look
like the standard inexpensive computer speaker, but sound vera nice. I
believe Cambridge Soundworks stopped making them a few years ago.




David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com

[Michael Dines[_2_]]

david correia > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Engineer > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 17, 1:22 am, "rino sassi" > wrote:
> > > when i'm not on my DAW at my studio, i listen to my mp3 through my
> > > headphones on my computer at home, but i think it's time to set my
> > > ears free and buy a couple of little speakers.
> > >
> > > can you guess a desktop speakers system with a decent midrange under
> > > 100$? i can easily live without a subwoofer.
> > >
> > > thanks in advance rino
> >
> > For several years at the office I used a couple of Minimus 7's (I've
> > bought several, used, over the years for between $10 and $30 a pair)
> > driven by various recycled vintage AM/FM receivers (mostly Pioneer and
> > Sansui that cost me around $10 to $40 each on eBay or at a flea market
> > - I rotate them for fun!) I would never use so-called "computer
> > speakers" to listen to music but I'll admit to having two cheapies
> > plugged in for quick Internet listening to save me switching the AUX
> > of my present Sansui receiver from AM or FM radio. As I write the
> > office speakers are actually small bookshelf Axioms but only because
> > they are "spare" in my overly large speaker collection - I need to
> > sell some!
> > Cheers,
> > Roger
>
>
>
> I bought a pair of Cambridge Soundworks SBS52's for my son, and I was
> very surprised at how nice they sound. He loves them.
>
> They show up new on ebay for around $20 a pair w/shipping. They look
> like the standard inexpensive computer speaker, but sound vera nice. I
> believe Cambridge Soundworks stopped making them a few years ago.
>
I used to use a pari of Polk 'computer' speakers, they were marked SGI
and dark grey - so they count as computer speakers. They were very good,
marked
SGI Part No.: 042-0410-002 RevA
but hardly ever come up on eBay, I'd recommend them if they do though.

[Daniel Fuchs[_3_]]

If you're still reading this:

rino sassi wrote:

> can you guess a desktop speakers system with a decent midrange under 100$?
> i can easily live without a subwoofer.

Stretch the budget and get these: http://www.audioengineusa.com/a2_home.php


Well worth it.

[Peter A. Stoll[_2_]]

Daniel Fuchs > wrote in
:

> rino sassi wrote:
>
>> can you guess a desktop speakers system with a decent midrange under
>> 100$? i can easily live without a subwoofer.
>
> Stretch the budget and get these:
> http://www.audioengineusa.com/a2_home.php

I normally use decent headphones (ATH-M50) through a decent headphone amp
(Creek OBH-11) from a decent soundcard (M-Audio AP 2496), but for watching
DVD movies a pair of speakers which I could cram on my crowded desktop
would be nice. Two questions about these:

1. That claim about bass frightened me initially--I've heard way too much
resonance peaked bass designed to assure hearty thumps that does awful
things on the sort of music I like. Do you find the bass civil?

2. The pictures on that web page don't seem to show the "power supply" but
I assume a small enclosure with a switching supply, wall wart or inline
style. Is the supply reasonably quiet acoustically?

And, lastly, back to actual audio, do you think these good enough that I
could go off the headphones for checks on stereo image and such to some
benefit? This is the machine I do audio work on, and I've been nervous
about headphone-one. Luckily my recording is strictly two-channel with
near-ORTF microphone positioning, so I've not had really severe surprises
yet.

[William Sommerwerck]

> And, lastly, back to actual audio, do you think these good enough that
> I could go off the headphones for checks on stereo image and such to
> some benefit? This is the machine I do audio work on, and I've been
> nervous about headphone-on[ly]. Luckily my recording is strictly two-
> channel with near-ORTF microphone positioning, so I've not had really
> severe surprises yet.

The reason you haven't had any "really severe surprises" is that ORTF
produces a recording that sounds roughly like what you hear at the mics.
Monitoring after the fact isn't going to do you much good -- and how would
you fix problems at that point, anyway?

I used to do live recording, using various coincident-mic setups -- mostly
Blumlein and SoundField. I quickly learned that what I heard through 'phones
did not exactly match what I heard with my ears. Headphone listening always
produced a noticeably more spacious sound. I therefore miked for exaggerated
spaciousness through the headphones. I never had any "really severe
surprises", either.

Only speakers will give a reasonable idea of what the listener will hear.
But, again, what good will that do once you've made the recording? If you
had a three- or four-track SoundField recording, you could, ex post facto,
choose any mic pattern with any angular spacing you wanted. But there's a
limit to how much an ORTF or Blumlein recording can be adjusted, because the
recording doesn't contain enough "degrees of freedom".

The only way you'll find out what you need to know is to monitor while you
are making the recording, whether it be with headphones or speakers.

[Daniel Fuchs[_3_]]

Peter A. Stoll wrote:
>
> 1. That claim about bass frightened me initially--I've heard way too much
> resonance peaked bass designed to assure hearty thumps that does awful
> things on the sort of music I like. Do you find the bass civil?

Yes. It's not boomy, but possibly a tad more than necessary. These
speakers are real fun with ambient/electronic music etc....


> 2. The pictures on that web page don't seem to show the "power supply" but
> I assume a small enclosure with a switching supply, wall wart or inline
> style. Is the supply reasonably quiet acoustically?

External switching supply. Not a sound from it.

> And, lastly, back to actual audio, do you think these good enough that I
> could go off the headphones for checks on stereo image and such to some
> benefit?

Imaging seems surprisingly good with the A2...



D.

[Steven Sullivan]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote:
> >William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> >>I get tired of "I want something really great, but I don't have a lot of
> >>money to spend." You can't get audiophile "anything" (except maybe a phono
> >>pickup) for $100.
> >
> >I entirely disagree. There's plenty of cheap gear with good specs that sounds
> >fantastic. The key is to purchase with your ears rather than your status
> >conscious mind.

> Can you recommend something, then?

> I have heard a number of the speaker systems recommended in this thread
> and couldn't stand any of them.

For less than $200 there's these powered two-way speakers:

Behringer B2030P

which, in terms of objectively measured performance across their rated
frequency range, are vary hard to beat at that price...unless one
prefers more 'colored' gear.




--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> > Orlando Enrique Fiol > wrote:
> > >William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> > >>I get tired of "I want something really great, but I don't have a lot of
> > >>money to spend." You can't get audiophile "anything" (except maybe a phono
> > >>pickup) for $100.
> > >
> > >I entirely disagree. There's plenty of cheap gear with good specs that sounds
> > >fantastic. The key is to purchase with your ears rather than your status
> > >conscious mind.

> > Can you recommend something, then?

> > I have heard a number of the speaker systems recommended in this thread
> > and couldn't stand any of them.

> For less than $200 there's these powered two-way speakers:

> Behringer B2030P

actually, these are passive, not powered (the 2030A are the active version)





> --
> -S
> We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[William Sommerwerck]

> For less than $200 there's these powered two-way speakers:
> Behringer B2030P
> which, in terms of objectively measured performance across
> their rated frequency range, are vary hard to beat at that price...
> unless one prefers more 'colored' gear.

But have you actually listened to them?

Flat response is highly desirable, and flatter speakers do tend to sound
less colored. But there are other factors affecting a speaker's sound
quality. A speaker can measure flat, and still be badly colored, due to poor
crossover design.

I've also heard extremely "flat" speakers that sound as bland as a glass of
tap water. Thiel is famous for such speakers.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >,
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>> For less than $200 there's these powered two-way speakers:
>> Behringer B2030P
>> which, in terms of objectively measured performance across
>> their rated frequency range, are vary hard to beat at that price...
>> unless one prefers more 'colored' gear.
>
>But have you actually listened to them?
>
>Flat response is highly desirable, and flatter speakers do tend to sound
>less colored. But there are other factors affecting a speaker's sound
>quality. A speaker can measure flat, and still be badly colored, due to poor
>crossover design.

The problem is that the speakers that are flat on-axis and usually not flat
off-axis (and that's often a combination of crossover and physical design
issues).

The other problem is that speakers are very high distortion, even the best
of them. So distortion characteristics are as important as frequency response.

The worst problem is that a speaker that has flat response in an anechoic
chamber won't be flat on your desk.

>I've also heard extremely "flat" speakers that sound as bland as a glass of
>tap water. Thiel is famous for such speakers.

I'm willing to bet that's in great part a result of distortion spectrum,
given some things I know about some of their tweeter designs. But bland
is not always a bad thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

> I'm willing to bet that's in great part a result of distortion
> spectrum, given some things I know about some of their
> tweeter designs. But bland is not always a bad thing.

"Blandness" and "neutrality" are not the same thing. When everything (or
almost everything) you play sounds "blah", there's something wrong.

[badboyallmylife]

On Oct 17, 12:22*am, "rino sassi" > wrote:
> when i'm not on my DAW at my studio, i listen to my mp3 through my
> headphones on my computer at home, but i think it's time to set my ears free
> and buy a couple of little speakers.
>
> can you guess a desktop speakers system with a decent midrange under 100$?
> i can easily live without a subwoofer.
>
> thanks in advance
> *rino

I run a pair of Tivoli PAL as extension speakers with a splitter on my
upstairs computer.
Sounds much better than anything else I've tried. Not audiophile but
it does have a bigger midrange EQ.

[leathersaxmusic]

On Nov 4, 7:18*pm, badboyallmylife > wrote:
> On Oct 17, 12:22*am, "rino sassi" > wrote:
>
> > when i'm not on my DAW at my studio, i listen to my mp3 through my
> > headphones on my computer at home, but i think it's time to set my ears free
> > and buy a couple of little speakers.
>
> > can you guess a desktop speakers system with a decent midrange under 100$?
> > i can easily live without a subwoofer.
>
> > thanks in advance
> > *rino
>
> I run a pair of Tivoli PAL as extension speakers with a splitter on my
> upstairs computer.
> *Sounds much better than anything else I've tried. Not audiophile but
> it does have a bigger midrange EQ.

Try the Tascam NXT system, they come with a sub.