Good 2.1 speakers

I'm thinking of replacing my Altec Lancing speakers which I've been using for the past 9 years. They still work great, but i think it's due for an upgrade and I'm hoping to find a 2.1 system with decent quality.

Here's a few I'm considering and was hoping to get some feedback from NBR members:

ALTEC LANSING PT6021
Logitech Z Cinema Advanced
RAZER Mako
Klipsch ProMedia 2.1

If there's any others that you feel would be a good match, please feel free to recommend them!

TIA

 

I use (subless) Avi Neutron IVs with amp-packs. It's my close-field monitors and they're no less than excellent. Somewhat pricey, compared to the rest of poll-field, but nonetheless remarkably precise.

Found a link:

http://www.hifigear.co.uk/site/scripts/product_browse.php?product_id=3379

 

Logitech all the way! Swiss engineering in the house yo'

 

Logitech Z-2300.

A hundred bucks cheaper than the Cinema Advanced, THX certified, and sound great. I actually got mine on sale for around $150CDN a year ago.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logitech#Production

Thought you might wanted to take a look

 

I voted for the Klipsch Pro Media. Probably the best 2.1 speakers given its price.

As for the Z-2300 mentioned above, I spent a week using them, wasn't all that impressed considering it's price, the main advantage I see from the Z2300 is its overly large bass, which obviously some people love. I spent $27 on a pair of used Altec Lansing VS4121. Sounds just as good with the cost of the gigantic bass...LOL

 

Yes but the compagny is swiss

I lived in Geneva For 13 years before moving to the US.

 

Haha, yup, you're right, the holding company is swiss. However, the engineering part ...

Anyway, I'm a firm believer in "go simple, the money will buy you better quality". And here, instead of buying 3 speakers, go for 2 – well, unless you're a basshead (nothing wrong with that, of course).

 

lol, 2 speakers instead of 3. The only 2 speaker sound system I'd get is headphones. 2.1 is much much better sounding than any 2.0 system, even if your not a huge bass head, you just need a subwoofer to get the low frequencies. I personally like the klipsch pro media system, its a good price and it sound very nice.

 

Z Cinéma Advanced Surround Sound System looks really sexy. Should go nicely with your sexy dell computer.

I have no idea how it sounds tho.

I'm surprise no one said anything about M-Audio Studiophile AV 40. Great sound and in the same price range as Logitech Z-2300.

 

Er, you realise that in a 2.1 system, the satelite speakers just have a narrower frequency response, mostly because of necessity (at least when it comes to most computer speakers), and that by design they're usually smaller (because they don't need to reproduce the lower frequencies), right?

Of course, with small 2.0 speakers, you won't get the butt-shaking bass you would be able to if you used a sub.

You mentioned headphones. Isn't that funny? My headphones is not only 2.0 (out of necessity - where would one put a sub in the headphones), but they're also contain a single unit each. Yet they're able to reproduce lower frequencies more precisely than any of the mentioned 2.1 setups you mention.

But really, the only reason to use a "subbed" system is to get a) more bass, and/or to get smaller main speakers (i.e. you're paying for more units and another casing).

All things equal, with two speakers you WILL get more bang for the buck. Unless, of course "bang for the buck" equals "most bone shaking bass".

 

You might want to rethink that whole butt-shaking audio experience....

http://i.gizmodo.com/5157354/boy-killed-anally-when-office-chair-explodes

 

Oh, ha ha!!

Damm, what a story

 

Well lets start off by letting you know that I'm a huge headphone fan, and speaker fan, I've been doing it for as long as I can remember, and honestly, the BEST sound comes when you have a separated subwoofer. Yes its so you can separate the frequencies of each speaker(subwoofer, woofer, tweeter) and let them handle that which they are best at. And if you ask me, that over the top bloated, overwhelming strong bass isn't good music, but tight, punchy, accurate bass is what makes music good. You have some points about it making the satellite speakers smaller, but you will also get much better sound out of a system that has its subwoofer separate. And for the same sound quality. I'm yet to find a 2.0 system in the same price range as the Klipsch pro Media 2.1 system that sounds even remotely as nice. And not all headphones are single drivers, you can get them with multiple drivers, some even have up to 4 per side. And I think the only 2.1 system I mentioned was the klipsch, I've used many others, but only mentioned that one, because it was the best IMO.

 

Thanks for everyone's input

Unfortunately, the Avi Neutron IV is WAY more than I'm willing to spend on a pair of speakers

The Klipsch Pro Media seems like a safe bet and I've always liked Klipsch (I have a pair of the Klipschorn made back in the 80s and it's literally the BEST floor-standing speakers I've ever seen/heard ), however I was hoping to find something newer... after all, the pro medias have been out for a few years now and I'm inclined to try another brand.

The Z Cinéma Advanced does look sexy! Very sleek and modern indeed. The Studiophile AV 40 looks pretty decent too... though the large footprint may be an issue for me.

 

I haven't tried the Swan M10's but I hear they're really good. Not as big of a sub as the klipsch but they're supposed to do good. I want to try them but I'm not in a position to afford them. I have some other Swan speakers and they do pretty good.

 

I want some for my cheap mp3 player I'm receiving. I'm gonna follow this thread and see what you end up with, David.

I'm looking at some Altec Lansings..cheap but ohwell!

Cin

 

Anyone have any experience or opinions on the Altec Lancing PT6021 and Razer Mako?

I feel that I can't dismiss Altec Lancing since my current AL speakers are so well made that even after almost a decade of use, it's still going strong. The Razer Mako also looks pretty unique in shape and I've always been a fan of their mice and keyboards Any thoughts?

 

No,it doesn't. I don't know where you got that idea, except on some video-forum or something, because that simply isn't true.

You don't need separate boxes to do that. Not at all.
I too am a big headphone idjit (well, there, I said it, it's true, I am), and they usually only have one unit on each side*. If you buy good ones, they can reproduce a wide frequency range. You don't need to have separate units, and certainly not separate boxes to have a wide frequency range.

*although some in-ears now have several units on each channel, introducing problems by doing so, and also upping the price. They do have they supporters on places like headfi, though.

Anyway, when you buy small boxes to take care of the high frequencies and midrange (sometimes even only partially the midrange) of course you have to put the physical volume (as in litres/gallons) somewhere else.


However, I think I'll try to stop the discussion here as I'm new on this forum, and I'm not sure how much these side-discussions are frowned upon on this particular forum, but my point was merely that for a fixed amount of money to buy speaker units for you will get better quality per unit if less units are bought.

I thought so too, but I thought I'd mention them before someone jumped in with a reply like:
"Oh, you should buy these "lowest common denominator consumer miniature cheapo 3 ounce speakers - they're teh best eva!!"

I think that from what you mentioned, that I'd go for the Klipsch as well. But then again, you can get some really good headphones instead

 

lol, some video forum? I actually didn't read it anywhere, I tend to make most of my opinions from experience rather than from what other people say. And trust me, me and my brothers have dropped thousands upon thousands on speaker setups. Ok, maybe they can put them all in one box, but I assure you that they always isolate the sub from the rest of the speakers, cause if you don't it WILL distort the sound at high volumes. With a large enough sub you can distort it the same way even while they're in different boxes(I've done it just for fun, I could never enjoy listening with that much bass). And yes, most full sized headphones are single driver, but the top tier of IEM's are multiple drivers, that doesn't mean that a single driver IEM can't keep up, its just that most of the top ones are multiple drivers. And don't worry about the side-discussions, I've been here a few years and thats all I do.

 

Hmm, having spent money on something doesn't mean that one knows what one talks about – behold the Bose-crowd.
I keed, I keed – I don't think you're one of those people, or even worse, someone who thinks that there is some magic to audio and goes spend thousands upon thousands of dollars on signal- and/or speaker cables.

Well, you seem to assume that it's a three-way speaker system. But of course one isolate the different units one way or the other, that doesn't mean that a "sub" (I think of it as a "bass unit", and only refer to "sub" as a stand-alone bass unit).

What's worrisome in most 2.1 systems is that the satellite speakers have such limited frequency range that there's a hole down to when the sub kicks in or as is the case with many others: The sub takes care of part of the midrange as well as the bass.

As mentioned, you don't need a big unit to reproduce deep audio. The only reason you want big is because of loudness.
As an example, take your cans away from your ears and place them on the table. The loudness of the bass will be attenuated so it will seem non-existant.
Personally, I prefer "tight" and "precise".

Hmm, how do you figure that "most top tiers are multi driver"? By price? If so, you're right. But as I see it, it's fashion, and so far, the argument seems to be "two drivers (one for each ear) is good, four must be better. You know - unsubstantiated and much like the surround sound-crowd who in all seriousness argue that music (made for a stereo set-up) is "much better on a 7.1 set-up".
The biggest problem with multi-unit in-ears is physical space: You can get a much stronger (and thus faster reacting) driver in there in single-unit in-ears – the multi-ones have to get around that physical problem wby using all sorts of workarounds.
Remember those multidriver cans ten years ago or so? They bombed for a reason: They were more expensive than single-unit ones, and they also had to workaround the lack of physical space. Now, put them in your ears, and the physical space problems are multiplied ten-fold.

I took you up on that. You know, you're the one to blame if I get banned

 

Considering the discussion is actually constructive, and it might help the OP somewhat. I don't really care.

 

Despite this is getting a little off-topic, I'm actually learning a lot and appreciate this type of debate

 

the razer is a killer

 

Phew! That puts me at ease, ou guys.

 

lol, Bose.. lol.. And yeah, cables are more of an aesthetic thing to me rather than going for all the uber snake oil expensive ones. Basically what I'm saying is you pretty much need a tweeter for the highs, a woofer for the mids, and a sub woofer for the lows, of course you can cover all sections with less drivers, but you certainly wont cover them as good as with dedicated drivers for each range. And your right, the bigger the louder, but one thing we all know about bass is that its harder to hear at lower volumes, so if you have a bigger sub then you can hear it better without having to turn it up. This wouldn't be a problem with a good amp with a nice gain, but the problem with alot of the cheaper systems is what your saying, you adjust a crossover instead of a proper gain. And when I'm talking the high end IEM's I'm talking of Ultimate Ears flagship set, which is the UE11's which have 4 drivers in each ear piece, and yes they're very expensive. But like I said, that doesn't mean a single driver unit can't keep up, just that alot of the higher class IEM's are multidriver. But when it comes to a cheap 2.1 set like the OP wants, I don't think you will match it with a 2.0 system, mostly because the market at the price range is for people who mostly do think that louder is better.

 

You seem to forget one thing here:
We are talking about what amounts to near-field monitors (well, without the quality): Computer speakers are supposed to be listened to in close proximity. If for nothing else, then because of the stereo imaging.
I realise that many (especially young) people don't have the luxury of having the money and the space for a dedicated stereo setup and instead choose computer speakers as it also ties into their music library which they have on their computer (only).
I wasn't joking when I asked you to place your cans on the table. It was to prove the point, that it's all about volume (or lack of attenuation to be precise) that makes such weakly amplified miniscule drivers lack bass from even an inch away from your ears. The near-field monitors can be just as capable as huge speakers, only they work in near-field situations, and "proper" speakers work better from afar (or the bass will be overpowering).

As always, my point is that you cannot claim that with a set amount of money (and without, for that matter,) a 2.1-system will sound better than a 2.0 set-up. There's simply no technical basis for making that claim. The argument that it needs to be in a separate physical box to sound good is untrue, unless, of course, you use undampened, flexing boxes.
I know it's B&O, and since they (for two decades or so made those god awful cylinder speakers, have a pretty bad reputation as a whole, but have you heard their Beosound 9s and even better: The Beosound 5s? The latter is simply the best speakers I have ever heard - I don't mean that in an "audiophile" way - no, I mean that in a pro monitor studio-way.

So, you back down from the previous statement that 2.1 systems costing a set amount will always be better than a 2.0 set-up costing the same?

As I thought: You reckon: "Expensive=higher end" in the audio "biz".
No matter how you put it or speak of it, there is NO way of getting around that if you put 4 drivers into an ear canal, they all have to make use of the same space that was previously occupied by a single driver, meaning that the individual drivers can't be as powerful (think magnets) as the single-driver one. I don't even want to go into the space occupied by the crossover filters and whatnot.

LOL, what are you saying? That subs (in that class) is for people who want butt-shaking bass?

 

Speaking about B&O, anyone used the BeoLab 4 PC speakers? Any opinions on that? I have the B&O earphones and I personally don't think it's worth the price.

 

Just because I happen to mention some of the most expensive IEM's doesn't mean I automatically assume that more money is better. I haven't personally tried them, but I know some one who has a pair, and they have many other headphones which I have tried some of them, and they are great. And he says that they are the best IEM's he's used. And for the record, your the only one thats spoken of shaking peoples butts. I'm just saying that the majority of people, they tend to assume that bass=good sound. Yes not everyone is like that, but most are. Yeah, I can't be sure, but from all my experiences then I'd much rather the sub aside from the speakers, for more than sound. Its nice to place it where you like, smaller speakers, and so you can upgrade your speakers and or sub without having to upgrade everything. Of course that doesn't apply for a cheap pre-built system, but for a system you piece together. And lets just throw in one more aspect to make things more confusing; each person has different listening preferences. What I mean is that every ear is different, I like my sound signature one way while you might like it completely different.

And on another note, the acoustics of your room will effect the sound also, so like with the headphones, the area between the can and your ears will effect the sound.

 

You were speaking of "flagship models", and

I don't know about you, but knowing the prices of things in this area, the only parameter you seem to be going is money. It's certainly not things like "precision", nor "flat frequency range".

Of course I am. It's me paraphrasing "bass heads" and people who think that using equaliser is "1337" (ha ha, I'm to old to be using "words" like that).

Most people prefer Mp3 and don't care if the music is pumped and have no dynamic range. That doesn't make lossy formats ripped from cd's without dynamic range as good as something that is well-produced. It's an appeal to popularity, which is, as we know, a logical fallacy.

Well, since such things needs to be matched, I'm not sure I want to do that.

Is that seriously your argument? So, to paraphrase, you think that (disregarding the actual price - say you didn't know it) that the Beosound 5s are "cheap prebuilt" speakers or what are you saying? I guarantee you, those speakers will demolish any sub-based system you can put together. Not only in the same price range (they include amps) but at much higher prices.
Come to think of it, I can't remember having talked to anyone who masters cd's who used a 2.1 setup. On the contrary. You think that's because they use cheap prebuilt systems or don't know what they're doing?

Ah, yes. Let's throw some "magic" in there as well. Why not just use some speakers and amps that colour the sound "fantastically" and add some equaliser and set up a 7.1 system? I'm half serious here: The moment one uses the argument "well, it's preferences", all facts are thrown to the wind, and suddenly, all is equal, even if that's far from the truth.

Duh! Of course it will. But that has absolutely no bearing on this discussion whatsoever. The quality difference between a good setup and a poor one won't change if put in the same room. In other words: Using poor wal-mart speakers bought for $20 will sound equally crappy compared to some nice B&W speakers (or whatever) no matter what room you put them (all) in.

 

Wow, sounds like you know alot more about sound than me. But I don't get why you keep throwing out the nice IEM's simply just because they cost alot. Anything that competes with them in the IEM world costs alot, you have to pay to get the nice stuff, I know this always isn't the case, but it sure seems like it in the IEM world(I'm not saying you can't get cheap ones that sound good, the Audeo Phonak PFE's are good for only 140$). And honestly about an EQ, I say use them, color the sound to your preferences, your the one listening to it not the producers, or mixers or artists, you. Of course some EQ's are terrible and definitely not worth using, while others do a good job and are very fun to use. And if you want to play the matched game then just put the sub in the center, and run both left and right channels to it, if that isn't matched than what is? And about MP3 vs lossy, yeah theres a difference, but really, its not THAT big of a difference. If you have a properly encoded 320VBR mp3 then it does great.

And honestly, without preference then whats the point of more expensive stuff? You just simply prefer it.

 

I don't throw away anything because they cost a lot. I am trying to argue that:
A) Just because quality costs good money that doesn't mean that everything that cost good money is good quality.

B) In speakers (as well as in-ears - it's universal) a given amount of money divided by x compenents will yield a smaller amount of money to each component, and:

C) With a given amount of physical space (in in-ears especially limited), when you put in four drivers, splitters and what have you, there will be even less physical space for each driver and, most importantly, the magnet which drives, well, the driver, giving each driver a less powerful magnet, all else being equal (same cone material and what have you).

And, finally:

D) Using more drivers in IEMS naturally ups the price - as it's not only uses more drivers, it has to shove them in there and you have to make workarounds to make it good despite the introduced problems.

That's why I have problem with you seemingly saying that just because they're expensive they must be "top tiers". In my head, say, "ten top tiers" when we talk about quality, is indeed quality, and not just "the ten most expensive".

Exactly, and hence I don't use equalisers, as I actually want to hear everything I can, and not do the audio-equivalent of sticking my head in a tube, in between the duvet, or try to make my system oversteer and what have you. I'm all for precision and clarity. That way I can better hear details and placement of instruments. It gets me closer to the artists.

Er, we're talking about hertz and kHz here, not to mention colouration (or, preferably, lack thereof) and getting the right amount of db. To put the latter into perspective: A ten db increase will result in a doubling of the perceived volume, but it's actually giving you ten times the sound pressure level ("SPL"), whereas a doubling in spl is a mere 3db difference.
This is not even going into the sensitivity of the speaker.

.
Err, MP3 IS lossy. It's a format that, at 128kbps tosses out 10/11ths of the information from a 44.1khz/16bit recording (CD) running at 1411kbps.

Or not - granted, it does okay for some music (most compressed (as in "pumped") pop productions), but for others, the lack of dynamic range, the introduction of artefacts, and the sheer number of segments the s's and t's become pronounced makes me forego that format entirely.

Ah, yes, let's water down the terms. You don't see the difference between "preferring good quality" and implying that there is no such thing, because it's all preferences?

 

Logitech FTW!!! I have a 5.1 System from Logitech and I find it excellent. And I agreem you should go with the Z2300's and they are ~£50 cheaper than the Z's.

Good Luck

fattail95

 

Obviously you didn't read my post about the UE11's I didn't say I assumed they were top dog because of price, I assumed that because I happen to know some one that has them and they have tried ALOT of IEM's and they say that they are the best they've ever used. Thus I'm trusting their opinion and going off of that, and its an opinion that I feel I can trust because I've listened to other headphones and such that they suggested and they were very nice sounding. And sorry, I meant lossless, I was tired and mixed up a word. And about the 320 vs lossless I've tried it with different genre's and have talked with many people who have also done it with different genre's, and the general opinion is that there is a difference, but not ALOT. Funny how you can even say to me that I am implying that theres no such thing as good sound quality, what that means to me is that you have no respect.

 

I'm not "disrespecting you in way, form or fashion. I'm showing you what the consequences of your argument is, and thus showing the argument to be invalid. Hold on, I have to find the proper translation for this ..

Edit: Found it. What I did was use a method called reductio ad absurdum to show that the premise of your argument was false. It had nothing to do with not "respecting" anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum#Explanation

 

The pair of you! Relax!

 

Yup. Will do. I think I'll go look for a good x200s-deal instead