Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
George M. Middius George M. Middius is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,173
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



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.



  #82   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Howard Brazee Howard Brazee is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?

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.
  #83   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Howard Brazee Howard Brazee is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?

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.
  #84   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Howard Brazee Howard Brazee is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?

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.
  #85   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Curmudgeon Curmudgeon is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?

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


  #86   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Jolly Roger[_3_] Jolly Roger[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?

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 @ ≈‚¬ 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..


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
  #87   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc, rec.audio.opinion, rec.audio.misc
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?

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
  #88   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
George M. Middius George M. Middius is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,173
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



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.



  #89   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
George M. Middius George M. Middius is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,173
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



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.




  #90   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
George M. Middius George M. Middius is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,173
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



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.





  #91   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



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


  #92   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



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

  #93   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



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 @ ≈‚¬ 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..


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

  #94   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



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

  #95   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Curmudgeon Curmudgeon is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?

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


  #96   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Curmudgeon Curmudgeon is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 51
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?

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
  #97   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Jolly Roger[_3_] Jolly Roger[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?

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 @ â≈ˆšÃ¢‰*¬ 1% THD, 200Hz
- 1KHz
Subwoofer: 50 watts @ â≈ˆšÃ¢‰*¬ 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
  #98   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Jolly Roger[_3_] Jolly Roger[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?

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
  #99   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
George M. Middius George M. Middius is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,173
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



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.




  #100   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Eric Lindsay Eric Lindsay is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?

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/standloudspea...ae/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


  #101   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
George M. Middius George M. Middius is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,173
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



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.




  #102   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
George M. Middius George M. Middius is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,173
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



Donkey brayed:

They are after all simply over-hyped Chinese tat.


Did you say "tat"?




  #103   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
George M. Middius George M. Middius is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,173
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



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"?




  #104   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
George M. Middius George M. Middius is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,173
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



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?




  #105   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
George M. Middius George M. Middius is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,173
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



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?






  #106   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Jolly Roger[_3_] Jolly Roger[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?

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
  #107   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
jakdedert jakdedert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 672
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?

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

  #108   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



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

  #109   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



Curmudgeon wrote:

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


More wishful thinking.

Graham

  #110   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



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



  #111   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



"George M. Middius" wrote:

Donkey brayed:

They are after all simply over-hyped Chinese tat.


Did you say "tat"?


I did.

Graham


  #112   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



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

  #113   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



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

  #114   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



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

  #115   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



"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




  #116   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



"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


  #117   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
George M. Middius George M. Middius is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,173
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



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.



  #118   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Eeyore Eeyore is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,474
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?



"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 sicby virtue of being cheap and vulgar

a tasteless thing




  #119   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc,rec.audio.opinion,rec.audio.misc
Todd H. Todd H. is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 116
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?

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 sicby 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
  #120   Report Post  
Posted to comp.sys.mac.misc, rec.audio.opinion, rec.audio.misc
Clyde Slick Clyde Slick is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,545
Default Recommendations for Computer Speakers?

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?
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Recommendations for a new computer for converting audio files Kompu Kid Tech 3 February 28th 07 04:29 PM
Speakers Recommendations mrgou Audio Opinions 2 February 13th 07 10:57 PM
recommendations for computer speakers? Mulehead General 18 November 8th 05 06:56 PM
Genius SW-5.1 speakers (Deluxe/the wooden ones) & other speakers for a budget computer 5.1 or higher system [email protected] General 2 July 6th 05 03:46 AM
Recommendations for Computer Recording and Field Recording mark Pro Audio 16 February 27th 04 03:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:56 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"