[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article ,
Curmudgeon wrote:

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

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

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

JR

[xxxxxx]

i agree the klipsch are a horrible choice



"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Curmudgeon wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote:

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

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

What to do, what to do . . .

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

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

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

Graham

[Jim Redelfs]

In article ,
Jolly Roger wrote:

Get over yourself...

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

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

JR

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article
,
Jim Redelfs wrote:

In article ,
Jolly Roger wrote:

Get over yourself...

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

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

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

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

JR

[Eeyore]

Jolly Roger wrote:

jakdedert wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:
In article 1ia6nbd.1ht0ty41w7nfksN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsul t.com,
(Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:

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

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

I wonder if you noticed that *all* he will be doing with them is
listening to music...and further, he will not be listening to music on
much of anything else, since he's stored his entire music collection on
the computer? I believe he said something like 'listening system of
choice' or words to that effect.

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

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

From the OP's very first post.

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

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

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

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jim Redelfs wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote:

Get over yourself...

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

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

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

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jolly Roger wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:

Get over yourself...

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

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

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

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

Graham

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:

Get over yourself...

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

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

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

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

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

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

JR

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:
[i]
From the OP's very first post.

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

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

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

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

JR

[Eeyore]

Jolly Roger wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

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

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

LMFAO !

Sure, boom and tizz will do.

Graham

[jakdedert]

Eeyore wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote:

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

LMFAO !

Sure, boom and tizz will do.

Graham

Well, there's the fact that he's getting rid 'of his little silver
coasters'. Depending on what format he ripped to--being able to
actually hear what he's done to his music might be a disadvantage.

jak

[Eeyore]

jakdedert wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:

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

LMFAO !

Sure, boom and tizz will do.

Well, there's the fact that he's getting rid 'of his little silver
coasters'. Depending on what format he ripped to--being able to
actually hear what he's done to his music might be a disadvantage.

Now there's a thought !

Graham

[Howard Brazee]

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

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

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

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

[Jim Redelfs]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Technically,

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

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

Agreed.

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

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

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

[George M. Middius]

Jolly Roger said:

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

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

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

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

[Madwen]

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[George M. Middius]

Madwen said:

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

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

[Madwen]

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

Madwen said:

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

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

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

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

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

Madwen said:

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

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

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

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

JR

[George M. Middius]

Madwen said:

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

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

I take[sic] my message about bloviating pseudo[sic]-audiophiles struck a nerve

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

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

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

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

[George M. Middius]

Jolly Roger said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

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

Jolly Roger said:

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

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

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

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

So have you ever actually listened to them then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JR

[jakdedert]

Jolly Roger wrote:


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

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

You still don't get that the particular computer is his music
system...only. He doesn't intend to use it for anything else. In that
case, the computer is just the same as any other musical source...be it
a CD player, turntable, an iPod or a tape deck.

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

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

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

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

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

jak

[Curmudgeon]

In article , jakdedert
wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote:


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

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

You still don't get that the particular computer is his music
system...only. He doesn't intend to use it for anything else. In that
case, the computer is just the same as any other musical source...be it
a CD player, turntable, an iPod or a tape deck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers!

Mudge

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article ,
jakdedert wrote:

Jolly Roger wrote:

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

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

You still don't get that the particular computer is his music
system...only. He doesn't intend to use it for anything else. In that
case, the computer is just the same as any other musical source...be it
a CD player, turntable, an iPod or a tape deck.

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

No, actually what he said was:

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

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

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

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

The Klipsch speakers are rated:

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

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


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

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

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

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

JR

[MINe109]

On Jan 5, 4:24 pm, Curmudgeon wrote:
In article , jakdedert



wrote:
Jolly Roger wrote:

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

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

You still don't get that the particular computer is his music
system...only. He doesn't intend to use it for anything else. In that
case, the computer is just the same as any other musical source...be it
a CD player, turntable, an iPod or a tape deck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It appears that it is you who have not read what I originally read very
carefully. Please lay off Jolly Roger. He was the most helpful among a
small group who originally replied, and seems to be the only poster who
really understood what my intentions were.

Do you share his reverse-snobbery?

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

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

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

Be sure to read the CNET review.

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

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

Stephen

[Jolly Roger[_3_]]

In article ,
Curmudgeon wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

JR

[Clyde Slick]

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



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

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


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

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

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Madwen said:

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

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

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


Graham

[Clyde Slick]

On 5 Ian, 15:25, Jolly Roger wrote:
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:

Jolly Roger said:

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

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

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

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

So have you ever actually listened to them then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JR

here is a speaker i would consider not so decent:

http://tinyurl.com/2l4ck8

[Eeyore]

Jolly Roger wrote:

George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast . net wrote:
Madwen said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Graham

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

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

LOL !

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

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jolly Roger wrote:

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

NO he did NOT. This is what he posted.

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


This isn't a discussion about sound quality.

He indicated that sound quality WAS a consideration for him

"so the quality should be pretty decent "

STOP LYING !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Curmudgeon wrote:

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

What model ?


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

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

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

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

Graham

[Eeyore]

Jolly Roger wrote:

The Klipsch speakers are rated:

Frequency response: 31Hz - 20kHz

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


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

1% and 7% distortion !

Jesus wept !

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

Graham

[George M. Middius]

MINe109 said:

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

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

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

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

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

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

[George M. Middius]

Poopie brayed:

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

Hnawk! hee-HNAAAAWK!

Gesundheit, Donkey.

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

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

[Eeyore]

"George M. Middius" wrote:

Poopie brayed:

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

Hnawk! hee-HNAAAAWK!

Gesundheit, Donkey.

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

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

I spelt it correctly.

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

Graham

[Howard Brazee]

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


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

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

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

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

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