Looking to switch from PC speakers to Bookshelves - Questions

[CurseTheSky]

Hi guys,

For years now I've been running a set of Logitech Z-5500s on my X-Fi XtremeGamer for music, and a Sennheiser PC-151 on a USB DAC for gaming. It works, and the sound quality is "good enough," but needless to say I'm looking for more.

A few days ago, I purchased an ASUS Xonar Essence STX on a whim. I want to go with a PCI-E interface as future motherboards may no longer support PCI. Unfortunately, the card doesn't have 5.1 analog out - only analog stereo, separate headphones / line in ports (amplified) meant for hi-fi headphones, and S/PDIF. The Essence ST allows an add-on card for 7.1 analog out, but the ST is PCI unlike the STX, which I want to avoid. There's the Xonar Xense as well, but the general consensus seems to be that it's of slightly lesser quality (DAC has worse SNR than ST/STX, and some opamps aren't swappable), and the DVI-like to 3.5mm breakout cable for 7.1 out seems geared more toward PC speakers than decent A/V equipment.

To make a long story short, I'm thinking of ditching the Z-5500s. I can use the S/PDIF on the Essence STX to drive the speakers temporarily, but obviously want to make use of the card's DAC and opamps rather than whatever's inside the Z-5500 receiver. I will miss the 5.1 surround for movies, but a good 2.1 home theater setup should blow it away for music, which is the primary focus.

Questions:

1) The Essence STX only has stereo analog out for speakers (2x RCA). If I buy two bookshelf speakers and a sub (which are wired together using regular speaker wire?), how will everything hook up - is there some sort of speaker wire -> RCA adapter cable, or do I need something different? Looking at the sub I listed below, it looks like the speakers wire in to the back of the sub, and I connect a 2x RCA cable from the sub to the sound card. Is that correct?

2) Even with the stereo analog out, can I run a true 2.1 setup rather than just 2.0? How does the sub get wired in?

3) I can't afford to spend a ton on home theater equipment, but I still want to get something that sounds decent (better than the Z-5500s, I hope). For about $150-300 total, what do you recommend for bookshelf speakers? I would prefer something relatively small if possible - a bit bigger than the Z-5500 satellites is fine, but I don't want something half the size of my monitor if it can be avoided. I was thinking about these: Polk Audio Monitor30 Pair - $130, but I don't if they're decent for the price.

4) Also taking into the account the $150-300 total budget, what sub should I get? I don't need a ton of power, but I want just enough to fill a medium to large bedroom. Perhaps a Polk Audio PSW10 for $100? Again, I don't know what's good.

5) Assuming I buy the Polk Audio 2.1 setup listed above, would I be able to add on two additional bookshelf speakers and a center channel later on for 5.1, or will something not work together? This is assuming I upgrade to a 5.1-analog-out sound card or external receiver, of course.

Thank you.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

First, a bit of terminology. "Low-level" or "Line-level" refers to low-power connections such as RCA, 1/8" or 1/4" audio jacks. "High-level" refers to high-power connections from an amplifier to a speaker.

1) You will need an amplifier or receiver (receiver = combination amplifier, pre-amplifier, and tuner) to amplify your bookshelf speakers, unless you get speakers with built-in amplification like the KRK or M-Audio products, which are sort of "on the border" between PC speakers and "real" speakers (which are 99% of the time unpowered and require a separate amp). In your case, you should be able pick up an old stereo receiver from Craigslist or a pawn shop for under $50 that will serve your needs just fine.

You will run (RCA Outs on Sound Card) -> (RCA Inputs on Receiver/Amp) with RCA cables, and (Speaker Outputs on Receiver/AMP) -> (Speaker Inputs on Speaker) with speaker wire.

2) The sub... you've got various options for hookup. You can run the speaker wires to the sub's high-level inputs, and then from the sub's high-level outputs to the L/R speakers. The sub will filter out the lows and play those, and pass the highs on to the speakers. (The amp on the sub will only power the sub itself. The high-level outputs on the sub merely pass the signal from the receiver through.) Or you could run the L/R speakers off the "A" speaker outputs of the receiver, and the subwoofer's high-level inputs off the "B" speaker outputs of the receiver. Or you could run the L/R speakers like normal, and the sub from the low-level output of the receiver. (Even an old stereo receiver will have RCA outputs for a tape recorder.) You might want to experiment and see how well these options do. If you find an A/V receiver within your budget (not difficult -- I have bought $40 Dolby Pro Logic receivers from pawnshops), it may very well have a dedicated low-level subwoofer output which you will plug into the RCA inputs of the sub.

3) The Polk Monitor 30's are fine and IMO a fairly good deal (although I think they go on sale every so often, so you could probably find them cheaper if you were willing to wait).

4) The PSW100 will be fine for a bedroom. $100 subs will never be great, though. Even just doubling the price to $200 will get a lot more sub (but possibly overkill, especially when the sub's size is considered).

5) You will have to buy an external receiver regardless, if you want to use those Polks or any other unpowered speaker (almost all home theater / home audio speakers are unpowered). And yes, those Polks will be just fine to build on for an eventual 5.1 set. Even if the models change, Polk keeps their drivers (woofers and tweeters) relatively stable, and you will always find something very similar in their product line.

 

[joetekubi]

+1 for mr "slashbinslashslash.

Complete, accurate, helpful.
I've been able to get nice vintage receivers via the 'Bay or Craiglist for $30-50 dollars. It's good to check out the functionality before you pay, but (of course) that may be difficult or impossible.

It's hard to find quality speakers cheap. Polks are better than some others. Definitely avoid any Asian or Bose speakers.

 

[sdifox]

You can just go get old 2 channel amp + speakers on CL or garage sale and they will probably kick new cheap audio setups.


Another option is active monitors

http://www.amazon.com/KRKRP5-Powered...5770781&sr=8-3


or step up to RP6

http://www.amazon.com/Rokit-Powered-...ref=pd_cp_MI_2


for 100 more you get RP8

http://www.amazon.com/KRK-Powered-Studio-Monitor-KIT-02/dp/B001DIUOCW/ref=pd_cp_MI_3

 

[CurseTheSky]

1) You will need an amplifier or receiver (receiver = combination amplifier, pre-amplifier, and tuner) to amplify your bookshelf speakers, unless you get speakers with built-in amplification like the KRK or M-Audio products, which are sort of "on the border" between PC speakers and "real" speakers (which are 99% of the time unpowered and require a separate amp). In your case, you should be able pick up an old stereo receiver from Craigslist or a pawn shop for under $50 that will serve your needs just fine.

You will run (RCA Outs on Sound Card) -> (RCA Inputs on Receiver/Amp) with RCA cables, and (Speaker Outputs on Receiver/AMP) -> (Speaker Inputs on Speaker) with speaker wire.

That's what I was afraid of. Since it's just a bedroom setup, I was hoping to keep the number of devices down to a minimum - I'm fairly pressed for room as is. Also, I was under the impression that receivers have their own DACs, opamps, and whatnot - wouldn't that make the sound card pointless anyway? I mean, for the price of the sound card and some extra, I should be able to get an external receiver and connect it to the motherboard's onboard S/PDIF, right?

Thanks for the help everyone.

 

[sdifox]

That's what I was afraid of. Since it's just a bedroom setup, I was hoping to keep the number of devices down to a minimum - I'm fairly pressed for room as is. Also, I was under the impression that receivers have their own DACs, opamps, and whatnot - wouldn't that make the sound card pointless anyway? I mean, for the price of the sound card and some extra, I should be able to get an external receiver and connect it to the motherboard's onboard S/PDIF, right?

Thanks for the help everyone.

digital out from the mb is the best way to go.

 

[CurseTheSky]

:\

Sounds like I'd be best off sticking with PC speakers for now, and upgrading to a proper home theater setup later on when I can afford to do a proper receiver, speakers, and subwoofer.

 

[sdifox]

:\

Sounds like I'd be best off sticking with PC speakers for now, and upgrading to a proper home theater setup later on when I can afford to do a proper receiver, speakers, and subwoofer.

or like I said, search local CL.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

digital out from the mb is the best way to go.

Yep.

Sorry to break your heart, CurseTheSky But seriously, the KRK Rokits are pretty good -- far better than most PC speakers.

 

[CurseTheSky]

Yep.

Sorry to break your heart, CurseTheSky But seriously, the KRK Rokits are pretty good -- far better than most PC speakers.

Haha, it's all good. I was just hoping I wouldn't have to return the Essence STX and get a different card. Like I said, I'm limited for space right now, so I prefer to keep everything basically on / in computer.

The KRK Rokits are something I'll keep in mind, but currently they're a bit pricey for me (considering I'll need to get a sub in addition). For now, it looks like I'll grab the Xonar Xense and stick with the Z-5500s. When I have the cash to get a complete proper setup, I'll make the switch all at once.

Thanks for the help everyone.

 

[khansolo]

Don't fret on having to actually build it all at once though. I had the same strange turn myself when I ditched my pc speakers. I bought a cheap entry level receiver off onkyo's outlet store then started with 2 speakers. And over the past 2 years, I've managed to get a center, back pair, and a good sub (like the person above mentioned, you probably can't settle here. Quality subs are 200 and up). For reference, my bookshelf speakers are Athena AS-B1.2's, but I'm not sure they even sell these anymore since Klipsch bought Athena out.

 

[sdifox]

Don't fret on having to actually build it all at once though. I had the same strange turn myself when I ditched my pc speakers. I bought a cheap entry level receiver off onkyo's outlet store then started with 2 speakers. And over the past 2 years, I've managed to get a center, back pair, and a good sub (like the person above mentioned, you probably can't settle here. Quality subs are 200 and up). For reference, my bookshelf speakers are Athena AS-B1.2's, but I'm not sure they even sell these anymore since Klipsch bought Athena out.

To be accurate, Klipsch bought API, the parent company of Energy, Mirage, Athena to mention a few. I was pissed that Klipsch bought them, the facility is now vacant.


http://www.canadahifi.com/api.php

 

[sdifox]

Haha, it's all good. I was just hoping I wouldn't have to return the Essence STX and get a different card. Like I said, I'm limited for space right now, so I prefer to keep everything basically on / in computer.

The KRK Rokits are something I'll keep in mind, but currently they're a bit pricey for me (considering I'll need to get a sub in addition). For now, it looks like I'll grab the Xonar Xense and stick with the Z-5500s. When I have the cash to get a complete proper setup, I'll make the switch all at once.

Thanks for the help everyone.

I am not so sure you will need a sub with the KRKs. Especially if you go bigger. You got a music store nearby? go listen to them. You might be surprised.

 

[Pia]

I am not so sure you will need a sub with the KRKs. Especially if you go bigger. You got a music store nearby? go listen to them. You might be surprised.

Seconded. Many of the cheaper "2.1" multimedia speakers on the market don't even go as low and produce as much sound as a 2.0 set of the smallest KRKs, never mind sound quality. Plus there is the matter of tight, consistent, effortless bass beating the pants off somewhat deeper bass that is loose and too weak to keep up with the rest of the sound.

It's a mistake to think of active monitors as somehow inferior to, or a stepping stone along the way to a "real" setup with passive speakers and a receiver. It's actually the other way around. Nearly all professional sound work is done on active speakers because they are easier to make highly accurate, more robust by nature, and space efficient.

I can see that OP requested the speakers not to be large. Unfortunately, you can really only pick two out of: sound quality, price, and small size. I'm certain a 2.0 setup of the KRKs (or equivalent from a different manufacturer) is the best sound quality available to the OP at his budget of "up to $300", as long as they aren't intolerably large for him.

I'm taking the active speaker route myself, and have a very good quality 2.1 setup. (BTW, living in an apartment, I don't consider the sub to be all that important at the moment! It's almost a nuisance since I have to keep the volume lower.) The one and only thing which bugs me about the all-active setup is that low-end receivers do not have the line-outs which I need, and preamplifiers (which I'd naturally prefer, since I don't need an amp) are much too expensive. So for my source switching and DAC, I'm making do with a circa-2000 surround processor I bought for small change.

 

[moonboy403]

First of all, I highly disagree that active monitors are underpowered and the notion that they're somehow inferior to passive speakers.

Secondly, in contrast to room acoustics (which typically/easily change your speakers' frequency response to +/-30db), the effects of DAC and preamp on the overall sound are minimal at best especially when any decently built DAC and preamp are accurate within +/-3 db. Therefore, IMO, using the Essence as a DAC and preamp is perfectly fine. As a matter of fact, IMO, spending anything substantial on DAC/preamp before your room is properly treated isn't gonna do you much good.

Also, for a budget of $300, I wouldn't recommend getting a sub as it's a pain to integrate into a 2 channel setup (and takes tons of room treatment to get it right). So I would recommend the Audioengine A5 which is very well reviewed and received. They're fun to listen to (much better than any Logitech speakers), and goes reasonably deep in terms of bass. The bass is tight as opposed to the boomy bass that you get from Logitech.

Another suggestion is to go to your nearby Guitar Center and demo their active monitors there and see what you like best. If you happen to find one that you like, just order some online for a much lower price since the prices at Guitar Center are high. On the other hand, I believe Fry's carries the Polk speaker line. So you can demo some Polk speakers there and see what you like best.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

It's a mistake to think of active monitors as somehow inferior to, or a stepping stone along the way to a "real" setup with passive speakers and a receiver. It's actually the other way around. Nearly all professional sound work is done on active speakers because they are easier to make highly accurate, more robust by nature, and space efficient.

Agreed, but with a caveat. The active monitors used in studios are designed for "near-field" use -- usually just across the soundboard from the engineer; and often in an acoustically-treated room. In other words, they are designed to be flat accurate from 3 feet away, where direct-radiated sound takes precedence over any reflections or other room effects. As such, characteristics such as dispersion that go into the design of home-audio speakers probably are not so much in studio monitors. Using studio monitors as home theater speakers, listening from (say) 8 feet away, is at cross purposes with their design and may not have as good results. They are simply a different animal than normal home audio speakers. I did not meant to imply that they were of inferior quality to normal, passive speakers -- I was trying to be somewhat terse in my explanation. For use as desktop speakers, IMO, they are probably the best choice around.

 

[Pia]

Agreed, but with a caveat. The active monitors used in studios are designed for "near-field" use -- usually just across the soundboard from the engineer; and often in an acoustically-treated room. In other words, they are designed to be flat accurate from 3 feet away, where direct-radiated sound takes precedence over any reflections or other room effects. As such, characteristics such as dispersion that go into the design of home-audio speakers probably are not so much in studio monitors. Using studio monitors as home theater speakers, listening from (say) 8 feet away, is at cross purposes with their design and may not have as good results.

I don't understand why a good near-field monitor would have sound quality inferior to a similarly priced home-audio speaker + amp combination. While an acoustically treated space is always best, monitors are generally made to minimize the effect of poor spaces, both in basic dispersion characteristics and also through active measures such as room correction settings built into the speaker. AFAIK that's the best the speaker designer can do, and it's impossible to build an inaccurate home audio speaker whose inaccuracy just happens to be perfectly offset into accuracy by an acoustically uneven space, since there is a near-infinite variety of different home spaces.

I also don't understand why something that is accurate at 3 feet would no longer be when it's 5 feet farther.

 

[bobdole369]

Curse, at that price point, you won't find better speakers. That's what I rock in the living room with no sub. They have enough sound through an ancient circa 1980's old school Philips "tuner" that pushes roughly 50W/ch. I'm using an EQ to help flatten the room, didn't need too much, and I'd be surprised if anybody that didn't have very good ears could hear much of a difference. There is a bit of a drop off sub 80hz, but they have "audible" bass which is enough for my shared wall living room. It's excellent for TV and movies and music.

I'm certain with a dedicated amp, even something class D or small - it would be fine for your PC speakers and you'd be very happy with them.

 

[vbuggy]

I think you're better off with 'commodity' PC speakers, the better ones, for a budget like that - it's just the volume / value factor. Sure you can go on CL but who knows what you'll get.

 

[sdifox]

I think you're better off with 'commodity' PC speakers, the better ones, for a budget like that - it's just the volume / value factor. Sure you can go on CL but who knows what you'll get.

He has a Z5500 and found it wanting. PC speakers as a class is pretty fail.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I don't understand why a good near-field monitor would have sound quality inferior to a similarly priced home-audio speaker + amp combination. While an acoustically treated space is always best, monitors are generally made to minimize the effect of poor spaces, both in basic dispersion characteristics and also through active measures such as room correction settings built into the speaker. AFAIK that's the best the speaker designer can do, and it's impossible to build an inaccurate home audio speaker whose inaccuracy just happens to be perfectly offset into accuracy by an acoustically uneven space, since there is a near-infinite variety of different home spaces.

I also don't understand why something that is accurate at 3 feet would no longer be when it's 5 feet farther.

I'm honestly not 100% sure. I would think that it has to do with dispersion, off-axis response, the way that frequency response varies with distance (directionality of higher frequencies vs. omnidirectionality of lower frequencies), and intended listening volume. Here is a chart from Genelec:

http://www.genelec.com/documents/other/step_by_step.pdf

The 8030A is a studio monitor with a 5" bass driver, a 3/4" tweeter and 40W each to bass and treble (and retail for $700 per speaker). So in terms of drivers and amp power, they are comparable to the KRK Rokit 5's. According to Genelec's chart, the sweet spot for listening to these begins at 0.5 meters, peaks at 1.3 meters, and ends at about 2 meters.

I honestly don't know these figures for home theater speakers, as those speaker manufacturers aren't as specific as Genelec, as far as I have seen (I don't think I've ever come across a "Recommended Listening Distance" spec from a HT speaker company). But I have a feeling they're optimized for the longer sitting distances; the typical living room couch distance would be 8-10 feet or so, while very few people listen from within 3 feet of their speakers for general use.

I don't know all that much about this (no first-hand experience), and it seems that Genelec does sell a lot of monitor speakers to the high-end home theater crowd, but they mostly seem to be the bigger speakers with longer recommended listening distances. It seems that a lot of people around the Web have used studio monitors as their home theater speakers to no apparent ill effect. Theoretically, I agree with you (how can something that's accurate at 3 feet turn inaccurate at 8 feet?) but on the other hand I can come up with a several theoretical reasons and ways that speaker designers could optimize for close listening vs. distant listening. Unfortunately, I am lacking the knowledge to make a definitive statement one way or the other.

One last thing that I can say is to think about headphones. They are the ultimate near-field monitors: they literally sit right on your ears. Pull them an inch away from your ears, and they sound different. The bass drops out immediately. Move them a bit so that you're listening off-axis. The bass stays the same (for a given distance) but the treble drops out. Pull them a foot away, and it changes even more. Walk a few feet away, and their effective frequency response might well be rated between 1000Hz and 2000Hz. You could ask the same question here: Why would moving them just a small amount away from your ears make much of a difference at all? (I'm not talking about earbuds, which seal against the ear. Just normal on-the-ear headphones. And I'm making first-hand observations as I listen to a cheap pair.) Getting quieter, of course. But the drastic differences in relative levels of the bass and treble have got to come from somewhere, and I assume that they apply for bigger speakers and louder volumes as well. I have my theories, but I'm not an acoustic engineer, and I don't want to perpetuate false information.

 

[vbuggy]

He has a Z5500 and found it wanting. PC speakers as a class is pretty fail.

I disagree, but it depends on what price band you're looking at. If your budget is less than the Z5500 and you're looking for separate 5.1's, then it's not realistic. I mean that if he's looking for higher sound quality instead of sheer 'boom', perhaps he should be looking at 2.1 systems lower down the line.

I use nearfields - the 8020A's in fact at home as my home office is pretty tiny and I use headphones quite a lot, as well as a pair of 8040A's at my main office - but at $300 what you can get is not hugely dissimilar to the good PC-specific 2.1 / 2.0 systems. M-Audio for example does make some decent nearfields which are low priced such as the <$200 AV 40's, but once again these represent the orderline space between the top-end 2-chan PC systems.

 

[sdifox]

I disagree, but it depends on what price band you're looking at. If your budget is less than the Z5500 and you're looking for separate 5.1's, then it's not realistic. I mean that if he's looking for higher sound quality instead of sheer 'boom', perhaps he should be looking at 2.1 systems lower down the line.

I use nearfields - the 8020A's in fact at home as my home office is pretty tiny and I use headphones quite a lot, as well as a pair of 8040A's at my main office - but at $300 what you can get is not hugely dissimilar to the good PC-specific 2.1 / 2.0 systems. M-Audio for example does make some decent nearfields which are low priced such as the <$200 AV 40's, but once again these represent the orderline space between the top-end 2-chan PC systems.

The M-Audio AV40 is really entry level studio monitor.

I like the old Genelec better

 

[Tiamat]

just like to clear up some possible confusions...

When used nearfield (~<2 meters) almost all active studio monitors will have proper balance (unless noted otherwise in the specs.) compared to standard bookshelf speakers. Standard bookshelf speakers are made for mid to far field listening. The meaning of this is that the tweeter of a standard bookshelf speaker is raised in output to counteract the natural decay of highs over distance (similar to inverse square law). Active studio monitors will start to lack clarity if you are over 2m away while standard bookshelf speakers will be bright and hot in the treble less than 2m away.

For computer use, an active monitor will be a better fit. More so since you have RCA outputs which most entry level active monitors use.

The way speakers behave is very dependent on the room. The farther you are from the speaker the more the tweeter output will decay. The small wavelengths of higher frequencies allow it to be absorbed more readily than the lower frequencies so that over distance, the balance of high frequency to low frequency becomes skewed. Thus, near-field speakers are balanced to be flat for near-field, while standard bookshelf speakers are balanced to be "flat" for mid-far field. Thus, near-field speakers will have decayed highs at longer distance while mid-far field speakers will be bright and hot in the highs at shorter distance.

 

[moonboy403]

I just wanna say that there are plenty of active studio monitors that are midfield although they aren't usually entry level. So active studio monitors aren't restricted to only nearfields.