PC Speakers Ideas

>>57934793
jbl 308

>>57935884
jbl 305*

Have a look at the Nubert nubox series

Yamaha HS8, or KRK rokit 6 or more's
Don't fall for the 5" or less meme
Don't fall for the unpowered/passive meme
Fall for the DAC meme (but it really isn't critical which one you get as long as it's not $5)

>>57934793
The powered kanto yumi's are worth a look and they're even a nice pair of Bluetooth speakers if you want them to be for some reason

>>57936109
>>57936159
And for gods sake don't fall for the audiophile meme, fall for the studio meme

>>57936189
The yumi's are part of the audiophile meme? They have a built in amp I think any audiophile wouldn't even piss on them

>>57936283
Well clearly I'm implying what audiophiles want is worthless irrelevance.
$200 for a pair of 120 watt speakers isn't bad but for normie-oriented monitors, who knows how terrible or colored they could sound, the point of avoiding audiophile stuff is to avoid strongly colored sound. I'm sure your dad wouldn't care much though, as long as it's pleasant to listen to
Seeing as you need them just for casual listening and neutral response doesn't matter, I'll change my advice to just "don't overspend"

File: 1451767782007.jpg (192KB, 1400x787px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1400x787px

>>57936109
>Don't fall for the unpowered/passive meme
?

ELAC UB5

>>57936387
Me in the center

>>57936361
Oh yeah we got ours for half off (£200 instead or £400) at 400 I wouldn't have even considered them but at 200 they're really nice and the different colour options offer something fun you don't normally get the option for

>>57936387
It's extra price and will be worse in most cases of low-power near-field monitors
The amps used in high quality powered speakers are generally also high quality and well tuned with the crossfade, "made for" those monitor cones
Plus, for just some PC speakers, you can't find a quality amp that isn't overkill and full of functions that are 90% useless to you
If you want to spend money on a cheap single stereo-in and stereo-out amp, AND on passive speakers, AND worry about matching it up to your monitor well, AND possibly match it with a crossfade, that's your problem
But powered speakers are easier, simpler, cheaper and in this situation just as good

>>57936574
But you will not fall in the audio interface meme...

>>57936611
I never said that, Amps and DACs are two different things, I'm saying that there's no need to buy a super expensive DAC, and there's no reason to buy a discrete amp when you're just using two near-field monitors, which powered versions of come with decent and well set amps built in
He needs a DAC (interface would be fine too, but that implies multiple in/outs, midi, or possibly some non-standard connections), he just doesn't need to spend $200 on what DAC /g/ convinces themselves they like

>>57934793
Razor Leviathan

File: image.jpg (24KB, 309x163px)

24KB, 309x163px

>>57936611
>fall for the DAC meme

how do something like the LSR305 compare to say, those klipsch computer speakers with subwoofer? For media PC in bedroom, do monitors have bass comparable to a 2.1 setup?

>>57937119
the klipsch promedia 'subwoofer' is a single 6.5" driver fart cannon

>>57937119
Depends on what monitors you get, with "studio" monitors aim for a flat, even and equal frequency response so the bass would be accurate, but not strong or weak. More "audiophile" speakers have a focus on the bass and highs so things generally sound better out of the box, but it's not exactly accurate to the music.
I been recommending studio monitors, I still say that + an EQ will be the best (the EQ really lets you use the best half of your monitors), but more consumer-oriented speakers (especially a 2.1 setup) would sound alright enough without any tweaking

>>57937168
so... better?

>>57937186
I just wonder if it would be worth it. I have had the klipsch for years and like them

File: rmWJP.jpg (49KB, 550x332px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 550x332px

>>57936758
I'm anti DAC, anti audio interface. If your mommyboard isn't broked, you don't need it.

>>57937730
Well too many times your motherboard is borked from the start
Plus as a minimum with an external DAC you get less noise interference and a bigger volume range

>>57936574
>well tuned with the crossfade
>"made for" those monitor cones
>matching it up to your monitor well
>match it with a crossfade

I agree that in this scenario powered speakers are easier/cheaper, but holy fuck you need to stop spouting such crap and at least learn the right fucking words. Protip, the word 'crossfade' has absolutely fuck all to do with what you're talking about.

File: image.jpg (42KB, 735x541px)

42KB, 735x541px

>>57937970
Yeah sorry I actually use both the terms crossfade and crossover on a regular basis to even be able to make that slip up

>>57937970
dude, /g/ is the epicenter of audio bro-science
what do you expect

>>57938006
Well go ahead and by an amp for your passive speakers for dads normie stereo output-only usage, make sure you match up the wattage with slightly extra watts on the amp side and god forbid you need to set up your own crossfade, enjoy any quality with your "sheer ignorance" preset

File: 1478344825073.gif (2MB, 320x180px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x180px

>>57938045
none of your stuff makes any sense, m8

>>57938258
Buy a pair of powered monitors and the simplest-looking DAC you can
Or a pair of powered monitors and a stereo 3.5mm to RCA adapter

>>57937168
>6.5" subwoofer

EL OH EL

>>57937897
Sure, because space magic makes audio come with less noise from the USB port than the fucking jack on the same board, while the audio parts are shielded.

Don't be retarded. DAC is a placebo. If you have at least ALC1150 on any board from the last 2 years, you're set.

>>57939274
my motherboard has interference on the audio ports, I can hear the cpu or hard drives running if there is no music. DAC fixes this, and it doesn't affect the USB ports because they are outputting a digital signal.

M-Audio AV42
Good enough and cheap

>>57939496
I can't hear jack shit when I'm not supposed to, and I have low impedance $210 cans that pick up on anything.

>>57939534
it's not even subtle, anyone could hear it with headphones on my PC. Your's might be good, but mine is fucked, so I need a DAC or a new mainboard.

>>57939611
I'd suggest the latter. The static that is bleeding into your audio THAT obviously, could cause other undesired interference as well. It might affect performance.

You could also have a shitty USB product that uses your motherboard as a ground, which would cause this static.

>>57934793

Go used. You can get stuff for a fraction of the price or get much better equipment for the same price. I've bought numerous $3-4k receivers/amps for under $100 and really expensive speakers for next to nothing.

emotiva airmotiv 5s + schiit fulla 2 as preamp + DAC

for laughs instead do a pair of powered micca mb42xs and the SVS sb for 400 bucks on amazon

>>57934793
I can recommend the Klipsch ProMedia's
https://amzn.com/B000062VUO

I used to own the older 4.1 set. Still do, mostly. My 4.1 subwoofer was damaged in Katrina. I still have the 4 satellite speakers.

Goodwill passive speakers from the 70s-80s speakers + cheap chink amp like a Nobsound, Breeze or Lepai
https://youtu.be/76w-Efjwagg

File: hifi.jpg (165KB, 1402x931px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1402x931px

>>57934793
>>57935884
>>57936047
>>57936109
>>57936159
>>57936758
>>57937730
wow being this wrong plebs get good

>>57944530
> spend all that meme money on hardware
> place it in the worst room ever

That aircon must add some great colour to your sound right..

>>57944550
don't use the aircon the room isn't that bad ive fixed it up since that photo

>>57944530
This image is painful. Ultimate audio pleb.

>>57934793
I have the A5+ and the S8 from AudioEngine. They sound good to my ears, but I'm sure I could have gotten something better for my money. They are NOT monitors.

>>57944613
Does it still have the window and door? Thought so. Shit room.

You're that faggot I went to high school with that put a $10,000 Alpine system in his $300 datsun. You are the nigress who has the iphone on a plan, but no furniture to put it on, and no power to charge it with because can't afford the utility bill. But at least you have your shiny toys, right?

>>57934793
Philharmonic Affordable Accuracy Monitor if you want passive. JBL LSR305 for active.

>>57939274
>space magic
Yeah, you're right, the fact that low-power noise that can easily distort an analogue signal passed through a 3,5mm jack doesn't distort the information in a digital signal passed over USB is space magic, not basic signal theory.

Holy fuck, I hate audio voodoo too, anon, but you went full retard.

File: bpa300_fr.gif (30KB, 799x631px)

30KB, 799x631px

>>57936574
>worry about matching it up to your monitor well

>>57938045
enjoy any quality with your "sheer ignorance" preset

Where did you get this laughable notion that the amps built into powered speakers are somehow 'perfectly matched' to the speakers & that a separate amp & passive speakers will inherently sound like shit in comparison?

Amplifiers are designed to output flat (picrelated is an example measured off 3886 chips which are cheap as shit). Passive speakers are designed/built with this in mind. What exactly do you think your powered monitors do differently that makes them so superior?

>>57938045
>god forbid you need to set up your own crossfade

Firstly, where did you get this ridiculous notion that active crossover systems are at all common? Especially on a $400-500 budget who is going to be looking at bi-amping?

Secondly, crossovers are super fucking to set up. It literally takes 30 seconds to set up a 2-way stereo crossover & get it sounding good enough.

>>57934793
just get yourself a pair of Krokit RP5 G3 active speakers, costs around 200-300$ for a pair of proper studio monitors.

>>57945051
I don't get it. It's the same information. That will end up being an analog signal through jack as well. How does it get suddenly clean, only because it's coming through the USB? I think the anon you replied to was right, it's bullshit placebo.

>>57945556
Noise on the motherboard will affect analog audio signals but not digital ones. This is basic stuff.

>>57945757
And what "space magic" doesn't pass that noise along the USB cable? I either have fundamental issues with understanding how an electronic circuit works like anon, or something doesn't happen you claim it should. What differentiates a DAC on a motherboard from a DAC hanging on a cable attached to the same noisy electronics?

>>57945799
>And what "space magic" doesn't pass that noise along the USB cable?

Noise doesn't affect digital signals like USB, because they have error checking/correcting functionality built into the protocol.

>What differentiates a DAC on a motherboard from a DAC hanging on a cable attached to the same noisy electronics?

The noisy components people are talking about here are motherboard components that have nothing to do with audio. A DAC on the end of a USB cable doesn't have anywhere near as many noise producing components as a motherboard.

>>57945903
>noise traverses circuitry, but not cables
wat?

>>57945903
Listen to me nigger, if your circuit board is noisy, then don't tell me this bullshit that this noise isn't passed on to another circuitry, through a cable. That's like saying a polluted body of water suddenly gets clean, when you pump it through a hose!

>>57946225
>>57946263

Do you really not understand that there is a difference between digital & analog when it comes to noise? Holy fucking shit.

>That's like saying a polluted body of water suddenly gets clean, when you pump it through a hose!

No, it's like saying that you have a hose that only transfers H2O, so the pollution would get left behind.

>>57946387
Do you really not understand that the digital to analogue conversion STILL HAPPENS?! What's the difference between that fucking conversion happening on the board, versus another device attached to this board! Interference is electrostatic, electrons don't give a shit about your magical constraints, if there is a fucking pathway to travel through, they WILL appear anywhere, they don't disappear through a cable attachment only because you wish them to!

>>57946449
Holy fucking shit. Please tell me you're just trolling now.

>Do you really not understand that the digital to analogue conversion STILL HAPPENS

Yes, but it happens inside a device that has less noise in it.

>What's the difference between that fucking conversion happening on the board, versus another device attached to this board!

The fact that the former is in the presence of more noise, while the latter is in the presence of less noise.

>Interference is electrostatic, electrons don't give a shit about your magical constraints, if there is a fucking pathway to travel through, they WILL appear anywhere, they don't disappear through a cable attachment only because you wish them to!

Seriously, learn what the fuck the difference is between analog and digital signals. If you have one device full of noise that sends a digital signal to a second device, that second device does not inherently inherit all of the noise of the first device.

>>57945757
>will affect analog audio signals but not digital ones
Depends entirely on the type of noise and the magnitude of it. Digital signals are more resilient to noise but not immune to it. Useless blanket statement.

>>57947018
Context, anon. We're talking about a computer and USB audio here.

>>57947055
And the digital signal transferred via USB can still be affected by the noise(s) on the motherboard. It's not going to sound like the analog hiss but it can distort the signal.

>>57947782
If you have enough noise in your computer to actually introduce enough errors into a USB signal that a double blind test of isochronous audio can actually detect them, there is something seriously wrong with your computer.

>>57946571
Not him, but I've had USB devices that were noisier than a decent onboard.
Sure, in theory, a DAC residing outside of the case is better, but let's not get too carried away. It still depends entirely on the specific devices, circumstances and implementations.

>>57947921
True enough but I've had that. Also poor grounding and shielding of the USB has caused weird crackles on different systems and devices I've used. Extreme overclocking introduced some problems with USB controllers too in my case but that's a thing I brought onto myself.

bummmp

>>57939664
I just got my Origen+ today, and it completely removed the noise I was experiencing in both speakers and headphones- using the USB input. $109 was worth it considering motherboard replacement would be a gamble and I got a headphone amp out of it.

>>57951593
although I think the interference from the analog signal is effecting the sound, the 0's sound more like O's and the 1's have a kind of I or l sound to them.

>>57947951
The 4500mHz constant motherboard cycling or the 1500mhz ram cycling isn't as bad as a DAC convertibg digital audio and passing it through a volume knob

File: 1471516501316.png (2MB, 1499x2541px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1499x2541px

>all this bait ITT

>>57951952
I had a big noise issue though, it was random beeps and boops from the CPU or something else running, it would increase if I opened a program or moved the mouse around. Kind of like the sound of speakers picking up cell phone interference. I can live with any noise from the DAC, I don't notice it, I'm not an audiophile, my mainboard just has shit audio shielding or something.

>>57952025
>>57952045
bait

File: 1456232289371.png (12KB, 246x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 246x200px

>>57952061

File: trashv2.png (250KB, 1600x1136px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1600x1136px

>>57952025
>>57952045
this

>>57952054
It's pretty common to get interference from the motherboard, kinda the whole point of having an external DAC
Even if the circuit is shielded your signal is vulnerable to the electromagnetic interference (which is real and not just tinfoil-coated cable paranoia) because of all everything happening on your motherboard, it's why people recommend external DACs over internal sound cards

>>57951952
are you arguing that the volume knob is the issue? you do realize using onboard audio still includes a DAC converting digital to analog, right?

>>57952309
yep, and a DAC is the easiest, most surefire solution. I could try mainboards until I get one with clean audio, or take a gamble on a soundcard, but why would I, when I can get a DAC/AMP for $100 that is guaranteed to improve the output. external DACs are not a meme, I'm glad at least you realize this.