Alright /g/ I've decided on 2 JBL LSR 305 Studio Monitors

yes, as universally known on the internet

File: article-2343647-1A5F9839000005DC-942_970x658.jpg (172KB, 970x658px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 970x658px

>>58528768
buy one extra, just in case

File: klipsch.jpg (125KB, 700x594px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 700x594px

This speaker thread now

I feel the Klipsch line is great for any overall listening. Their cones allow for a lot of watt overhead and they have heavy lows and mids and the "titanium grade" tweeters make up for the high end

Anyone else really like the sound signature of the copper+aluminum cones?

Anyone think I'm retarded and should look into different speakers?

>>58528877
>Anyone else really like the sound signature of the copper+aluminum cones?
there is no such thing
what material they use is completely irrelevant, it's all about the stiffness and weight which can be just as good with paper or carbon fiber or what ever you want to use

Redpill me on speakers

>>58529006
headphones provide no sense of distance and localization because the main part of the head transfer function (your outer ears and head shape) are bypassed and there's no interchannel time difference
anyone who wants to listen to stereophonic (or even multichannel) music needs a pair of speakers set up in a stereo triangle or the most crucial and realistic part of the recording - the space and instrument/room interaction - is unnaturally reduced to a tiny stage inside your head since that's exactly what headphones do: project a stage on the inside of your forehead
there are many other reasons why speakers are a lot more enjoyable in most cases, but they're all secondary compared to this

>>58528768
what is more budget friendly option? 150$ for one speaker is kinda a lot for me. I would like something under 50$ for one and want 3

>>58529090
Hard to find good monitors for that cheap... You could get computer speakers I guess?

>>58529090
micca mb42x for amazing but tiny speakers. bass reproduction is obviously limited by that but they're really accurate
dayton 652 (didn't hear the new ribbon tweeter variant yet, though) for their bigger brothers in spirit. they're proper bookshelfs with a respectable bass extension, but for me the miccas seem higher quality over all
add a cheap (used) home cinema receiver to that and you got your LCR setup

>>58528979
I thought that because of the what they used for the cones, it allowed them to produce it's own weight and resistance to push sound through

File: image.jpg (135KB, 708x877px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 708x877px

Ive had a pair of Genelec 8040 since 2006.

High school graduation money well spent.

>>58529189
no, that's not how speakers work

https://www.eminence.com/support/understanding-loudspeaker-data/

>>58529072
>provide no sense of distance and localization
speakers are shat on by headphones when it comes to positional audio

headphones can accurately emulate ears while speakers cant. speakers cannot give vertical information while headphones can

>>58529363
speakers can be set up vertically as well, look at auro3D, atmos and ambisonics.
all that headphones can do is binaurally simulate a HRTF, which is a really in-depth process if you want to do it right and requires specialized gear (in ear measurement microphones) or a really clever solution like the smyth realizer
everything binaural using 'assumptions' of what your ears look like instead of custom measurements (binauralization plugins, game sound engines, dummy head recordings) are vastly inferior to speakers in terms of positional audio for a lot of people because ears are just way too different to find a mediant
and yeah, without any virtualization at all (how most people listen to music and other stereo content) there is no localization at all with headphones

>>58529442
speakers will never be as accurate as headphones when it comes to positional audio

you can have a multi thousand dollar speaker setup but it will never match even the cheapest headphones, just look at eax and aureal a3d, this isn't even new technology

>>58528768
Buy them now and we'll make fun of you later.

>>58530105
>this isn't even new technology
it is shit technology, though
inferior to any set of speakers
did you even read my post

>>58530121
did you even read my post?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-oSlbyLAksM
something speakers cant do and this was in a lot of games

>>58529226
Ive got some BIC America bookshelfs and an MB Quart home theater sub that I got in highschool...and Ive using them to this day. Not top of the line stuff, but no real reason to go out and buy better stuff.

>>58530168
>speakers can't do

i got the 3d feel from my speakers when i listened to that demo

>>58530168
yeah nice if that demo works for you, for at least 40% of the population and their headphones it doesn't, because it's shitty old quick and dirty tech
while a simple surround set of speakers works perfectly for everyone

>>58530220
it will be better with headphones since that's what its was made for

too bad those kikes at creative killed it off, positional audio in games these days suck cock

>>58530226
surround sound speakers is the simplest of surround, any headphone can do surround dipshit

File: monitor.jpg (29KB, 455x412px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 455x412px

>>58530168
Not the guy you're talking to, but I've got my speakers set up all triangular and in what I assume is the sweet spot and I'm getting a pretty wonderful experience with this.

Shit can get right up next to your ear if the producer knows what he's doing.

>>58530261
I guess you just won't get it
that's fine though

>>58530325
what wont I get?
speakers are shit at binaural audio?

>>58530336
that binaural audio is not as easy to do as you make it seem
all these one size fits all renderers like a3d, dolby headphone and whatnot are inherently flawed, as already stated
go listen to some proper binaural audio from a realizer and we'll talk again

>>58530240
Not him
>these days
I'm pretty sure you're like 15

There's more going on accoustically wrt soundstage than just what ear a sound is louder in.

Sound reflects off of shit, this produces reverb and delay and whatever else which gives you information about your environment. If your goal is to control reflection, sound placement etc, then would it make more sense to work inside of a suction-cup attached to your head where everything is reflecting off irregular surfaces multiple times or in a moderate-sized room with controlled reflections?

>>58530357
aureal isnt shitty dolby headphones
its not a shitty post processing effect, its actual reflections in real time, did you even watch the fucking video?

File: kurven_klein-479a1b12270c43d0.jpg (2MB, 1817x1379px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1817x1379px

>>58530357
>>58530336
>>58530325
>>58530269
>>58530261
>>58530240
>>58530226
>>58530168
>>58529442
>>58529326
>>58529363
you faggots should be told, binaural audio is flawed anyway.
Some faggot found out the auditory canal is too individual for it to work properly and would then proceed to measure it and create calibrated headphones. It's either that or too expensive equipment from start.

TLDR: Not worth it.

>>58530431
yes, it's shit and doesn't work for me with any of my headphones

>>58530436
that's exactly what I'm saying, this guy gets it
the smyth realizer is a near perfect solution though, since it's individualized measurements

>>58530466
>the smyth realizer is a near perfect solution though, since it's individualized measurements
out of curiosity, how many usable cars could you have bought for it instead

>>58530445
you must be some kind of retard?

>>58530485
the a8 was like $2500ish and I guess the new one will be about the same
it's a lot, but a pretty amazing price considering how tiny the market for it is and how complicated the underlying tech (measurements with averaging and head tracker) and yet how idiot proof it is

>>58530516
you must be some kind of dyslexic

>>58530549
even with shitty in ears, I can easily tell where every sound is located

you are a real dumbass since this isn't just for certain headphones, its meant to work with any headphones

>>58530595
it can't
neither with all headphones, nor with all sets of ears
how are you not getting this?

>>58530615
you must have some fucked up ears

>>58530684
see
>>58530436

>>58530436
>you faggots should be told, binaural audio is flawed anyway.
I don't understand what you mean by this. If I watch binaural asmr videos on youtube with headphones (even the shittiest headphones) I can tell where the sounds are coming from and it gives the impression that the person is right next to you. The experience isn't the same using speakers. How is this flawed? Has that guy also shown "scientifically" that bacon isn't actually tasty?

>>58530875
>The experience isn't the same using speakers.
Of course not. It was recorded for headphones, not the stereo triangle. Which is a simplified explanation.

Also, most people neither have the speakers, and more important, the room for using any kind of spatial sound technology.

>I can tell where the sounds are coming from and it gives the impression that the person is right next to you.
It's not really accurate, though.

>>58530875
asmr videos are not real binaural if you are just talking about some dumb attention whore speaking real closely to a mic

>>58530928
>It's not really accurate, though.
What do you mean? How accurate is accurate? Why does it matter? Who decides what is accurate? You're the one who claimed binaural audio is flawed. Lots of people listen to binaural audio which is an experience that is unavailable for speakers. These people aren't wasting their money on some placebo effect, the experience obviously exists. How accurate it is seems irrelevant as long as it gives much more immersion than speakers would.
>>58530996
>asmr videos are not real binaural if you are just talking about some dumb attention whore speaking real closely to a mic
So her being a dumb attention whore makes the audio less binaural? Please explain the reasoning behind this.