King_Corduroy wrote:Actually I would have to contend your comments about Hi-Fi systems of the 70's, mainly the solid state tuners and consoles (Although I have a small Zenith tube radio I use daily that has pretty good damn sound even though it's only mono). Having used them for a while and had them consistently knock my socks off in terms of audio quality I can say they really are all they are cracked up to be, however not everyone likes dedicating a whole room to a stereo system. 😜 (Personally that's the only reason I stopped using mine, since I have 2 four foot tall speaker cabinets and BSR turntable for my psyche albums).
I feel that you missed my point...
There were very high quality systems built in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s - I did say that already:
obobskivich wrote:There was statement high end stuff then, and there's statement high end stuff now, the biggest difference is the stuff from ages ago tends not to carry five to six figure pricetags anymore. Usually when you read about "awesome vintage gear" it's that statement high end stuff being re-used today, and most of that stuff (just like the stuff of today) was really built to last, and a lot of concern and care was put into its design and construction.
The fact that you've found a high quality old component does not magically wash away all of the god-awful sealed-boxes with zero-excursion paper drivers, iron magnets, terrible amplifiers (tube and SS; neither is really a prescription for "good sound" - they can be good or bad depending on their design), awful plastic turntables, awful tape decks that hiss and click their way along, and so forth. Just like crappy no-name "ipod accessory" junk today doesn't mean there aren't also good amplifiers, good speakers, and so forth available today. It all exists along a gradient which moves through time. My entire point was don't buy stuff JUST because it's old - being old doesn't automatically give it some sort of quality boost pip. However there IS old gear that IS good; they're mutually exclusive traits. Now when talking pragmatism, "old" can sometimes mean "cheap" - just like with computer hardware. So it may be more cost effective to pursue older hardware as long as you can find it in good working order or have the skills/time/desire to tinker with it and get it working. 😊
Also if you really wanted to argue in terms of objective measurements, most modern amplifiers, radio tuners, etc will drastically out-spec and out-perform (on a scope, on paper, etc) very old components, as ICs and SS components have come a long way in nearly 40 years of design and manufacturing. Now whether or not any of these is even subjectively noticeable is another discussion, and in some cases the distortion/coloration/etc of the dated component is something that a listener becomes accustomed to (and they will judge it as the "standard" and more modern devices tend to come up short) and that's all personal preference stuff - which goes back to what people have been telling you: listen and let your ears decide what you personally enjoy listening to. 😀
Well so what do you use if you don't use PC speakers? I take it you have room for a full stereo system?
At my desk I have a pair of Bose 2.1 speakers from a few years ago, because that was the biggest thing I could reasonably fit. I've owned or heard a reasonable number of 2.1, 5.1, etc package speakers over the years and feel the Bose do a good job standing among them (especially for their size and with a little EQ'ing). However they aren't a replacement for a traditional stereo or surround sound system (especially once you get out of nearfield; which their manual does state). For use within their design parameters they are a nice sounding pair of speakers imho. Like I said, it really depends on space, budget, goals, etc as to what's most appropriate for your specific usage - a decent 2.1 multimedia system (to a degree we're talking "historically" because almost nobody makes such a thing today in light of the "computer audiophile" trend) will run a few hundred dollars, and generally provide near-field sound quality similar to what a decent pair of bookshelf speakers can do (and said speakers may cost less), but usually with some sort of hole/divit/etc in the FR in the midbass due to the xover from the tiny satellites to the bass box, and will not perform as well at mid/farfield. The advantage to such a system is that they're more often than not magnetically shielded, and compact enough to fit on a relatively cramped desk, unlike more conventional bookshelves/speakers (although magnetic shielding is starting to become relatively common across the board).
I also have a headphone system that I use more often than the PC speakers for gaming, listening to music, and so forth when at my PC. Personally I prefer headphones to speakers in a lot of situations, and they have the advantage of taking up almost no space. I'm happy to talk headphones, PC speakers, hi-fi, surround, whatever you like, but will absolutely agree with archsan, jwt27, and anyone else who says that you really need to go out and listen for yourself - for two reasons:
1) Only you can ultimately decide what sounds good to you. In other words, I can tell you (and others can tell you) what sounds good to them, what they think is best, etc and you may go listen to it and find "wow, this sounds pretty awful." It's just like asking a friend what tastes good to eat. Now of course there *are* objective things that can be discussed with audio, just like with food you can discuss calories, fat content, etc but that doesn't really change if you like the item (IOW you "know" that eating 3 gallons of ice cream for dinner is bad for you, but you may still really like doing it; you can "know" that a specific speaker, amplifier, etc measures poorly or has "bad" specs, but you may still really like listening to it).
2) Having a larger frame of reference wrt audio equipment tends to make discussions about audio equipment easier IME.
I'm basically wondering what is the best in terms of computer speakers, I want something that will fit on a desk since I've done the megalithic stereo system setup before and it just becomes a pain since I have a tiny little room currently.
Best that I've heard over the years ignoring whether or not you could buy it today?
Monsoon's planar 2.1 and 5.1 systems, Altec's monster "sound stick" system (CompUSA used to demo these in most stores - the satellites were probably 2' high and the whole system was silver), Altec's 4.1 and 5.1 systems with the big satellites (big as in having ~4" woofers), some iterations of HK's soundsticks, and Bose Companion 3 and 5 (I think the Companion 5 is the only one on this list that's still in production, and it requires USB connection which can be awkward with multiple systems and older computers).
The NHT, Bowers & Wilkins, and Genelec "desktop monitors" (I don't think any are still made) were all respectable; as usual B&W is overpriced imho and tends to be wushy-mushy in the midbass, but they aren't truly bad speakers. I'd probably pick Genelec of the three there.
Today active monitors are more popular - I've heard a lot of those two, and wouldn't bother with anything outside of Mackie, Genelec, and (maybe) Yamaha. A lot of the cheaper ones (M-Audio, KRK, Roland, etc) tend to either be brighter than the sun or bloated (M-Audio actually managed to do both at once in one of their older cabs 😵). I've not heard the popular Audioengine series, but read relatively good things. They also tend to be relatively inexpensive, so that's something. You might also look at compact satellites designed for home theater from Mirage, Bose, Cambridge (not Creative Cambridge), Polk, etc as they tend to be good sounding speakers for their size, as long as you have a sub or bass box and something to provide a crossover/bass management for the system. I'd probably give the nod to Mirage's NanoSat OMD models there - very good imaging and very relaxed, but they require some sort of bass box.
I would generally avoid Klipsch's PC speakers as they have a spotty reputation for reliability (specifically their amplifiers have a nasty habit of overheating and failing). If you like the Klipsch sound, get their stand-alone passive speakers and provide your own amplifier.
You might also look into headphones, if you can "do" headphones (not everyone likes wearing them, or the trade-offs associated with headphones vs speakers); there's multitudinous options there, and size becomes much less of a concern. 😀
Also any of you guys heard of the Platinum JBL series speakers? I have a pair and they are nice and bassy in comparison to most PC speakers, in fact I think they are probably the best computer speakers I own at the moment.
Platinum? The ones that used to ship with Compaq systems/monitors years ago right? They aren't horrible for basic little stereo speakers, but certainly not full-range or "high end" imho (they're very much "cheap and cheerful" - which isn't a bad thing). 😀 The Creature series were probably the best JBL 2.1 systems, if you can live with the styling, and characteristic mid-bass limpness. Harman did better with the H/K soundsticks, cost aside (I don't think any of the JBLs have ever broken around $100 US).
