gabev3

Okay, I have a set of 2.1 speakers, with a total output of 400watts (supposedly). They are Logitech Z-2300s. I swapped in two floor speakers for the satellites it comes with, and felt like the sub sounded too weak balanced with the floor speakers. Now, after putting the proper satellite speakers back, I swear my sub is noticeably weaker.

My knowledge of speakers is limited, so I'm trying to determine if the unit was LIKELY damaged by subbing in two larger speakers. Basically, I'm just really anal about this stuff and want to know if its in my head, or real.

If specs help at all, my satellites are 40watt RMS x2 (into 8ohms)
The floor speakers are 8ohms (each, dont know the watts, but I assume higher).
I dont know if that means they have the same rating (8ohms each), or if the satellites are 4ohms each (and thats why it says "into 8ohms"). Hopefully someone knows whats up.

Thanks in advance.

shakran

No, you didn't hurt anything. You just spoiled yourself. You put decent speakers in there, which highlighted how crappy the sub is. Now that you're looking for the sound of a crappy sub, even when you put crappy speakers back on, the sub still sounds crappy. Give it a weak and you'll get used to it and not notice the crappiness. Otherwise, plug your computer into your home theater

Just as a small audio rant, the audio companies have bewitched people into thinking tiny speakers and a miniscule subwoofer actually sounds good. My home theater doesn't even have a subwoofer, but the front towers are almost as tall as me and run dual 12" drivers for the bass, and the sound blows modern setups out of the water. There's no replacement for air volume.

MikeSty

I've got a mediocre pair of Altec Lansing speakers that came with my dad's Dell years ago. It's a 2.1 system but it's not too shabby, yet compared to systems like yours, yes, it is blown out of the water.

Yet, as you said in the paragraph I cut out (why I did i have no idea), crappy-ness is all relative to what you're used to. I'm not used to really good speakers, so I can deal with how crummy they are in respect to yours. I'm happy!

Now that you mention it, though, my dad does have a pair of nice tower speakers ... problem is there's a little damage to the paper cup thing on the front. They're really old. Then again, I'm using his Superex ST-PRO B-V headphones from like, the '70s. Hurt my head like hell, but they're by far the best pair of headphones I have ever owned.

shakran

It all depends on what you're going for. I was mainly referring to the higher priced stuff- - i.e. I've seen computer speakers selling for $600+ that involve tiny little cube speakers and a 4 or 5 inch sub. For the same money you could get something decent


Some of the old stuff was the best. I still miss my old 70's era Sansui. That sucker was unreal.

Get yourself a pair of Sennheiser headphones. They sound really good, and they're incredibly comfortable.

vanblah

There ARE small speakers that sound great. Size of the cone has more to do with loudness (volume) as opposed to frequency. It does take a larger cone to push bass (lower) frequencies for obvious reasons (bass waves are larger for one) ... but if the speaker is not rated to handle anything below 40Hz then obviously you're not going to get anything below that.

What you really want to pay attention to is what frequency range a speaker is rated for ... a sub should go down to at least 20Hz. There are subs that go deeper.

You also have to pay attention to the crossover frequency ... usually from 100-250Hz. It is at the crossover frequency that you get phase problems that could make your system sound weak. You have to tune it to the room.

Most computer speakers are crap. Because of many reasons ... not just cone size: component quality, enclosure, porting ... these are all things to consider if you are really trying to tune a system.

Then again, you're probably hooking it all up to a 1/8" mini-jack ... so you're degrading the signal right there. The best speakers in the world won't help you unless you have a decent signal.

Which brings up the subject of amplifiers.

It's just too much.

shakran

You also have to pay attention to the box. You'll oftentimes see a computer subwoofer that's about the size of a toaster rated for 20Hz or lower, but it still sounds like crap because there's no air volume to resonate the sound. The reason my non-subwoofer speakers sound better than subwoofer setups is because they've got excellent resonance. I recall the old days when subs would double as coffee tables. Everyone wanted smaller but, man have we lost some sound by doing it.


But the best speakers in the world will sound better than a cheap little piece of crap, even if they're only outputting static

And many computers have gotten around the miniplug problem. Mine outputs optical as well. But even on miniplug you can get some pretty decent quality sound - heck I know a lot of radio stations that record all their sound onto sony minidisc players - - -so now you have ungrounded miniplug hooked up to a format that compresses the crap out of the audio, and it's still broadcast quality.

gabev3

well, I guess that puts my mind at ease (to some extent). I thought these 2.1s were pretty decent when I bought them -- the sub isnt the size of a toaster like one poster suggested -- its 11" by 11" by 15" -- but I get the point.

Its a trade-off. Now my supposedly sweet 2.1s aren't that great, but the stereo I picked up (for free I might add) has some wicked floor speakers. The stereo unit is kind of cool too -- the cd loads like and audio cassette (lol), and its got a turntable on top.

Thanks for the help

ubertuber

Shakran: the minidisc thing suprises me not at all - after all, FM S/N ratio is so lousy that it is the true limiter in sound quality. It'll be interesting to see how this "HD" digital radio trend changes the rest of the production chain...

And gabev3... You have my welcome and sympathy. You're starting down the path towards better and better audio. There's plenty of enjoyment there, but also some hardship for the wallet. Just remember that it's the journey not the destination - there's always a more badass rig out there somewhere.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

vanblah

I suppose if you enjoy listening to static ...

That's not saying much. Have you listened to "broadcast quality" lately? It's more than just compression, it's the introduction of artifacts and other noise that gets me.

My reference to the mini-jack was just an indication that even good speakers can sound like crap if you have a crappy signal. The entire chain really needs to be examined ... not just the speakers. And what will be listened to on this system? Is it DVD? CD? MP3? All of the above?

I'm not an audio snob, but at the same time I wouldn't spend scads of money on a system for iTunes. I do have a system set up for iTunes connected to my house stereo. But this topic has been done to death I suppose and is a little off-topic for this thread.

ubertuber

vanblah:

I don't want to initiate a MASSIVE threadjack, but I'm curious... What's wrong with iTunes per se? It's my primary source, and when playing lossless or uncompressed files with optical transmission it sounds as good or better than my CD player through a fairly nice rig. Of course, the sound quality can't come close to SACD, but what're you gonna do?

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

shakran

Well. . . considering i work for TV. . .yeah

You're talkin' miniplug again here right? Yeah, although you can minimize that with good connectors and good cabling, and good cable routing.

Quite true - -and if it's hooked to a computer, pretty much all of the above.