PC Peripherals why do u love MX5021??

Chaos said:
@zhop... that mostly settles it. Don't think i need to post anymore :p.
Click to expand...

But u still havent said music is not just stereo :rofl: Just pulling ur leg mate!! But do u still think 2.1 speakers are sufficient!!

I've made my choice for the speakers... I'll buy the G550 when I accumulate enough cash or ask some1 from US (still 2 months away) to get a G750 mayb!!!

@zhop: some more discussion on what they prefer and isnt being on the stage with the musicians a better option at most times!!
 
the frequency response of a single speaker cone is sort of an inverted U shape. in most fullrange systems , though the speakers are big, the overlap is achieved without any significant dips or peaks ,and we get a plateau shaped curve which is reasonably flat. and that's the way it had been for a long time. a few people experiemnted with satellites and seperate bass modules, but never in the mainstream. Then Bose went ahead and realeased a sub sat system to the public. The fundamental weakness of a sub sat system is that the difference between the two peaks is simply too wide, and instead of getting a plateau shape, you get an M shaped curve instead. however , this worked to bose's advantage , because this is equivalent to having the bass and treble maxed out, and this was percieved as a more exciting sound (which noob doesnt like to set his winamp eq to full bass and treble :p ) . The smaller speakers were cheaper to manufacture than bookshelves or floorstanders, yet they were sold at higher prices because of their "lifestyle" tag... the high WAF only helped them in this.

the problem with this comes when you're trying to flatten out the M shaped curve.. you can either reduce the volume or increase the power, to make it sound like a similar full range speaker. simply put , its the laws of physics. at the same power , a 2.1 speaker is way out of a good full range speaker's league .
 
^...I'll respond to ur argument greenhorn 2morrow morning, coz I just fell of my chair sleeping... Lets all goto sleep and discuss it 2morrow... But greenhorn... u damn missed a very important point with the bose sat speakers and how they managed to get gr8 sound!
 
zhopudey said:
BTW, sat-sub systems were actually pioneered by M&K. Please don't compare them to bose, though :p M&K make real speakers.
Click to expand...

they made REAL subwoofers , to augment the low end response of some pretty high end electrostatic Kit :D. Bose is the one who started the trend of using puny satellite speakers, and even punier bass modules (they shouldn't even be called subwoofers :p) and started the whole "small speaker-big sound " 2.1/4.1/5.1 bandwagon rolling
 
M&K.. I had auditioned their HT speakers. Nice, but too damn upfront-sounding for my taste, and yes.. I messed around with their woofer settings..

Meh.. if I had the money, I'd buy a pair of Wharfdale Diamonds with a nice NAD or Arcam stereo amp..
 
Sunbiz, I recommend you trust your ears and buy a speaker set for yourself. It's ultimately how you feel about what you are listening to that counts. ( Music is all about feeling IMO :) ).

I read your earlier comments about the MX-5021 and share your point of view in that the speakers are way to bassy. Probably we both have sensitive ears but even I perceived the bass as being too much even at the lowest level. I mean...I was listening to air supply and the beatles and somehow the bass just didn't fit into those slow numbers. My source is the audigy 2ZS which according to many is not the best.(Should have gone in for the M-Audio or some card that caters to music fans).

I also perceived audio quality loss when the bass was turned down too much. Had to turn it up a notch to get the feeling of good sound.

On the other hand, with the MX-5021s, you can distinguish much more in the sound i.e. the instruments, the voice etc everything seems clearer than on a normal multimedia speaker pair after all, you're spending 8-8.5K on a 2.1 system for your PC.

For gaming and movies, the 5021's give an earth shaking experience with enhanced effects of explosions, creepy sounds etc. But, it depends whether you are a fan of all that stuff or you're more interested in gameplay which is what I care about. But yeah...it does feel nice at times.

Another thing to factor in would be the space. I realized after a while that a 2.1 setup is too much for me. The large bass unit just irritates me as I feel claustrophobic given the amount of space my whole system is consuming. I've realized that a 2.0 system is what would have been the best for a guy like me. The bass coming of a 2.0 would have been adequate.

Chaos had recommended the Klipsch ProMedia 2.0 for me(don't know where you get it in Bangalore). I have not gone/searched for it yet as I my enthusiasm is a little low right now. Also, I would prefer to actuslly hear a speaker set pre-purchase this time round in case I am dropping a bomb on their purchase.

W.r.t 5.1 or 2.1, i don't even mind mono sound. Hell, I had a National TV for 25 years with a single speaker and I used to love listening to music on it.

Regarding mp3s, I would recommend that you rip your CD-DA at 320 kbps constant bit rate. I have experienced a better listening experience at this rate. If you have 128kbps music like most of us do, it would be hard to perceive good sound as the higher frequency range(I think beyond 14K) is already severly attenuated while encoding into mp3. Supposedly, it affects the way we perceive music. But there is something about CD music or even CD music recored onto tapes that just makes listening a joy. I guess it's the higher audio range...??...don't really know.
 
despite what all we have said sunbiz, if you've heard both the megaworks and the MX5021, and you feel the megaworks sound better, dont let our opinions get in your way.. You're the one buying it, you dont need to defend your decision . music should be in the ears of the beholder... If it works for you, then great :hap2:
 
Chaos said:
All depends on the source that is feeding the speakers and what settings are in the control pod. If you feed 128kbps mp3, its garbage in garbage out.
Click to expand...
Sorry to interrupt but my doubt is if 128kbps mp3 is garbage, then how do you define a good source in?
 
Sonu, here si a basic layman answer:

Lossy compression codecs like MP3 WMA etc lead to audio quality degradation (after all there are called lossy for a reason :p)

now the extent of this loss is determined by the extent of compression, e.g. a highly compressed 32kbps mp3 will sound extremely tinny

Now even on the lowest grade speakers, e.g 150/- local comp speakers, you can make out the difference between say a 64kbps and 128 kbps mp3...

However, On a even a very basic decent system , you can clearly hear the difference between 128kbps and 256 kbps

@~320kbps, MP3s are well, almost at CD quality...I say almost because most regular speakers aren't capable of such fine note reproduction so as to bring out the difference between a losy encoded 320kbps mp3 and a lossless straight rip like FLAC

However a good quality audio system (need not be expensive, but it should be a well-matched setup) will clearly bring out the tonal quality differences between the two....

Now for most regular guys, 128 kbps mp3 audiocomprises the bulk of their collection...it kind of fits in well too as !128kbps, audio doesn't occupy too much of HDD space either....

Though I won't go to the extent of calling 128kbps MP3s garbage (after all that's what the bulk of my college days music collection comprised of) but do try ripping a CD to

A: 128 kbps

B: 256 or 320 kbps mp3s

C: FLAC lossless

Try comparing the sound quality and you'll easily realize the big difference between A and B

The difference between B and C won't be very discernible on a regular speaker setup but if you have access to a good quality sound setup, try a comparison between B and C too :)
 
Back
Top