Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

studio monitors for listening to music?

Tags:
  • Sound Cards
  • Studio
  • Monitors
  • Components
Last response: in Components
Share
August 30, 2006 7:21:00 PM

hi there. so i'm looking for a decent pair of active studio monitors that are going to be used solely for music listening (mp3) on the computer.

i've read several reviews about these kind of speakers and i just can't decide at all:

how's the bass response on those speakers? i'm used to those cheap 2.1 systems with a "subwoofer" (right now using a Logitech Z-2200's). i don't want a subwoofer but also i fear that studio monitors won't have enough bass "punch".

the ones i considered that would be the best are M-Audio's DX4 http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/DX4-main.html. or as a last resort.. probably Klipsch's ProMedia 2.0 http://www.klipsch.com/product/product.aspx?cid=876

note that my soundcard is an Audigy4 so i think i won't need too much expensive speakers.

thanks for your help.

More about : studio monitors listening music

August 31, 2006 12:00:20 AM

What's your budget?

Since I have no idea, I would probably recommend the E-MU PM-5s which are $500 (just to entertain you)

http://samash.com/catalog/showitem.asp?itemid=53012&sou...

They offer very linear response (67-20KHz +/- 2.5KHz) for a studio monitor, have better drivers than the DX-4s, and also sport seperate 40W amps for the tweeter and the midrange. Bass response with a 5" midrange, a beefier amp, and a better tweeter (lower crossover) will mean you have better bass response with less distortion at equal characteristics of the DX-4.

You could do better with the money using passive speakers (e.g., Onix X-LS and say a digital amp) but obviously a passive setup it's a little less portable than a pair of studio monitors, which is why I assume you are asking about them--for portability (and not having to move around the amp).

Most studio monitors are on the smallish side (have to fit the amp inside the enclosure), so yes, bass response is not comparable with passive speakers (you lose about 10-20hz of extention depending on what you are comparing with), but bass response should not be any less than PC speakers, at least terms of pure extention, rather than boosted upperbass.

Quote:
note that my soundcard is an Audigy4 so i think i won't need too much expensive speakers.


Since speakers determine almost all of the sound characteristics of your audio setup (the amp does the next greatest amount, but with powered monitors they are both included in one), so its somewhat of a fallacious statement. Asside from the DAC (and PC EMI, but no soundcard is going to get rid of this), there isn't too much validity in saying " I don't need better speakers because of my soundcard", just as "I don't need higher octane fuel because my leather seats aren't high quality" doesn't really compute either, even if they are very heavy leather seats.

As for the Klipsch Promedia Ultra, you are talking about a pretty steep downgrade. If you are worried about bass, I would take a look at the Klipsch iFi ($200), which will give you the bass you desire, as well as very capable satellites (the RSX-3s are actually $300 if bought alone, looks like Klipsch is just trying to create some market share by cutting the price of the iFi). Otherwise, I would admit, 4" midranges (DX-4s) are going to struggle a lot in terms of bass.
August 31, 2006 12:25:03 AM

well, my budget is around $200/$300. also, i wasn't planning on using separate equipment like power amps etc.

what option would you consider given my budget? the DX4's? do you think those Klipsch RSX-3 are any better than my current Z-2200's?
Related resources
August 31, 2006 4:07:26 AM

Just abut anything is going to be better coming from Logitech... I honestly dont think you will get much bass if you looking at drivers uder 5". My Insignias 6.5" drivers are quite punchy...
August 31, 2006 6:14:57 AM

Quote:

what option would you consider given my budget? the DX4's? do you think those Klipsch RSX-3 are any better than my current Z-2200's?


From an audio theory perspective, yes, they have stiffer midrange material allowing a lower crossover with the sub, which means the bass is going to be cleaner. A seperate tweeter means the midrange driver is going to be cleaner.

If I was in your budget, I'd definintely lean toward the iFi over the DX4, considering its going to sound extremely thin by itself with very little upper bass performance. Again, you can do much better than either if you work with passive speakers, but considering the options, I'd go with the iFi.
August 31, 2006 2:25:31 PM

I would not consider that sub big at all...
August 31, 2006 2:46:02 PM

Why the devil do you want fairly expensive studio monitors to listen to mp3s? Mp3s sound like crap. Unless of course all of your mp3s were ripped in 256-bits or higher. Even then they have a bit of a loss.
August 31, 2006 2:56:35 PM

Quote:
Since speakers determine almost all of the sound characteristics of your audio setup (the amp does the next greatest amount, but with powered monitors they are both included in one), so its somewhat of a fallacious statement. Asside from the DAC (and PC EMI, but no soundcard is going to get rid of this), there isn't too much validity in saying " I don't need better speakers because of my soundcard", just as "I don't need higher octane fuel because my leather seats aren't high quality" doesn't really compute either, even if they are very heavy leather seats.


Let's not forget about two huge factors that influence reproduced sound: 1) the room acoustics and 2) the speaker setup. Assuming that you only have one room available, then focusing on the setup is key. Alton Everest has written a few books about room and studio acoustics that you might want to check out. I've seen them dirt cheap used off of Amazon.

To the OP: why are you against a satellite/sub combo? What are you really trying to accomplish and what are your limitations other than budget? WRT bass response, it's impossible to get it without having whoofer surface area. Plain and simple, you have to move air. How low do you need to reproduce? To go below 35HZ reasonably flat with a moderate degree of headroom, you need some amp guts and radiator surface. I don't consider a speaker to be a subwoofer until the 3-dB down point goes below 25Hz. Once you get it down below 20Hz, you're really making it happen... But to many folks, something loud around 100Hz makes them think that have a great sub. Real bass is below 50Hz, but many systems generate very little energy down there. Having built transmission line subs that go flat to 16Hz, I have experienced the power and the glory...
August 31, 2006 3:06:29 PM

Quote:
Why the devil do you want fairly expensive studio monitors to listen to mp3s? Mp3s sound like crap. Unless of course all of your mp3s were ripped in 256-bits or higher. Even then they have a bit of a loss.


It's true that even 256kbps MP3s are a big step down from WAV. I've been re-ripping my collection using 192kbps and VBR in HQ mode, normal stereo, no high pass filter. To my ears, this combo is the lesser of evils on the widest range of material. I listen to acoustic music (large and small settings) through highly amplified rock, etc., and it's probably not possible to have one single setup that is best for everything. If I had the option to do VBR at 256, I'd check it out.
August 31, 2006 3:19:54 PM

Quote:
Why the devil do you want fairly expensive studio monitors to listen to mp3s? Mp3s sound like crap. Unless of course all of your mp3s were ripped in 256-bits or higher. Even then they have a bit of a loss.


well i know mp3s sound not-so-good but i really don't care much about that..

what do you think about the M-Audio's BX5a anyways?
September 1, 2006 6:47:27 AM

Quote:
Since speakers determine almost all of the sound characteristics of your audio setup (the amp does the next greatest amount, but with powered monitors they are both included in one), so its somewhat of a fallacious statement. Asside from the DAC (and PC EMI, but no soundcard is going to get rid of this), there isn't too much validity in saying " I don't need better speakers because of my soundcard", just as "I don't need higher octane fuel because my leather seats aren't high quality" doesn't really compute either, even if they are very heavy leather seats.


Let's not forget about two huge factors that influence reproduced sound: 1) the room acoustics and 2) the speaker setup. Assuming that you only have one room available, then focusing on the setup is key. Alton Everest has written a few books about room and studio acoustics that you might want to check out. I've seen them dirt cheap used off of Amazon.

To the OP: why are you against a satellite/sub combo? What are you really trying to accomplish and what are your limitations other than budget? WRT bass response, it's impossible to get it without having whoofer surface area. Plain and simple, you have to move air. How low do you need to reproduce? To go below 35HZ reasonably flat with a moderate degree of headroom, you need some amp guts and radiator surface. I don't consider a speaker to be a subwoofer until the 3-dB down point goes below 25Hz. Once you get it down below 20Hz, you're really making it happen... But to many folks, something loud around 100Hz makes them think that have a great sub. Real bass is below 50Hz, but many systems generate very little energy down there. Having built transmission line subs that go flat to 16Hz, I have experienced the power and the glory...

He is considering studio monitors, which are generally for near-field use. In other words he's just getting some speakers with fairly linear response, but not really doing it for the soundstage (I think most studio monitors have pretty fishy dispersion anyway). In that case, room acoustics is fairly minor when you consider the listening distance is generally less than 2 feet, and the speakers are toed-in.

Quote:
Why the devil do you want fairly expensive studio monitors to listen to mp3s? Mp3s sound like crap. Unless of course all of your mp3s were ripped in 256-bits or higher. Even then they have a bit of a loss.


Maybe I'd question the use of mp3s if you went out and got a Revel setup, but studio monitors are still pretty commercial setups. While lossless is a cleaner setup, well-encoded mp3s will only add a very minor sound signature, which is minor to whatever the loudspeaker already adds with its own distortion characteristics.

I'm perfectly fine listening to 320kbps mp3s, and hardly mind the difference. For me, getting a speaker that's linear, disperses well across the room so I don't have to keep my head in a vise, has low distortion characteristics and a good soundstage is more important than wondering if your source is slightly inferior in theory and work so hard to hear the difference when the improved speaker characteristics are so plainly obvious and overriding everything else.
September 1, 2006 7:06:50 AM

Quote:
thanks for all the comments.

i just saw these other monitors from M-Audio: http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/StudiophileBX5a-main.html

they seem to have 5" drivers, i guess i can add a separate subwoofer later if i need more out of them.

also, i could consider a pair of DX4's with a sub, M-Audio has this LX4 2.1 system http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/LX421System-main.html, though that subwoofer looks insanely big.


Those BX5s look pretty good for powered monitors. The customer reviews are a bit higher for the E-mu PM5s, but then again they do cost $500 =P

I think nearfield you will have fairly decent bass, though even 5"s are a little thin (I think 6.5"s should be standard for 2-way bookshelves; such a driver has 70% more surface radiating area than a 5"). The response graph on the BX5s are pretty linear/accurate, but it seems like it dives after 80hz (and is -10db at 70hz). A 6.5" midrange will generally give you response down to around 35hz at -10db.

If you don't listen to bass heavy material, then it should be workable for you (you could also do some light EQing to improve the bass response, though distortion will obviously go up).

If you are feeling adventurous, I would suggest the Onix AV-123 X-LS ($220) at av123.com paired with a Super T-amp ($160).

X-LS
http://www.av123.com/products_product.php?section=speak...

X-LS review
http://www.audioholics.com/productreviews/loudspeakers/...

Super T-amp
http://www.si-technologies.com/frontEnd/cm_productDetai...

Super T-amp review
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/sonicimpact2/t2.html

The Onix X-LS are very linear passive speakers (60-27KHz +/- 1.8db) that put those E-MU PM5s I suggested to shame, and come in a very nice wood veneer (or plain back) finish.

The Super T-amp is a clean class-D portable amp. Connecting the t-amp to the X-LS is very simple. This is basically a two-step process, just hook the regular line out to the amp, then with speaker cable hook the t-amp and X-LS together.

The bass response should be phenomenal (they've been tested flat to 25hz in-room...I've posted the graph before on this forum) and seperating the amp from the speaker cabinet in my opinion is a plus.

If you ever think you would want even more bass, Onix sells for $200 the X-Sub that goes flat to 28hz that will be an excellent pair to the X-LS (or any accurate loudspeakers).

Anyway, just a thought.
September 1, 2006 11:44:57 AM

i checked again the specs on those and other studio monitors and they all seem to need some adaptors and special cables for connecting them to my Audigy soundcard.

you know, i think i won't risk my money for now and will stick to or get some new 2.1 multimedia set, the only one that can be any better than my current logitech Z-2200's can probably be the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1? they seem to have better satellites than my current 2.1. what do you think?
September 1, 2006 2:27:51 PM

Forgive me if I am wrong, but the whole idea was to get improved sound quality, extensoin, and an all around better setup correct? If so, then qualty bookshelfs and quality subwoofer will do it. Anything less and your limiting your self somewhere.

It sounds like you have never listend any real speakers that sounded good. If you have, then you probably wont think that you would be "risking" your money.

Almost anything that is two-way will beat your logitechs...

Adapters? ministereo - RCA jacks? Walmart $4 ... Probably at Fry's for $1.50 i saw yesterday...
September 1, 2006 2:45:07 PM

The Klipsch then, since they're bigger..
But neither will give you any big bass, they're just too small.
September 1, 2006 2:56:17 PM

Quote:
He is considering studio monitors, which are generally for near-field use. In other words he's just getting some speakers with fairly linear response, but not really doing it for the soundstage (I think most studio monitors have pretty fishy dispersion anyway). In that case, room acoustics is fairly minor when you consider the listening distance is generally less than 2 feet, and the speakers are toed-in.


Well, what the OP said was the following:

"hi there. so i'm looking for a decent pair of active studio monitors that are going to be used solely for music listening (mp3) on the computer. "

I don't see him saying anything about soundstage in that comment, so I certainly would not assume he's purposefully throw away part of the musical content. WRT studio monitors having "fishy dispersion" (whatever that is) I'd point you towards one of the original studio monitors that was used by the BBC for years - the Rogers LS3-5A. This monitor was also coveted by audiophiles for use in small rooms where its excellent dispersion resulted in outstanding soundstaging in near-field setups. I've listened to my father's pair in his office for hundreds of hours and can attest to their decidedly non-fishy dispersion.

Regarding room acoustics - they still matter when listening at near field. The design intent for studio monitors is to be used near-field at a mixing console. There is a wealth of published data for studio monitor room acoustical design. Back when the LS3-5As first hit the scene, the live end/dead end arrangement was very popular. If you've never been in a LE/DE control booth then you might be astounded at the kind of analytical sound that is possible to achieve. The midrange detail is incredible. I once set up a small bedroom with full-on LE/DE at home and it would always blow people away, playing music they thought they knew well. For example, the vocals on Paul Simon's "Diamonds on the Soles of Her Shoes" just hung out in space, so real you felt you could walk up and shake the singer's hands. These days, LE/DE is generally avoided in control rooms. Modern engineers go for more costly setups, using dispersive elements that allow for an analytical environment that has a more natural frequency balance, less dry than LE/DE.

Yes, room acoustics matter even for near-field!

Quote:
While lossless is a cleaner setup, well-encoded mp3s will only add a very minor sound signature, which is minor to whatever the loudspeaker already adds with its own distortion characteristics.


That is debatable and controlled studies have yielded results that disagree.

Quote:
I'm perfectly fine listening to 320kbps mp3s, and hardly mind the difference. For me, getting a speaker that's linear, disperses well across the room so I don't have to keep my head in a vise, has low distortion characteristics and a good soundstage is more important than wondering if your source is slightly inferior in theory and work so hard to hear the difference when the improved speaker characteristics are so plainly obvious and overriding everything else.


How many people out there rip at 320? I get sh!t when I give a friend a copy at 256 because it takes up too much disk space. itunes sells millions at 128 - can you believe that!!!??? 128 sounds like a tin can to me. I finally got around to comparing ripping schemes about a year ago and was surprised at the results. If you have a mid-range or high end audio system that accepts an optical input (and your PC sound has optical out) I recommend you to take the time to rip at various rates and compare VBR options. I can hear many artifacts in MP3 encoders, and they aren't nice. The best sources are acoustic recordings with wide frequency range and wide dynamic range. The differences are NOT subtle. Listening with high end headphones while doing this experiment can be very depressing. MP3 is for portability and storage efficiency, not for best quality.
September 1, 2006 3:11:48 PM

Quote:
I think nearfield you will have fairly decent bass, though even 5"s are a little thin (I think 6.5"s should be standard for 2-way bookshelves; such a driver has 70% more surface radiating area than a 5"). The response graph on the BX5s are pretty linear/accurate, but it seems like it dives after 80hz (and is -10db at 70hz). A 6.5" midrange will generally give you response down to around 35hz at -10db.


Bass response is very room dependant, as well as speaker placement dependant. If you want a good indicator of what the driver itself can deliver, find the spec for its Q and its efficiency. These are more meaningful than the diameter of the driver. For example, there are 12" drivers with a free air resonance in the 20Hz range, and others above 45Hz. That is a huge difference when it comes time to deliver low bass. Likewise, the free air resonance of 6.5" drivers can range over a factor of 3 and many of those in the low range have fairly low efficiencies. As the efficiency of your bass driver goes down, you need to add more of them - which is why you often see towers with two, three or four bass drivers per side. You also need quite a bit more power in your amp to drive inefficient drivers and that's normally not available in a system as defined by the OP.

All the above points to the success of satellite/sub computer systems. The small satellites can potentially be very linear and dispersive in the midrange and above and a ported enclosure can deliver quite a bit of (admittedly mediocre cound quality) bass content. And there are plenty of decent to excellent satellite sub computer speakers out there. The Altec Lansing system I have on this computer cost under 100 bucks and sounds very good. Total bargain, excellent soundstage, very dynamic and reasonably flat in the midrange. Surprisingly, the sub does a pretty decent job too!
September 1, 2006 3:12:10 PM

Dude, your listening to compressed music. Don't get all audiofile w/ your speakers.

Spam on a silver platter anyone?
September 1, 2006 3:20:23 PM

Quote:
i checked again the specs on those and other studio monitors and they all seem to need some adaptors and special cables for connecting them to my Audigy soundcard.

you know, i think i won't risk my money for now and will stick to or get some new 2.1 multimedia set, the only one that can be any better than my current logitech Z-2200's can probably be the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1? they seem to have better satellites than my current 2.1. what do you think?


When you get to this point, the best approach is to take your MP3 player and a mini-to-mini cable along and just listen to your favorite stuff. Be patient, find a store that will let you play around at the volumes you like to listen at. Ask to have the speakers set up at a desk, satellites aside the monitor, etc - in other words, set up like you would intend. Play a variety of music and play it on each system. It's worth the effort because each speaker builder adds a bias or a color to their product. It can be in the frequency domain, the time domain or more likely, both. The human ear is extremely sensitive to time domain distortion - which is why most speaker builders avoid publishing their TIM distortion stats. Stop by a big magazine shop and look for Stereophile magazine, then find a speaker review and check out the 3-D time decay plots. That's a part of what I'm geting at. I don't subscribe to Stereophile because they are just too fanatical for me, I'm just pointing out a source of info. Similar stuff is all over the tech literature.
September 2, 2006 12:35:00 AM

Semantics clue69ess, semantics. You like to argue semantics when they are irrelevant to the speakers in the discussion. But thank you for your contribution. If you can build a studio monitor with a 5" driver with good midbass response for free with similar tonal characteristics and distortion for our friend datil, or at the very least, offer a suggestion where you see a 5" driver doing the bass response for a 6.5" in the price range datil is in, then we are talking.

Otherwise, I seriously fail to see your point.
September 2, 2006 6:53:00 AM

Quote:
Semantics clue69ess, semantics. You like to argue semantics when they are irrelevant to the speakers in the discussion. But thank you for your contribution. If you can build a studio monitor with a 5" driver with good midbass response for free with similar tonal characteristics and distortion for our friend datil, or at the very least, offer a suggestion where you see a 5" driver doing the bass response for a 6.5" in the price range datil is in, then we are talking.

Otherwise, I seriously fail to see your point.


Yes, I see that you fail to see the point. But the OP decided to do a sub/sat system, so apparently, he got it.
September 3, 2006 3:31:17 AM

Please clue me in the point instead of just saying I failed to see it? What's the point of your saying I don't get your point in your reply if I failed to see it in my rebuke?
September 3, 2006 4:45:30 AM

Quote:
Please clue me in the point instead of just saying I failed to see it? What's the point of your saying I don't get your point in your reply if I failed to see it in my rebuke?


Simple. You say room acoustics don't matter for near field. Thousands of professionals that make a living listening to studio monitors in studios disagree. In reply to that, you cite semantics and that's BS. In fact, it's truth. If you don't want to deal with the truth, or your lack of appreciation for it, that's fine. You can take this where you want to take it, but I'm just telling you the way it is - go talk to studio engineers about why they chose to spend so much money on room acoustics. Ask them why speaker placement is so important in near field. Then tell them it's all just semantics.

Or maybe you think my bass response discussion was all semantics? If so, you're wrong again. You can take this as far as you want. Do you want to argue with top speaker builders - because if you really want to get into it, I can cite publications or reference trend-setting designs. The thing is, bass response, room interactions, sub design and many other relevant aspects of sound reproduction are fairly well understood, so I can provide respected references if I take the time to dig them out of my files - but then you'll probably still think it's all semantics...
September 3, 2006 4:54:27 AM

Lets see some some proof... I have hear otherwise myself.
September 3, 2006 5:07:31 AM

Quote:
Lets see some some proof... I have hear otherwise myself.


Be specific - proof of what?

The best thing to do is exactly what you mention - go listen for yourself.
September 3, 2006 5:43:21 AM

Proof of your claims... I am interested.
September 3, 2006 6:20:25 AM

I'm an audio fanatic. Try something from the B&W 600 series. These are true audiophile speakers. Made in England.

http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/products...

or

http://www.bwspeakers.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/products....

I have personally owned the 602 S3 and it is a terrific speaker. It has great bass, a nice punchy sound, and is refined enough for very well recorded jazz and classical music. The 601 is also very good, I had that one too. The 602 is basically the 601 with more bass. These are both passive.
September 3, 2006 6:48:40 AM

Quote:
Proof of your claims... I am interested.


You want proof of which claims? Be specific, set some priorities. I've made a few posts to this thread and am not going legal on every statement I made just to amuse you. If there is something specifric that you doubt, just blurt it out. Room acoustics effects? Try this book. Different free air resonances for speakers of the same driver diameter? Try this book.

If you want peer-reviewed journal articles, I can provide some of that but don't waste my time if you aren't going to bother with getting them and reading them.
September 3, 2006 6:58:20 AM

Quote:
I'm an audio fanatic. Try something from the B&W 600 series. These are true audiophile speakers. Made in England.


Over the last decade or so, B&W has progressed from being an excellent speaker builder to one of the true gems of the high end. And I'd even say that they are somewhat "affordable" compared to their competition. I've spent quite a few hours sitting in front of a pair of these puppies. Kinda power hungry...
September 3, 2006 7:05:51 AM

I now use the Nautilus 804's. Awesome speakers.

My dad has the old Nautilus 802, not the newer one with the diamond tweeter. They are unreal. Of course, he is feeding them with a gigantic Mark Levinson amp and a DCS stack.
September 3, 2006 3:38:34 PM

Quote:
I now use the Nautilus 804's. Awesome speakers.

My dad has the old Nautilus 802, not the newer one with the diamond tweeter. They are unreal. Of course, he is feeding them with a gigantic Mark Levinson amp and a DCS stack.


Makes PC power consumption look tiny...
September 6, 2006 2:15:19 AM

I like my B&W 600 S3s too...They are a little muddy in the lower mid-range I find, but otherwise great great entry-level value.

I also considered some Paradigm Studios...Not sure if you could combine a subwoofer with those, but those are very detailed small speakers in the same price range.. I actually liked them better for classical and jazz but I still listen to a ton of rock and electronic, and the B&Ws were a better fit for my budget.

I have that hooked up to an Arcam 70 and a Rotel RCD961, eventually I will pickup an Arcam CD, I love the Arcam sound...
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
May 22, 2011 2:17:06 AM

Sorry, but it's not the best way to give a novice an advice.

"Go out and buy some B&Ws!!"

"C'mon man...you need to get rid of your shitty 128k mp3 first..."

We're talking about "apples and oranges"...We are comparing "Logitech like speakers" with "ACTIVE Studio Monitors" and then with Big PASSIVE beasts like the Nautilus.... :non: 

As a old "audiophile" and a new Sound engineer I can make some statements.

There's NOTHING (quality wise) under the 2/3 Grands that can beat a pair of POWERED ACTIVE STUDIO MONITORS. Period. It's long to tell the story, so i'll cut it short...

1) Brands... "Pro" Brands have been around for a while now...They put "physics" in their products, not PHILOSOPHY.
They don't need money...Well, they do actually, but they're not greedy like the Pompous High End Bastards...
They don't need advertising, cause they have been around studios and Broadcasting companies for decades now...Their Ads are made of "word by mouth"....among "professionals" like Sound engineers and so...


2) An ACTIVE Xover will beat ANY (of course there are exceptions) PASSIVE ONE...So, an ACTIVE SPEAKER is a clear winner in this area.
The Sound is "as is"....There are no artifacts, no color, nothing....
Of course a 128k Mp3 will sound terrible...

3) Active monitors are DESIGNED, BUILT and TAILORED for COMPUTERS, and of course for converters/Sound cards...They are built with FILES in mind, not CDS....

They are just so honest, true....But they can turn to be the worst Serial (mp3) killers around....


In my life I listened to tons and tons of audio equipement, from "entry level" to "Top of the pops High end stuff".
I owned beasts like B&W 801, Tube amplifiers, cables as large as a Python.... I listened to anything the "audiophile" world has ever produced, including electrostatic speakers, Large Mammoth Amps like ML, KRELL, CLASSE', PASS and so on....

Until i stepped on the "Pro" world....A world made of gigantic consoles, dynamic processors, musical instruments, microphones and yes.....finally LOUDSPEAKERS....The Speakers used in making that little silver disc everybody owns at home....

And my life changed...I mean it, really....Because I discovered like an archeologist THE ******* MUSIC, buried with dust.....

And I never ever come back to that absurd word of the so called "Audiophilia"....World that costed me in almost 15 years thousands and thousands of dollars....

NOW, AD 2011, with the 30% of what an "audiophile" set up with amp+preamp+source+cables+speakers you can have the same thing....

a computer, some well ripped/compressed file, a pair of ACTIVE MONITORS and a DAC, or Sound card....


Regards... ;) 
!