Why do my computer speakers sound so crappy!!!??? - Page 3

What about in price/performance value? Swan is known for making speakers with GODLIKE value... Can we add price to the equation? What about versatility? Name an analog 5.1 system (no included reciever, just amp and speakers, made for a small room) that is as good as the monsoon for the price.

Well, I think there's two different markets going on here...I'm talking about everything from a music perspective. So to begin with, I wouldn't even want a 5.1 system for music...2.1 is all I need, or just the two and leave out the .1 for that matter. So regardless of how fancy a 5.1 system is for whatever its price, I just wouldn't even look at it.

However if I had to look at one, I'd save my pennies and hotdogs for the Klipsch 5.1. I would probably not play music much on it though, I'd be on headphones instead for that, it'd be primarily for games and movies. But once again, I'm speaking from a music perspective, where number of speakers and power ratings and features mean dip to me.

There's something that's just not right about using flat panels in more than a 2.1 system. I mean part of the point of flat panels is that they can create an immersive soundstage without more than two speakers. And part of the idea is to save space. By adding 3 more into the equation, it's like you nullify the whole point of flat panel speakers. If I simply wanted room filling background music, I'd definitely look anywhere but flat panels, being they fire music into a particular area only.

Bottom line, I'd get flat panel speakers only if I had to save room. The lower end flat panel speakers still isn't up to snuff with full sized speakers IMO in any price range. Now if it were Martin Logans, that's another story.

Hey, you're free to do that, Gluegun. All I was saying is that at comparable price points, Monsoon doesn't stand up to the CSW models -- in my experience, actually listening to several Monsoon models, they don't. Monsoons are, IMO, more gimick than quality. You pay a premium for their "electrostatic" style. Have you actually heard both lines, or is your statement based on posts in the other forum?

And since you like SoundSurge, what about this "official" review of the MegaWorks on their site:

Seems like they think CSW makes good stuff, no?

I think the problem is that you're comparing CSW's lower-priced stuff with stuff that costs $200, $400, $600. When you look at comparably-priced stuff, you see that they compete very well.

Well, now that you've added the Aego2, you're getting somewhere As I said, the Aego2 are the best you can get -- even though they're self-powered multimedia speakers, Stereophile lists them as a Recommended Component under "loudspeakers." They're really quite impressive when you hear them in person, although a bit much for a computer... not too many people have computers that provide a signal worth of being played through the Aego2.

The Videologic's never did anything for me. They sound nice, but IMO they're overkill for a computer (as are the CSW MegaWorks, to be honest), and for the money, like Vert said, you can get a good amp and speakers that will easily beat it in terms of sound.

I've never heard the Swans, but they do get good reviews. I'd like to hear them.

Like Vert said, all three of these will blow away the Monsoons

Alright! You like 2.0. That's nice, than get the Swan's. And another set if you wanna make it a gaming system.... LOL!

Hey, I'll gladly add price to the equation

As I mentioned a couple times already, the CSW SoundWorks 5.1 (I think it's called the FPS2000) is only $129, and in my opinion sounded better than the Monsoon 505 you suggested which sells for around $180. Even if someone who has heard them both didn't clearly like the CSW *better,* if they're even close for about 30% less, seems like a better value, no?

I have to butt my head in here. As an owner of almost every mainstream computer speaker system ever made, I have something to say. (Altec ACS33, AC46.2, ACS48, ACS56, ADA885, ATP3, ATP5, Cambridge FPS 1800, FPS1000, Logitech Z560, Yamaha m100 + sub, Polk AMR150, Polk AMR2, AMR5, Monsoon mm350, mm500, mm505's, Boston BA4800, mediatheater, Digital Mediatheater.) (think I missed some)
So I have had some experience with computer speakers, and I have even tried the bookshelf speaker idea. Of all the above I have to say the Monsoon 505's are the absolute best value for the dollar on the market. They beat every single speaker set above, just beating out the Polk. They have an excellent, not boomy subwoofer, and the imaging is out of this world awesome. But like they said, you absolutely HAVE to be in the sweet spot to hear everything. Also of note, this is the most impressive system I have ever heard for a mini hometheater for DVD. 10/10!!!
The monsoon 505's can be found for as low as $207 Canadian.

Just my 2 cents!

It's still interesting to me that of all the people who think the Monsoons are better than CSW setups, the "best" CSW system they have used is the fps1800, which is a few years old and half the price of the Monsoon 505.

This is like saying "Sony are better than Grado" when all you've listened to are Grado SR40 or SR60, and you're comparing them to CD 1700, CD3000, and R10

OK, I think the horse has been beaten enough... I think he's dead

Has anyone else heard the Microsoft sound system? I heard it several times at a friend's place and thought it was pretty good, especially considering the price he paid for them ($25 after massive rebates).

Hmm, 1000 posts, who hoo 1 more and then I can bug Jude to change my rank

If you heard the Monsoons and compared them to Bose, I respectfully submit that you are tone deaf. The same goes for the CSW - we're talking outdated technology that sounded excellent in their day but have been handily eclipsed by today's competitors.

One other possibility is that the Monsoons weren't set up correctly - they do require some time and effort to get the best positioning. The average computer reseller has all the audio acumen on speaker placement of a toenail clipping. Once that placement is achieved they handily outperform systems costing quite a bit more and pretty much everything CL has in shipping product right now (I speak specifically of the MH-505, MH-502 and MM-2000 models).

As an aside, nothing in the CL FPS series is worth the materials it is made of for any kind of sound quality. Period. They all sound like crap.

My picks for good computer systems are the following vendors:

Monsoon
Polk
Boston Acoustics

My picks for the most overrated and overhyped manufacturers are:

Creative Labs
Altec Lansing
Klipsch (the 5.1s are the exception)

Of course the sound card also matters as was pointed out: Turtle beach, philips and CL with the Audigy (the Live! is essentially garbage) are decent consumer grade cards.

The argument on getting conventional audio speakers are cost and shielding. It is quite possible to get a decent set of computer speakers that sound good for audio without breaking the bank. It does require some intelligent listening and exposure to a good quality system before auditioning to know what you're actually comparing.

Gluegun, of the speakers being discussed, which of them have you personally owned or demoed?

Owned CL, demoed CL, Klipsh, Altec Lansing.... Listened to BA EXTENSIVELY.....

Uh, *checks post*

Haven't I been mostly just posting links to what other people say?? That's why....

Don't worry, it wasn't directed at you

"It's still interesting to me that of all the people who think the Monsoons are better than CSW setups, the "best" CSW system they have used is the fps1800, which is a few years old and half the price of the Monsoon 505. "

Actually, the FPS1800's came out about 1 year ago, maybe a bit more. Hardy Cambridge's 5 year old system. That being said, since they basically kept the same speakers for the last few years, most of thier speakers do sound similar: no midrange and very harsh. I have yet to see a single driver speaker compete with a good 2 way system and win. How much can you really get out of a 2 1/2 inch cone? And I have heard the FPS2000, 2500 and 3500, still sound like crap to my ears. (for music)(not bad for games/movies)

I generally stick with 2.1 setups for the PC

I tend to actually compare the 2.1 speakers and ignore the 4.1 and 5.1 setups.


Also, the place where I sit in my room has the least amount of bass by far compared with the rest of the room. Because of this, a boomy system will sound a lot less boomy. At the settings I use, in my normal place, I can barely tell my sub is on in most music, but if I lay down on my bed or go to the door, it is very boomy. Go figure. So, a dhum-bassalistic system will sound much less boomy in my room, and because I need to turn the sub up a bit more, those systems with completely puny subs just don't cut it.


Sorry I didn't mention I have heard many of the other CSW systems. I have, although not as much as some people.

The Soundworks - I like them, but the sats are a bit forward for me. The sub is still what I would consider overdriven. Mind you, the sub in my computer speakers is a Polk PSW-350. And when I say overdriven - I mean perhaps the volume knob is such that you barely need to move it to get the correct amount of bass, same goes for Altec Lansing ones too, but to a lesser extent. At $50 they are a bargain.

Microworks - Some of the best computer speakers I have heard, period. They do have an excellent sub too, and sound more neutral then the Soundworks.

FPS2000 - Basically a 4 point Soundworks - little sub is overdriven again.

FPS2500 - 5.1 soundworks with Microworks center I think, and slightly more powerful amp.



Boston Acoustics BA635 - Better sounding then the Microworks but more expensive, the sub is again overdriven but a world better then the Microworks one. Worse then the Soundworks.


BA 790 - Very nice little set of speakers, IMO a bit better then the Soundworks series. They (And the Soundworks) sound better then all of the Klipsch speakers to me, for music. Why? The Klipsches are ear bleedingly forward to me, which I absolutely don't like. They could be better or worse then the Soundworks.

The Altec ACS-48s are some of the warmest sounding computer speakers I have heard, which again I prefer. I haven't owned them in a year or so, so maybe they really are boomier then I thought, which they definantly were, but again they sound better then the Klipsch speakers to me because they are simply way too forward sounding. Lower mids were indeed muddy, and I have noted that already, but I would take an exxagerated/muddy lower midrange and slightly laid back treble over nonexistant lower mids and bright treble.

The Monsoons sound somewhat on the forward side, but are so articulate for computer speakers it isn't even funny. Imaging is incredible in the sweet spot, and worthless elsewhere. Also - most small PC speakers have excellent imaging - the imaging is the best strength of the CSW PCworks. The set I have the most experience with is the MH-502, which has a sub that is slightly better then the cheap BA speakers, but the sats are a lot better then anything at the $100 mark. Clear is the best way to describe them, good imaging, somewhat forward but not ear bleedingly so. I heard the MM-1000 at a LAN party once, and given the circumstances, I really liked em. The sub was much better then the cheaper ones, and the sats seemed to play a bit deeper - had less of the forwardness too, although there were still somewhat forward.


I do tend to like a warm sound when dealing with cheap speakers. My Celestion F1s have a very warm sound, I have plugged the ports with socks and they aren't quite so warm, but I prefer to actually hear the lower mids to not being able to hear them. I don't like to have my ears drilled out.