[verteqz]

I just gotta say, I've owned both the KRK RP5 G2s and the M-Audio BX5a Deluxes and I liked the KRKs a lot better. I didn't use them for mixing music, but for listening pleasure the BX5as was unimpressive. I found the treble to be very harsh, while the KRKs very silky smooth.

 

[Armaegis]

Granted, the KRKs are $150 more...

 

[ydanish]

I just picked up a pair of Swans D1080MKII from theaudioinsider..

No experience with the AV40s, but honestly, these can kick some AV30 butt. Much crisper and cleaner overall sound. Definitely does NOT need a sub (I think the AV30s do).

 

[scotchesy]

quick question.
im thinking of getting new computer speakers, but i want them also to double as party speakers in a basement. so my question is, will these speakers be loud enough/have enough bass to fill a med-sized basement.

how does the logitech z3000 compare?
are there better alternatives under 200$?

 

[Armaegis]

They're 40W total which is enough to fill a basement, but you're not going to be getting any thump to the base. For a small to mid sized party, it should be fine. If you're throwing a big party, you're going to want something bigger.

For $200 you can probably pick up some decent vintage speakers and a receiver which will be plenty enough power.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armaegis /img/forum/go_quote.gif They're 40W total which is enough to fill a basement, but you're not going to be getting any thump to the base. For a small to mid sized party, it should be fine. If you're throwing a big party, you're going to want something bigger. For $200 you can probably pick up some decent vintage speakers and a receiver which will be plenty enough power.

It also depends on the efficiency of the speakers themselves. The average vintage receiver that I've seen had significantly lower power than the AV40s - only about 10 to 20W total. (Higher-power receivers existed back then, but they were astronomically expensive to buy and thus are relatively rare.) This is because the loudspeakers of the day had insanely high efficiency ratings - as much as 105 to 110 dB @ 1W @ 1m. (This ultra-high efficiency is part of the reason why a 6" speaker of the day was unable to reproduce anything below 120 Hz at all, unlike today's 6" speakers which can easily reach 40 to 50 Hz at the expense of efficiency; therefore, "bookshelf" loudspeakers of the day required 8" or 10" woofers just to reproduce any bass at all whatsoever - and then, the largest of those "bookshelf" loudspeakers still could not reach lower than about 60 Hz.) The typical vintage receiver would work poorly with today's modern, relatively inefficient (mid-to-upper-80s dB @ 1W @ 1m) loudspeakers. The biggest reason why today's receivers have so much wattage is because today's loudspeakers are relatively power-hungry. That's "one step up, two steps back" for you.

By the very same token, the ultra-high-efficiency loudspeakers of old had such powerful magnets that would erase everything on a computer hard drive if placed anywhere near your computer desk. And internal shielding from such powerful magnets was completely nonexistent at the time; the only such shielding existed on puny Alnico-magnet speakers built into TV sets and tape recorders of the era. To avoid this you would have needed to put them at least 10 feet away from everything computer-related - and then, they would have been so far apart that stereo imaging would have suffered very badly.

 

[ydanish]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scotchesy /img/forum/go_quote.gif quick question. im thinking of getting new computer speakers, but i want them also to double as party speakers in a basement. so my question is, will these speakers be loud enough/have enough bass to fill a med-sized basement. how does the logitech z3000 compare? are there better alternatives under 200$?

The z2300 compare rather poorly. They are very bad speakers for music. For that matter, even if your need was for loud noise, they'd still do pretty badly.

Under $200 your options are the D1080MKIIs at the lower end, the AV40s in the mid-end and the AudioEngine A2s at the top end.

Ideally, you would be best suited to try and get and audition of these before you decide. The Guitar Centre's stock the first and last options.. so that should help.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scotchesy /img/forum/go_quote.gif quick question. im thinking of getting new computer speakers, but i want them also to double as party speakers in a basement. so my question is, will these speakers be loud enough/have enough bass to fill a med-sized basement. how does the logitech z3000 compare? are there better alternatives under 200$?

To be short, you cannot have both loud bass and good sound quality in the same package at such a low price point. The Z2300's two biggest failings are the lack of any real tweeter whatsoever and the poorly selected crossover frequencies. In this case, the "subwoofer" has a low-pass filter that's lower than the lowest tones that the satellites can physically reproduce, resulting in roughly an octave of the upper bass and lower midrange somewhat missing. And the lack of any real tweeter means that everything above 8 to 10 kHz will sound harsh and screechy, if at all audible. In other words, a relatively large (10"), high-powered "subwoofer" won't do you much good if the satellites aren't quite up to the task. Good intentions, not-so-good execution.

And the Z2300 is not the only 2.1 or multichannel system that's guilty of this. What's more, several lesser Logitech satellite/subwoofer systems actually put the crossover point just below the natural resonance frequency of the entire satellite driver/cabinet combination, resulting in the midrange sounding boxy, honky, nasal and shouty. IMHO a properly designed satellite/subwoofer system should have the crossover between the bass module and the satellites set at a frequency that's noticeably above the natural resonant frequency of the satellite cabinets. But if the satellite cabinets resonate at such a high midrange frequency that properly crossing over a bass module would have resulted in a loss of upper bass response, it's back to the drawing board for the satellite speaker designers.

 

[scotchesy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ydanish /img/forum/go_quote.gif The z2300 compare rather poorly. They are very bad speakers for music. For that matter, even if your need was for loud noise, they'd still do pretty badly. Under $200 your options are the D1080MKIIs at the lower end, the AV40s in the mid-end and the AudioEngine A2s at the top end. Ideally, you would be best suited to try and get and audition of these before you decide. The Guitar Centre's stock the first and last options.. so that should help.

so you guys recommend the AudioEngine A2's over the AV40s? What sets the two apart? Thanks for the help guys
Are the A5's significantly better than the A2's?
I have ~200$ to spare, give or take a little.

 

[Armaegis]

A2 vs AV40: The A2 has more power, better bass, costs more money
A5 vs A2: The A5 has more power, better bass, a few more features, costs more money

Pick a budget; get whatever fits within your budget.

 

[ANP !!!]

AV40 is a pretty decent set, and will give you much cleaner and better music production then your current computer speakers, I was in the market for a Studio monitors, I almost got the A2 over AV40, A2 is said to create better overall sound then the AV40 that can get very bright sometime (which can cause fatigue), A2 looks great too and are so compact, it will be best of you since you said you travel a lot, You can put the whole set into your handbag without any problem.

As I said I almost got the AV40, then decided upon the A2, but in the end went for Wharfedale 9.1 bookshelves and an amp, which I feel was the best decision I took in a long long time.

It all comes down to how much you wanna spend, A5 would definitely be money well spent, they are more musical then A2 and AV40 and wont really need a sub, since it creates enough of it, but at the same time they are bigger.

BX5a/A5 > A2 > AV40.

 

[RichieLitt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ojyarumaru /img/forum/go_quote.gif I thought the bx5a's blew away the av40's in terms of sound quality. I'd say they're not even comparable because the bx5a is in a different class than av40's. The audioengines A2 and A5 sound very muddy compared to bx5a's or krk rp5's.

You think the A5's sound muddy compared to the bx5a's, really? I was actually thinking to sell the AV40s eventually to get the A5s, because all indications point to them being better than the bx5as.