[gabjuasfijwee]

the more i think about it, the less sure i am. i'm quite new to speakers and i don't know what would be my best option for expanding upon what i have in the future. i probably won't buy new speakers for a long time is one of my constraints. i want to make the bx5as sound as good as possible on my relatively small budget, given that i'm playing out of my laptop

 

[moonboy403]

Quote:

And Ham Sandwich I understand that the bx5a are barely entry level studio monitors so they wouldn't compare to the m-audio's cx series or similarly priced products, but if we're just listening to already released music, not mixing or producing, my understanding was tracks would more likely sound 'musical' from a listener's perspective by using less expensive studio speakers? 

 
The better your speakers, the better your music will sound to you. The frequency response of the more expensive studio monitors is flatter and hence more true to source. I have with me 3 different pairs of studio monitors and a pair of hifi speakers (Audioengine A5) and I greatly prefer listening music on my best studio monitors as opposed to the Audioengines.
 
Quote:

the more i think about it, the less sure i am. i'm quite new to speakers and i don't know what would be my best option for expanding upon what i have in the future. i probably won't buy new speakers for a long time is one of my constraints. i want to make the bx5as sound as good as possible on my relatively small budget, given that i'm playing out of my laptop
 

To me, iPod isn't a bad source. So if you're satisfied with it, why don't you stick with that?

 

[Ham Sandwich]

Quote:

And Ham Sandwich I understand that the bx5a are barely entry level studio monitors so they wouldn't compare to the m-audio's cx series or similarly priced products, but if we're just listening to already released music, not mixing or producing, my understanding was tracks would more likely sound 'musical' from a listener's perspective by using less expensive studio speakers? 

I own the BX8a.  I find them to be musical and pleasing for a nearfield monitor style speaker.  I use them for music listening, no studio style work.  If I didn't think they were good for music listening I wouldn't have them.  I also find them to be reasonably forgiving in that you can listen to a poor source or poorly done recording and still enjoy it.  They don't highlight or exaggerate flaws like some monitors can (and some headphones can as well).  Though if you listen you can still hear the flaws, they just aren't brought out front and center and put in your face.
 
My comments about the BX5a and BX8a not being all audiophile was just to put some reasonable expectations on them.  They aren't a highly resolving monitor.  They lack some audiophile traits.  But they're still good to listen to and you can still be "audiophile" with them.

 

[gabjuasfijwee]

I never really see any mention of my onboard audio, soudmax integrated digital hd audio, but it definitely doesn't sound that great unless I use srs iwow audio sandbox, software that manipulates the sound.  Maybe it doesn't keep the music true to the source, but from a relatively less critical listening perspective it sounds 2x more musical to my ears.  Not quite at the level of the itouch 4th, but it covers a lot of ground. But gabjuasfijwee if you do move up to the udac-2 let me know how it compares to your portable media player's SQ

 
And Ham Sandwich I understand that the bx5a are barely entry level studio monitors so they wouldn't compare to the m-audio's cx series or similarly priced products, but if we're just listening to already released music, not mixing or producing, my understanding was tracks would more likely sound 'musical' from a listener's perspective by using less expensive studio speakers? 

 

 

[germanium]

I have the BX5's which are a previous model, I just set the volume to 1/3 on each speaker & use the windows volume control making sure that window advanced sound properties bit depth is 24 bit at whatever the samplerate of the file is. There is no loss at any usable volume this way. This is a better solution than passive or active preamps as there is no added coloration this way (active preamp) or high frequency loss that varies with volume control (passive preamp) or channel imbalance that changes with volume setting (virtually all volume controls that use variable resistor to control volume) or insufficiant volume level options(most volume controls that use swiched fixed resistors). Best of all this is the cheapest volume control as it is free (already exists in your computer).

 

[Ham Sandwich]

I wouldn't generalize so much that a less expensive monitor is going to be more musical than a more expensive monitor.
 
What you want to watch for are monitors that do things that enhance resolution but hinder musical enjoyment.  For example a monitor might have harsh and slightly exaggerated treble but end up with treble that is very highly resolving because of that.  Might be great for making treble problems painfully clear when mixing.  But not what I'd want for a musical listening monitor.  Both inexpensive and expensive monitors can have issues that make them less suitable for music listening.  Both inexpensive and expensive monitors can also be very musical and enjoyable for music listening rather than pure studio work.  The price doesn't tell you much about whether a monitor is going to be musical or not.

 

[germanium]

Quote:

I wouldn't generalize so much that a less expensive monitor is going to be more musical than a more expensive monitor.
 
What you want to watch for are monitors that do things that enhance resolution but hinder musical enjoyment.  For example a monitor might have harsh and slightly exaggerated treble but end up with treble that is very highly resolving because of that.  Might be great for making treble problems painfully clear when mixing.  But not what I'd want for a musical listening monitor.  Both inexpensive and expensive monitors can have issues that make them less suitable for music listening.  Both inexpensive and expensive monitors can also be very musical and enjoyable for music listening rather than pure studio work.  The price doesn't tell you much about whether a monitor is going to be musical or not.

Quite often people equate bright & slightly harsh with high resolution but that is not really the case. High resolution actually refers to being able to reveal the more subtle sounds. I actually found that true high resolution does just that without sounding harsh except of coarse on recording that were mixed or mastered improperly such as using tapes that were EQued for LP release whigh are intentionally equed hot to compensate for the EQ properties of the recording head when recording on laquer which avtually varies with position of the recording head relative to the center of the record. These recordings will likely sound very harsh but recording that were made with the intent for digital release if properly done should be very open sounding without harshness. When I modded my speakers resolution went way up but harshness went down as the space between the peaks were now filled with the more subtle sounds which seems to minimize any harshness on better recordings. This was most notable on peaky instruments like cymbles that also have a lot of lower level overtones as well. The peaks are still there in all thier glory but the body & lower level shimmer reduces the harsh effects & balance the sound out in a way that makes the sound much more pleasant to listen to.  
 
 

 

[Ham Sandwich]

We're likely on the same page regarding resolution.  I'm a bit sloppy in my terminology.  Harsh or excess treble impersonating extra detail is something I sometimes call faux resolution or faux detail.  It sounds like more treble detail but doesn't actually resolve more detail than a headphone or monitor that has true proper real resolution.  The faux detail just makes the details more obvious (and painful).  Similar with midrange.  A bump in the upper mids doesn't necessarily mean the midrange has more detail than a monitor or headphone that has a properly flat midrange.
 
For a musical headphone or monitor I'd want to avoid something that relies on faux detail, especially in the treble.  What makes for a musical midrange will be a personal choice based on the sound that you prefer.  For example I might prefer something less resolving in the midrange if I get some special love in the midrange in exchange.  For musical I'd also prefer something that's fuller in the lower mids and lower end through to 50 Hz or lower.  Make the bass too thin and it's no longer as musical for me, but that's me and not everyone will feel the same.