CNET: Audiophile grade computer speakers for $199

CNET: Audiophile grade computer speakers for $199

Steve Guttenberg of CNET writes about some computer speakers that he
claims are "audiophile grade".

Anyone have an experience with them?

< http :// www .cnet,com /8301-13645_1-9946736-47.html?tag=bnpr>

--
David Bath - RAHE Co-moderator

Re: CNET: Audiophile grade computer speakers for $199

On 20 May 2008 23:03:06 GMT, davidbath1@bigfoot,com (David E. Bath)
wrote:

>Steve Guttenberg of CNET writes about some computer speakers that he
>claims are "audiophile grade".
>
>Anyone have an experience with them?
>
>< http :// www .cnet,com /8301-13645_1-9946736-47.html?tag=bnpr>

See also:
http :// www .stereophile,com /budgetcomponents/1207ae/index.html

Kal

Re: CNET: Audiophile grade computer speakers for $199

I know that Radio Paradise uses them in the studio, and says very nice
things about them.
Greg

Re: CNET: Audiophile grade computer speakers for $199

"Greg Wormald" <greg.wormald@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:g12ar702h1r@news4.newsguy,com

> I know that Radio Paradise uses them in the studio, and
> says very nice things about them.

The actual Stereophile review is at:

http :// stereophile,com /standloudspeakers/1207ae/index4.html

Kind of interesting as a level set on what current speaker technology is all
about.

I thought that the AudioEngine 2 review begged comparison with this one for
the classic NHT SZ:

http :// www .stereophile,com /loudspeakerreviews/804/index9.html

I have a pair of SZs and I think I'll keep them! ;-)

Re: CNET: Audiophile grade computer speakers for $199

In article <g14s5n02inn@news1.newsguy,com >,
"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote:

> The actual Stereophile review is at:
>
> http :// stereophile,com /standloudspeakers/1207ae/index4.html
>
> Kind of interesting as a level set on what current speaker technology is all
> about.
>
> I thought that the AudioEngine 2 review begged comparison with this one for
> the classic NHT SZ:
>
> http :// www .stereophile,com /loudspeakerreviews/804/index9.html
>
> I have a pair of SZs and I think I'll keep them! ;-)

I reckon if I had a pair I'd be using them on my computer.

Of course the AudioEngine 2 comes with an amplifier built-in, and for
less money than the 1994 price of the NHT. How does $230 (plus amplifier
cost) in 1994 compare to $200 today?

Greg

Re: CNET: Audiophile grade computer speakers for $199

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote in message
news:g14s5n02inn@news1.newsguy,com ...
> I thought that the AudioEngine 2 review begged comparison with this one
> for
> the classic NHT SZ:
>
> http :// www .stereophile,com /loudspeakerreviews/804/index9.html
>

I am curious about the high-pass filter employed in the article. The author
notes that the R in the RC filter is in parallel with the amplifier's output
impedance of 51K. Given that the amp's impedance is upstream of the
capacitor, is this right? Or did he actually construct a filter with a
rolloff frequency of 106Hz?

Vin Vout
o------------||-----------------o
| 0.1uF "C" of |
\ RC filter \
/ /
51K \ Amp \ 15K "R" of RC filter
/ /
| |
o-------------------------------o

Re: CNET: Audiophile grade computer speakers for $199

On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:49:55 -0700, Dave wrote
(in article <g1jrej03n9@news2.newsguy,com >):

> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop,com > wrote in message
> news:g14s5n02inn@news1.newsguy,com ...
>> I thought that the AudioEngine 2 review begged comparison with this one
>> for
>> the classic NHT SZ:
>>
>> http :// www .stereophile,com /loudspeakerreviews/804/index9.html
>>
>
> I am curious about the high-pass filter employed in the article. The author
> notes that the R in the RC filter is in parallel with the amplifier's output
> impedance of 51K. Given that the amp's impedance is upstream of the
> capacitor, is this right? Or did he actually construct a filter with a
> rolloff frequency of 106Hz?
>
> Vin Vout
> o------------||-----------------o
> | 0.1uF "C" of |
> \ RC filter \
> / /
> 51K \ Amp \ 15K "R" of RC filter
> / /
> | |
> o-------------------------------o

That's a classic single-pole high-pass filter "Pi" network. But such a filter
is only 3dB/octave - not very steep.

Re: CNET: Audiophile grade computer speakers for $199

On May 29, 10:56 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:49:55 -0700, Dave wrote
> (in article <g1jrej0...@news2.newsguy,com >):
>
>
>
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote in message
> >news:g14s5n02inn@news1.newsguy,com ...
> >> I thought that the AudioEngine 2 review begged comparison with this one
> >> for
> >> the classic NHT SZ:
>
> >> http :// www .stereophile,com /loudspeakerreviews/804/index9.html
>
> > I am curious about the high-pass filter employed in the article. The author
> > notes that the R in the RC filter is in parallel with the amplifier's output
> > impedance of 51K. Given that the amp's impedance is upstream of the
> > capacitor, is this right? Or did he actually construct a filter with a
> > rolloff frequency of 106Hz?
>
> > Vin Vout
> > o------------||-----------------o
> > | 0.1uF "C" of |
> > \ RC filter \
> > / /
> > 51K \ Amp \ 15K "R" of RC filter
> > / /
> > | |
> > o-------------------------------o
>
> That's a classic single-pole high-pass filter "Pi" network. But such a filter
> is only 3dB/octave - not very steep.

I am sure that you meant 6 dB/octave. :-)

Re: CNET: Audiophile grade computer speakers for $199

On Fri, 30 May 2008 07:49:25 -0700, jwvm wrote
(in article <g1p45l0b9t@news3.newsguy,com >):

> On May 29, 10:56 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:49:55 -0700, Dave wrote
>> (in article <g1jrej0...@news2.newsguy,com >):
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote in message
>>> news:g14s5n02inn@news1.newsguy,com ...
>>>> I thought that the AudioEngine 2 review begged comparison with this one
>>>> for
>>>> the classic NHT SZ:
>>
>>>> http :// www .stereophile,com /loudspeakerreviews/804/index9.html
>>
>>> I am curious about the high-pass filter employed in the article. The
>>> author
>>> notes that the R in the RC filter is in parallel with the amplifier's
>>> output
>>> impedance of 51K. Given that the amp's impedance is upstream of the
>>> capacitor, is this right? Or did he actually construct a filter with a
>>> rolloff frequency of 106Hz?
>>
>>> Vin Vout
>>> o------------||-----------------o
>>>> 0.1uF "C" of |
>>> \ RC filter \
>>> / /
>>> 51K \ Amp \ 15K "R" of RC filter
>>> / /
>>>>>
>>> o-------------------------------o
>>
>> That's a classic single-pole high-pass filter "Pi" network. But such a
>> filter
>> is only 3dB/octave - not very steep.
>
> I am sure that you meant 6 dB/octave. :-)

Doesn't that rather depend upon whether your talking about voltage or power?
It's been years since I've dealt with this stuff, but it seems to me that
the slope of a single-pole filter gives 3dB with voltage and 6dB with power.
I could be misremembering though.

Re: CNET: Audiophile grade computer speakers for $199

On May 31, 11:39 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 07:49:25 -0700, jwvm wrote
> (in article <g1p45l0...@news3.newsguy,com >):
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 10:56 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:49:55 -0700, Dave wrote
> >> (in article <g1jrej0...@news2.newsguy,com >):
>
> >>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote in message
> >>>news:g14s5n02inn@news1.newsguy,com ...
> >>>> I thought that the AudioEngine 2 review begged comparison with this one
> >>>> for
> >>>> the classic NHT SZ:
>
> >>>> http :// www .stereophile,com /loudspeakerreviews/804/index9.html
>
> >>> I am curious about the high-pass filter employed in the article. The
> >>> author
> >>> notes that the R in the RC filter is in parallel with the amplifier's
> >>> output
> >>> impedance of 51K. Given that the amp's impedance is upstream of the
> >>> capacitor, is this right? Or did he actually construct a filter with a
> >>> rolloff frequency of 106Hz?
>
> >>> Vin Vout
> >>> o------------||-----------------o
> >>>> 0.1uF "C" of |
> >>> \ RC filter \
> >>> / /
> >>> 51K \ Amp \ 15K "R" of RC filter
> >>> / /
>
> >>> o-------------------------------o
>
> >> That's a classic single-pole high-pass filter "Pi" network. But such a
> >> filter
> >> is only 3dB/octave - not very steep.
>
> > I am sure that you meant 6 dB/octave. :-)
>
> Doesn't that rather depend upon whether your talking about voltage or power?
> It's been years since I've dealt with this stuff, but it seems to me that
> the slope of a single-pole filter gives 3dB with voltage and 6dB with power.
> I could be misremembering though.

Sorry but that is not correct. Measurements in decibels are power
ratio measurements. The 20log(Vout/Vin) type calculation can be
rewritten as 10log((Vout/Vin)^2) again showing the power relationship.
Note also that 6 dB/octave is the same slope as 20 dB/decade. The 3 dB
figure is the loss at the corner frequency of the first-order filter.

Re: CNET: Audiophile grade computer speakers for $199

On Sat, 31 May 2008 20:13:25 -0700, jwvm wrote
(in article <g1t44l02mm4@news4.newsguy,com >):

> On May 31, 11:39 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 07:49:25 -0700, jwvm wrote
>> (in article <g1p45l0...@news3.newsguy,com >):
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 29, 10:56 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:49:55 -0700, Dave wrote
>>>> (in article <g1jrej0...@news2.newsguy,com >):
>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote in message
>>>>> news:g14s5n02inn@news1.newsguy,com ...
>>>>>> I thought that the AudioEngine 2 review begged comparison with this one
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> the classic NHT SZ:
>>
>>>>>> http :// www .stereophile,com /loudspeakerreviews/804/index9.html
>>
>>>>> I am curious about the high-pass filter employed in the article. The
>>>>> author
>>>>> notes that the R in the RC filter is in parallel with the amplifier's
>>>>> output
>>>>> impedance of 51K. Given that the amp's impedance is upstream of the
>>>>> capacitor, is this right? Or did he actually construct a filter with a
>>>>> rolloff frequency of 106Hz?
>>
>>>>> Vin Vout
>>>>> o------------||-----------------o
>>>>>> 0.1uF "C" of |
>>>>> \ RC filter \
>>>>> / /
>>>>> 51K \ Amp \ 15K "R" of RC filter
>>>>> / /
>>
>>>>> o-------------------------------o
>>
>>>> That's a classic single-pole high-pass filter "Pi" network. But such a
>>>> filter
>>>> is only 3dB/octave - not very steep.
>>
>>> I am sure that you meant 6 dB/octave. :-)
>>
>> Doesn't that rather depend upon whether your talking about voltage or power?
>> It's been years since I've dealt with this stuff, but it seems to me that
>> the slope of a single-pole filter gives 3dB with voltage and 6dB with power.
>> I could be misremembering though.
>
> Sorry but that is not correct. Measurements in decibels are power
> ratio measurements. The 20log(Vout/Vin) type calculation can be
> rewritten as 10log((Vout/Vin)^2) again showing the power relationship.
> Note also that 6 dB/octave is the same slope as 20 dB/decade. The 3 dB
> figure is the loss at the corner frequency of the first-order filter.

That must have been where I got the 3dB figure from, then. Sorry. A single
pole filter is 6dB/octave

Re: CNET: Audiophile grade computer speakers for $199

On May 29, 10:56 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:49:55 -0700, Dave wrote
> (in article <g1jrej0...@news2.newsguy,com >):
>
>
>
> > "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote in message
> >news:g14s5n02inn@news1.newsguy,com ...
> >> I thought that the AudioEngine 2 review begged comparison with this one
> >> for
> >> the classic NHT SZ:
>
> >> http :// www .stereophile,com /loudspeakerreviews/804/index9.html
>
> > I am curious about the high-pass filter employed in the article. The author
> > notes that the R in the RC filter is in parallel with the amplifier's output
> > impedance of 51K. Given that the amp's impedance is upstream of the
> > capacitor, is this right? Or did he actually construct a filter with a
> > rolloff frequency of 106Hz?
>
> > Vin Vout
> > o------------||-----------------o
> > | 0.1uF "C" of |
> > \ RC filter \
> > / /
> > 51K \ Amp \ 15K "R" of RC filter
> > / /
> > | |
> > o-------------------------------o
>
> That's a classic single-pole high-pass filter "Pi" network. But such a filter
> is only 3dB/octave - not very steep.

Explain, if you will, how a single-pole filter has
a slope of 3 dB/octave.

Re: CNET: Audiophile grade computer speakers for $199

On Fri, 30 May 2008 07:50:09 -0700, dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail,com wrote
(in article <g1p4710bde@news3.newsguy,com >):

> On May 29, 10:56 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:49:55 -0700, Dave wrote
>> (in article <g1jrej0...@news2.newsguy,com >):
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote in message
>>> news:g14s5n02inn@news1.newsguy,com ...
>>>> I thought that the AudioEngine 2 review begged comparison with this one
>>>> for
>>>> the classic NHT SZ:
>>
>>>> http :// www .stereophile,com /loudspeakerreviews/804/index9.html
>>
>>> I am curious about the high-pass filter employed in the article. The
>>> author
>>> notes that the R in the RC filter is in parallel with the amplifier's
>>> output
>>> impedance of 51K. Given that the amp's impedance is upstream of the
>>> capacitor, is this right? Or did he actually construct a filter with a
>>> rolloff frequency of 106Hz?
>>
>>> Vin Vout
>>> o------------||-----------------o
>>>> 0.1uF "C" of |
>>> \ RC filter \
>>> / /
>>> 51K \ Amp \ 15K "R" of RC filter
>>> / /
>>>>>
>>> o-------------------------------o
>>
>> That's a classic single-pole high-pass filter "Pi" network. But such a
>> filter
>> is only 3dB/octave - not very steep.
>
> Explain, if you will, how a single-pole filter has
> a slope of 3 dB/octave.

I'm reasonably sure that a single-pole passive high-pass filter is 3dB down
at half it's corner frequency and rolls off at a rate of 20dB/decade. The
response chart at :

http :// tinyurl,com /5k4tzo

Shows the slope. If you interpolate the graph, you can see that the shown
10KHz high-pass is down by about that much at 5KHz

Re: CNET: Audiophile grade computer speakers for $199

On May 31, 11:30 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2008 07:50:09 -0700, dpierce.cartchunk....@gmail,com wrote
> (in article <g1p4710...@news3.newsguy,com >):
>
>
>
> > On May 29, 10:56 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:49:55 -0700, Dave wrote
> >> (in article <g1jrej0...@news2.newsguy,com >):
>
> >>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote in message
> >>>news:g14s5n02inn@news1.newsguy,com ...
> >>>> I thought that the AudioEngine 2 review begged comparison with this one
> >>>> for
> >>>> the classic NHT SZ:
>
> >>>> http :// www .stereophile,com /loudspeakerreviews/804/index9.html
>
> >>> I am curious about the high-pass filter employed in the article. The
> >>> author
> >>> notes that the R in the RC filter is in parallel with the amplifier's
> >>> output
> >>> impedance of 51K. Given that the amp's impedance is upstream of the
> >>> capacitor, is this right? Or did he actually construct a filter with a
> >>> rolloff frequency of 106Hz?
>
> >>> Vin Vout
> >>> o------------||-----------------o
> >>>> 0.1uF "C" of |
> >>> \ RC filter \
> >>> / /
> >>> 51K \ Amp \ 15K "R" of RC filter
> >>> / /
>
> >>> o-------------------------------o
>
> >> That's a classic single-pole high-pass filter "Pi" network. But such a
> >> filter
> >> is only 3dB/octave - not very steep.
>
> > Explain, if you will, how a single-pole filter has
> > a slope of 3 dB/octave.
>
> I'm reasonably sure that a single-pole passive high-pass
> filter is 3dB down at half it's corner frequency and rolls
> off at a rate of 20dB/decade.

Fine, let's assume that's true. How many octaves
are there per decade? Well, there are about 3 1/3
(since 2^3.33 ~= 10). Thus

20 dB/decade / 3.33 octaves/decade
Hmmm, 6 dB per octave, not 3 dB/octave.

Thus, your own assertion demonstrates that
a single pole filter has a slope of 6 dB/octave
in the stop band.

> The response chart at :
>
> http :// tinyurl,com /5k4tzo
>
> Shows the slope. If you interpolate the graph,
> you can see that the shown 10KHz high-pass
> is down by about that much at 5KHz

No, it shows the slope asymtotically approaching
6 dB/octave. Look, for example, at the difference
between 1 kHz and 500 Hz, 200 Hz and 100 Hz,
and so on. All 6 dB/octave for single pole.

The roloff rate is NOT taken at cutoff, it's taken
in the stop band and is the ultimate roloff rate.

Constructing a 3dB/octave filter with that slope
over a wide bandwidth is not a trivial excercise,
because it implies a "half-pole" filter, somethinfg
that's mathematical nonsense. Instead, ther are
constructed using a series of poles and zeros
staggered evenly in frequency so they do a piece-
wise approximation of a 3 dB/octave slope. But,
in this case, it's a multi-pole filter that has the
(approximate) 3 dB/octave slope.

Bottom line: all of your data confirms that the
rolloff rate of the single pole filters we're talking
about is 6 dB/octave.

Re: CNET: Audiophile grade computer speakers for $199

On Sat, 31 May 2008 20:12:53 -0700, dpierce.cartchunk.org@gmail,com wrote
(in article <g1t43l02mld@news4.newsguy,com >):

> On May 31, 11:30 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 May 2008 07:50:09 -0700, dpierce.cartchunk....@gmail,com wrote
>> (in article <g1p4710...@news3.newsguy,com >):
>>
>>
>>
>>> On May 29, 10:56 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium,com > wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 May 2008 07:49:55 -0700, Dave wrote
>>>> (in article <g1jrej0...@news2.newsguy,com >):
>>
>>>>> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop,com > wrote in message
>>>>> news:g14s5n02inn@news1.newsguy,com ...
>>>>>> I thought that the AudioEngine 2 review begged comparison with this one
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> the classic NHT SZ:
>>
>>>>>> http :// www .stereophile,com /loudspeakerreviews/804/index9.html
>>
>>>>> I am curious about the high-pass filter employed in the article. The
>>>>> author
>>>>> notes that the R in the RC filter is in parallel with the amplifier's
>>>>> output
>>>>> impedance of 51K. Given that the amp's impedance is upstream of the
>>>>> capacitor, is this right? Or did he actually construct a filter with a
>>>>> rolloff frequency of 106Hz?
>>
>>>>> Vin Vout
>>>>> o------------||-----------------o
>>>>>> 0.1uF "C" of |
>>>>> \ RC filter \
>>>>> / /
>>>>> 51K \ Amp \ 15K "R" of RC filter
>>>>> / /
>>
>>>>> o-------------------------------o
>>
>>>> That's a classic single-pole high-pass filter "Pi" network. But such a
>>>> filter
>>>> is only 3dB/octave - not very steep.
>>
>>> Explain, if you will, how a single-pole filter has
>>> a slope of 3 dB/octave.
>>
>> I'm reasonably sure that a single-pole passive high-pass
>> filter is 3dB down at half it's corner frequency and rolls
>> off at a rate of 20dB/decade.
>
> Fine, let's assume that's true. How many octaves
> are there per decade? Well, there are about 3 1/3
> (since 2^3.33 ~= 10). Thus
>
> 20 dB/decade / 3.33 octaves/decade=
>
> Hmmm, 6 dB per octave, not 3 dB/octave.
>
> Thus, your own assertion demonstrates that
> a single pole filter has a slope of 6 dB/octave
> in the stop band.
>
>> The response chart at :
>>
>> http :// tinyurl,com /5k4tzo
>>
>> Shows the slope. If you interpolate the graph,
>> you can see that the shown 10KHz high-pass
>> is down by about that much at 5KHz
>
> No, it shows the slope asymtotically approaching
> 6 dB/octave. Look, for example, at the difference
> between 1 kHz and 500 Hz, 200 Hz and 100 Hz,
> and so on. All 6 dB/octave for single pole.
>
> The roloff rate is NOT taken at cutoff, it's taken
> in the stop band and is the ultimate roloff rate.
>
> Constructing a 3dB/octave filter with that slope
> over a wide bandwidth is not a trivial excercise,
> because it implies a "half-pole" filter, somethinfg
> that's mathematical nonsense. Instead, ther are
> constructed using a series of poles and zeros
> staggered evenly in frequency so they do a piece-
> wise approximation of a 3 dB/octave slope. But,
> in this case, it's a multi-pole filter that has the
> (approximate) 3 dB/octave slope.
>
> Bottom line: all of your data confirms that the
> rolloff rate of the single pole filters we're talking
> about is 6 dB/octave.

OK. I mis-remembered.