Are PC speakers bad?
Reply #10 – 2008-06-12 01:31:14
Sorry, I don't have any experience with studio monitors. I've heard that they have a very flat response, and that the active ones are designed for near-field listening with no reflections. That could be a problem if your computer desk is against a wall or near a corner. Actually, decent active monitors would have several EQ settings to adjust the response to spekaer placement, including by a wall and in a corner. Studio monitors are designed to be flat, so being small (I am talking nearfield monitors here) the cannot reproduce deep bass. Computer speakers cannot do this as well, but they will pretend by emphasing the upper bass a lot. Which of course against studio monitors principle of flat response and no coloration. Studio monitors also tend to be heavy and sturdy. Thick cabinet walls reduce coloration, and amplifiers and drivers are designed to work continously at relatively high power levels. They cannot be tiny, amplifiers need radiators, etc. Computer speakers have often thin, plastic cabinet walls prone to color sound. Studio monitors typically have separate mono amplifiers in each speaker, and, as a consequence, separate volume controls for each speakers. Often the volume controls are on the rear panel, or are non-existent at all. Compuert speakers have typically a stereo amplifier in one speaker with a single volume control, and will send amplified signal to the second speaker. Typically, studio monitors have an AC power cord per speaker, with transformer located inside. Computer speakers are typically powered from an external transformer. Very often studio monitors are bi-amplified: i.e., each speaker has two amplifiers, one for woofer, one for tweeter. I don't think you can find this solution in computer speakers often. Studio monitors typically accept balanced line-level audio connection via XLR and/or TRS connector, plus additionally unbalanced connection via RCA (or TRS using TS plug). There are connectors on the speakers, cables have to be purchased separately. Computer speaker accept unbalanced line-level audio, typically via mini-jack cable which is permanently attached to the speaker that has the amplifier inside. Studio monitors are tuned to be flat, accurate and revealing - this presentation mode may be fatiguing to some. But since my first contact with a studio monitor (passive Tannoy Reveal 6) I am in love with this detailed, mercilessly accurate and unbelievably transparent way of presentation. I listed a number of differences, but at some point the two worlds tend to converge. Small Edirol monitors are typically regarded as low quality and rather approaching the level of computer speakers. Cheap M-Audio monitors, especially the new AV series is also close to being high-quality computer speakers. Even Adam Audio released a small monitor A5 which can be purchased in two or three different colors, and volume can be controlled from one speaker - an obvious attempt to get to the computer speaker market. But it will be the top of this market, a pair of Adam A5 costs ~$700...So I'm saying, there are also expensive PC speakers, the most expensive can go up to 300 dollars for a 5.1 system. There are also cheap "hifi" systems around too, like these Wow, 5.1 for less that 100 bucks - how crappy this must be. Even if "expensive" PC speakers cost up to 300 dollars for a 5.1 system, unexpensive decent studio monitors would be around ~300 a PAIR. More advanced may cost like $1000-$5000 per pair, or even more, if you look into midfield or main monitors. The bottom line is that even though one of the design principles (being active) is commonly shared between studio monitors and computer speakers, there is a lot of differences.