HydrogenAudio

Hey everyone,

I have been wanting to appreciate the quality of FLAC files over mp3 while listening to them on my PC and have been looking into getting a new sound system. My wife surprised me for Christmas and got me a Logitech z-5500, but after doing some research, I am under the impression that this is not a good system for being able to appreciate FLAC (lack of clarity on z5500, made for gaming, etc). Is this true?

If so and if I return the logitech, my budget is between 300-600 dollars and i'm looking for a good recommendation on speakers I can hook up to my PC to listen to FLAC; 2.1 is preferred because the room I have isn't best for surround sound. Anyone have any good recommendations? I'd really appreciate any input here.

You may be setting yourself up for disappointment. There is nothing inherent in the flac [or any other lossless] format that guarantees that a flac file will sound better than an mp3. Many level of mp3 bitrate are transparent [read as indistinguishable to the orginal lossless] to the ears of most humans.

You may be setting yourself up for disappointment. There is nothing inherent in the flac [or any other lossless] format that guarantees that a flac file will sound better than an mp3. Many level of mp3 bitrate are transparent [read as indistinguishable to the orginal lossless] to the ears of most humans.

I was under the impression that with high-quality equipment and trained ears you can tell the difference between let's say, V0 and FLAC, with the FLAC sounding a bit clearer, deeper, richer. I know this isn't a guarantee, but I thought that the quality of your speakers and sound system can largely impact the quality of the sound of your music, no?

I guess what i'm saying is that I want to be able to listen to my music in all it's glory, so to speak.

"Doing some research" on audio equipment on the internet without having good guidelines will only empty your pockets faster, not make your equipment necessarily better. Start with the Terms of Service here, especially #8. You will notice that most people who claim FLAC is so much better than mp3 (especially if they claim "with good enough equipment") can't abide by that, and that should tell you something.

Although your assumption about FLAC being "better" than MP3 V0 may be flawed, there is nothing wrong with seeking higher performance out of your playback system.  If you're currently using speakers of the quality that typically ship with a boxed PC (or internal to a laptop), then there may be much to gain in terms of frequency extension, low distortion, and stereo imaging from a speaker made by a competent manufacturer to a higher price point.  What sounds "best", however, can only be left up to YOU.  Others can tell you what they like -- which can be a good place to start -- but that's no guarantee the same solution will be the one you prefer.

Listen to some different speaker models or, if that's not possible, read some reviews from actual owners for ideas.  Take into account not only the reported sound but the size and aesthetics of the unit (and warranty).  Buy the model that best suits your individual preferences.  There is no substitute for hearing a speaker in the place where you actually plan to use it, so be sure you can return it for a full refund if after a home audition you aren't satisfied (e.g. no "restocking fee"; you'll typically pay return shipping if you've purchased online).  Give yourself time to listen before making a decision; any new speaker introduced into your familiar listening environment will sound "different" in ways you may not be sure you like at first.  You may also need to experiment with placement of the speakers and, if they are sitting on your computer desk, mechanical isolation.

In your price range the first option I'd consider is the B&W MM-1 (http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Speakers/iPod-and-Computer-Speakers/MM-1/overview.html) but that's just me: I've heard them, I like their design, and having owned B&W products in the past I respect the brand.  If you have an Apple Store nearby, you should be able to audition this speaker there.  I'm assuming from your post that you listen primarily while seated at your PC, but if you are looking instead for "room-filling" sound my recommendation might be for something larger depending on the size of your room.

One other thing, listening to my music "in all its glory" often means listening louder than my housemates or neighbors would prefer I do.  For this reason, I often listen via earphones and find it a very satisfying experience.  There are some fine-sounding models available for a fraction of what you are willing to spend.

Make sure you try small studio monitors, these are usually very clear, transparent, capable of reproducing timbres very accurately. From tiny and cheap Yamaha MSP3 ($165 each, note that prices of studio monitors are usally per monitor not per pair) to serious Genelec or Adam-Audio there is plenty to choose from.
Two caveats:
- they usually take balanced XLR or TRS as input, sometimes RCA as well. You will need an adapter when connecting to a computer with consumer audio card, or to a CD player.
- they may have no volume control, or separate volume control for each speaker, sometimes on the front, sometimes on the back. Rarely, and AFAIK only in smaller and cheaper models (e.g. Adam AX3) can volume of both speakers be controlled with a single control. If you can't or don't want to control it at source, you may want to add something like this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5939...log_Stereo.html (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/593908-REG/tc_electronic_967_410001_Level_Pilot_Analog_Stereo.html)

Although your assumption about FLAC being "better" than MP3 V0 may be flawed,

Although we should be very careful to be clear that FLAC should sound no worse than MP3 - FLAC is lossless after all.

Okay well then it's a bit more complicated than i'm making it. Does anyone have any input on the current setup then--the logitech z-5500? Is it a good quality system?

I would say be appreciative of the gift your thoughtful wife gave you for Christmas.

I would say be appreciative of the gift your thoughtful wife gave you for Christmas.

Well that goes without saying; though of course, this being her gift to me in no way effects whether or not I return it because we're going for quality here, and not just settling. I just want to make sure it was worth to drop that much on a sound system and if the investment was a good one.

If you want detailed sound which may increase your chances of telling lossy from lossless (or, rather, increase the bitrate required for transparency), then rather than spending money on expensive speakers, try
- good headphones; if you want a reproduction that doesn't mask differences, you can get it much cheaper than speakers
- choose signals that are easier to tell apart. Which basically means, listen to signals for the sake of training artifacts detection, rather than for the enjoyment of music. (Does that sound ri-D-Q-lous? Sometimes it is fun to play mindgames or eargames, but I'd rather just play music.)

The Z-5500 is a phenomenal system for 2.1 playback.  In fact, Logitech's current flagship is actually a step *down* from the Z-5500 in my esteem.  If your computer has an optical output, disconnect the three surround speakers and use it as a 2.1.  If you're running Windows, there's a built-in feature that allows you to adjust the system to your room using a microphone.  That's exactly the setup I'm running presently, and it sounds crystalline.  You'll never achieve genuine studio monitor + acoustic treatment accuracy that way, but it sounds great just the same.

Also, it's important to stress that a well-encoded, one-pass mp3 will be absolutely indistinguishable from a lossless original to your ears.  The price and/or quality of the system on which you're listening doesn't factor in, since it's your ears which are taken into consideration with the perceptual coding rather than the playback system.  There are still plenty of good reasons to keep FLACs around, but don't lose sleep worrying about audible playback quality differences.

I've never heard those speakers...   

I always recommend that people go to a hi-fi or home theater store and LISTEN to some speakers.    You don't have to go in and buy speakers on your 1st visit, but it's a good idea to listen to several different speakers in different price ranges to get a feel for what you like.

If you are mostly interested in listening to music, you may not need surround sound.  However, I use a Dolby Pro Logic II "soundfiled" setting to send a little artificial reverb to the rear channels when I'm listening to 2-channel stereo.

Every speaker (and every headphone) sounds different, and you need to find a speaker you like.    The specifications can tell you something, but they don't tell you that much useful about the sound.    The "best" speakers cost thousands of dollars and most of us can't afford them, or just don't want to spend that kind of money.      Speakers are not like electronics (CD players,amplifiers, etc.), where you can get equipment that's better than human hearing at relativly low prices.    I wouldn't make a choice based entirely on price, but to a large extent, "You get what you pay for."

Thanks for the input and feedback everyone; I've learned a lot of stuff just from your responses and the research i've done based on some of the things you guys said.

The Z-5500 is a phenomenal system for 2.1 playback.  In fact, Logitech's current flagship is actually a step *down* from the Z-5500 in my esteem.  If your computer has an optical output, disconnect the three surround speakers and use it as a 2.1.  If you're running Windows, there's a built-in feature that allows you to adjust the system to your room using a microphone.  That's exactly the setup I'm running presently, and it sounds crystalline.  You'll never achieve genuine studio monitor + acoustic treatment accuracy that way, but it sounds great just the same.

Also, it's important to stress that a well-encoded, one-pass mp3 will be absolutely indistinguishable from a lossless original to your ears.  The price and/or quality of the system on which you're listening doesn't factor in, since it's your ears which are taken into consideration with the perceptual coding rather than the playback system.  There are still plenty of good reasons to keep FLACs around, but don't lose sleep worrying about audible playback quality differences.

I am currently in the process of upgrading my sound-card as well, and I want to get one that allows optical output. How come you disconnect the other three speakers? Is it just an individual preference kind of thing?

I'm not watching movies on this system these days, I don't have a catalog of 5.1 music, and I have nowhere to put them, hence their chronic hiatus. 

If I was you, I'd buy some Yamaha HS-80M.  Cheap, good, easy to use.

My observation is "um, not computer speakers". FLAC should be no worse than any other media from CD, ever, of course.

I will point to various MPEG tests that show while MP3 and AAC have very, very good results, they do not in fact manage, in the MPEG tests, to be indistinguishable from PCM.

But they are (*(*& good.

I've had very good luck with audioengine A2 speakers on my computer.

I bought the b+w mm-1 usb computer speakers used for around $450. Blows anything else out of the water. Built in high quality dac. BI-AMPED miniature speakers, run by 4 18watt class D amps. Clean down to 57 hz. --All-- the reviews mention that you can definitely hear the difference between wav and mp3.
So you can buy an audioengine, which trys to handle both upper and lower with just one amp, and still requires a usb dac, and still requires some nice mini xlr-rca cables or whatever you connect it with. Or you can buy the mm-1 and forget it. I'm running virtual audio cable and added another usb dac to run my b+w asw610 sub, so now I have the sub to do 27hz-57hz, portable full spectrum dominance from any computer.

I bought the b+w mm-1 usb computer speakers used for around $450. Blows anything else out of the water. Built in high quality dac. BI-AMPED miniature speakers, run by 4 18watt class D amps. Clean down to 57 hz.

TOS# 8. All members that put forth a statement concerning subjective sound quality, must -- to the best of their ability -- provide objective support for their claims. Acceptable means of support are double blind listening tests (ABX or ABC/HR) demonstrating that the member can discern a difference perceptually, together with a test sample to allow others to reproduce their findings. Graphs, non-blind listening tests, waveform difference comparisons, and so on, are not acceptable means of providing support.

--All-- the reviews mention that you can definitely hear the difference between wav and mp3.

A good sign that you've found ignorant reviewers.

--All-- the reviews mention that you can definitely hear the difference between wav and mp3.

If true then it doesn't speak very highly about the speakers, though I don't expect the authors to understand why that is. More likely all those reviews are the usual useless placebophile fluff written to get obsessive compulsives to part with their money.

Quote from: tuffgong on 2013-01-11 05:06:23

--All-- the reviews mention that you can definitely hear the difference between wav and mp3.

If true then it doesn't speak very highly about the speakers, though I don't expect the authors to understand why that is. More likely all those reviews are the usual useless placebophile fluff written to get obsessive compulsives to part with their money.

This is a great youtube video of the mm-1, I hope the quality comes through:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXIWUYq6Ns4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXIWUYq6Ns4)
It did for me. The review that mentions they can hear a difference between bit rates is here:
http://www.tonepublications.com/review/bws...table-speakers/ (http://www.tonepublications.com/review/bws-mm-1-portable-speakers/)
I found others mentioning that they could tell the difference but would rather not go google hunting atm sorry. Perhaps the word all for dramatic effect was the wrong word. Most? Doesn't have the same ring as all.
P.S. These little tiny speakers disappear in the sound field, it's really quite amazing to hear music coming from your center, like a perfectly phased multi thousand speaker would do. Just missing some bass.

I'm not trying to suggest the speakers are bad or even something short of excellent (I don't know or have an opinion either way).  What I'm trying to point out is that anecdotal reviews have no place on this forum.

Oh I see your point now, sorry haven't posted in a long time. Scratch any sort of emotion in my comments, didn't mean to detract. The O.P. should definitely check out the mm-1, they might like it. We'll just leave it at that

I'm not trying to suggest the speakers are bad or even something short of excellent (I don't know or have an opinion either way).  What I'm trying to point out is that anecdotal reviews have no place on this forum.

*nod*

I'd like to add though that the Logitech z-5500 is THX certified.
Which does mean they are (or at least should be) approved per some certification process, and Logitech need to ensure they remain so (in mass production) or they will no longer be allowed to use the THX logo.
I did not look into the THX certification for home equipment/PC gear etc. But I can assume the THX specs either matches the industry standard or slightly surpass it.
I'd suggest to look up the THX specs and certification for those speakers. I do not recall if this exactly, but THX is supposed to be a "Hi Fi" standard, so minimal noise/distortion/coloration, as true as possible to the original material.

THX certification exist for cinema/special setups, home cinema/studios, living room/hifi, computer gear/consoles.
There are differences in the certification for these areas, but do guarantee that a certain minimum standard has been met.
Then again, there is a reason why Lucasfilm and Dolby and DTS etc travel around the world constantly calibrating theaters (and other special setups), even the best gear can sound like crap if setup wrong.

I think the O.P. might be implying he loves two channel audio, and his wife misunderstood and purchased a nice 5.1 system for him, but he really just wants to listen to his flac files. I still think the mm-1 is the best for two channel and simplicity since no separate dac and interconnects, very few cords. Very high wife acceptance factor.

I did not look into the THX certification for home equipment/PC gear etc.

Its just a marketing thing that appeals to low-information consumers.  I think the main requirement is just that someone pays the license fees for the logo.

This is a great youtube video of the mm-1, I hope the quality comes through:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXIWUYq6Ns4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXIWUYq6Ns4)
It did for me. The review that mentions they can hear a difference between bit rates is here:
http://www.tonepublications.com/review/bws...table-speakers/ (http://www.tonepublications.com/review/bws-mm-1-portable-speakers/)

Um, no.  Just...no.  That woo is notoriously strong in that publication.  I wouldn't take anything they write about audio seriously without authoritative independent backup.

In theory thx certification requires home theater setups to crossover at 80hz between mains and subs. Since audio ceases to be positional at 100hz the 12 db/octave rolloffs of the low/high pass filters is assurance that no audible positional frequencies will originate from the sub...but thats all its useful for. Only badly distorted/badly eqd setups will allow you to hear the difference between properly encoded mp3 and source. Thanks to greynol for showing me the light on this! A flat response makes it MORE difficult to hear differences not less.

Mach-x do you have any articles to check out about how sound is not directional below 100hz? That is fascinating, i'd like to learn more.

I'd like to add though that the Logitech z-5500 is THX certified.
Which does mean they are (or at least should be) approved per some certification process, and Logitech need to ensure they remain so (in mass production) ... But I can assume the THX specs either matches the industry standard or slightly surpass it....

...THX certification exist for cinema/special setups, home cinema/studios, living room/hifi, computer gear/consoles.
There are differences in the certification for these areas, but do guarantee that a certain minimum standard has been met.

You are correct. It is not just a "marketing thing" (unless THX, the company, lies to us). I'm not intimately knowledgeable about the specifics for multimedia/computer speakers, but for home gear it generally means three things:

A. Certain minimum performance specs have been met. This varies per device category (and the room size it is meant for in some instances).
B. Certain electrical manipulations to the sound must be offered, on certain devices, at least with switchable, on/off user control.
C. Certain standard settings and connection color coding rules must be adhered to so you can mix and match different (THX certified) brands at will.

I'll throw in a vote for the Audioengine A2s, they're very capable speakers. I use them as a secondary system with a USB DAC fed by a netbook. They'll never reach discotheque sound levels without tearing themselves apart, but at normal volume levels they are amazing, especially the crisp and tight bass they are somehow able to produce despite their small woofers and tiny cabinets.

They're also roughly half the price of the B&W MM-1s (which I haven't had the chance to listen to).

Mach-x do you have any articles to check out about how sound is not directional below 100hz? That is fascinating, i'd like to learn more.

Google is your friend. This is so well known that it wasn't easy for me to find scientific articles giving solid evidence, but if you do the experiment for yourself that is how things generally turn out.

If so and if I return the logitech, my budget is between 300-600 dollars and i'm looking for a good recommendation on speakers I can hook up to my PC to listen to FLAC; 2.1 is preferred because the room I have isn't best for surround sound. Anyone have any good recommendations? I'd really appreciate any input here.

Behringer B2031A. On steroids compared to just about anything else you'll see mentioned here. At least one pair of Audioengine speakers I've seen look a lot like dramatically shrunk, but not that much cheaper versions of them.

Mach-x do you have any articles to check out about how sound is not directional below 100hz? That is fascinating, i'd like to learn more.

It isn't actually a fixed, single frequency for everyone, and it depends on the conditions:

-Is it a pure tone or a band of noise?
-Do you limit it to the subwoofer being at least in the forward hemisphere of the listener only?
-Is the signal a short pulse or a continuous event?
-Is there other music/movie content simultaneously or is the low frequency sound by itself?
-What is the content and level of the other, direction-masking content?

and here's one which stumps many casual tests:

-How careful has the experiment been set up to ensure the directional cues the listener is detecting aren't actually spurious noises such as subwoofer port noise ("chuffing"), mild power cord rattling, subwoofer box panel flexing/creak, or some other object's sympathetic vibration (with higher frequency content) which acts as a "tell".

If you have to walk away with a single frequency in mind that has good, real-world use in almost all applications, I would say think of it as "80 Hz". That is the standard used by many, including all THX systems.

http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Stereo%20Bass.pdf (http://www.nousaine.com/pdfs/Stereo%20Bass.pdf)
http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/research/cat/p...niemiaes118.pdf (http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/research/cat/psychoac/papers/kelloniemiaes118.pdf)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/papers/paper_25/paper_25.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/papers/paper_25/paper_25.shtml)

I will point to various MPEG tests that show while MP3 and AAC have very, very good results, they do not in fact manage, in the MPEG tests, to be indistinguishable from PCM.

Please do point to these tests, or at least clarify their conclusions and implications for lossy codecs. I’m not questioning your experience and knowledge, but this statement, out of context, seems too general and risks misleading people into thinking they will always be able to hear a difference in lossy audio (perhaps assuming they spend a load of money on snake oil first).

Quote from: Woodinville on 2012-12-27 09:42:29

I will point to various MPEG tests that show while MP3 and AAC have very, very good results, they do not in fact manage, in the MPEG tests, to be indistinguishable from PCM.

Please do point to these tests, or at least clarify their conclusions and implications for lossy codecs. I’m not questioning your experience and knowledge, but this statement, out of context, seems too general and risks misleading people into thinking they will always be able to hear a difference in lossy audio (perhaps assuming they spend a load of money on snake oil first).

Are yous suggesting that lossy audio at high enough bitrates *cannot ever* be distinguished from its PCM counterpart?

Even hear on HA we have seen credible reports of 320 kbps LAME mp3  encodes being ABX'd.  It's rare  and I'm not convinced anyone can routinely tell them apart (including self-professed 'audiophile' mp3-haters) --  but that doesn't mean it's impossible.  It depends on who you are (e.g., a codec developer, trained to hear lossy artifacts?) and what you a have encoded, as well as the codec.

Are yous suggesting that lossy audio at high enough bitrates *cannot ever* be distinguished from its PCM counterpart?

Of course not. All I said was that the specific way in which Woodinville referred to the tests might be misleading. I assume they were highly thorough tests designed to catch out even the best codec. But other readers might read that, not think about its actual implications, and just take it to mean that MPEG-based codecs are never going to be transparent. I had to do a double-take, so I don’t think it’s impossible that somebody with (even) less technical knowledge and/or a latent bias against lossy codecs might misinterpret Woodinville’s intended meaning.

Quote from: Woodinville on 2012-12-27 09:42:29

I will point to various MPEG tests that show while MP3 and AAC have very, very good results, they do not in fact manage, in the MPEG tests, to be indistinguishable from PCM.

Please do point to these tests, or at least clarify their conclusions and implications for lossy codecs. I’m not questioning your experience and knowledge, but this statement, out of context, seems too general and risks misleading people into thinking they will always be able to hear a difference in lossy audio (perhaps assuming they spend a load of money on snake oil first).

Look for a JAES article in the archives, co-authored by JJ, that provides a lot of detail about the MPEG listening tests related to AAC, MP3, etc.

I'm sure it exists even though it doesn't seem to be here:

http://home.comcast.net/~retired_old_jj/bibliography.html (http://home.comcast.net/~retired_old_jj/bibliography.html)

I agree with most of the people here.  All of my music is FLAC, but I store my CDs as FLAC not MP3 knowing that I am not getting and audible difference - but so I can burn CDs for friends and when they put it on their PC it won't have been encoded back and forth multiple times. 

I would recommend you look for good speakers, but not because you want them for FLAC.

Quote from: krabapple on 2013-01-17 15:43:13

Are yous suggesting that lossy audio at high enough bitrates *cannot ever* be distinguished from its PCM counterpart?

Of course not. All I said was that the specific way in which Woodinville referred to the tests might be misleading. I assume they were highly thorough tests designed to catch out even the best codec. But other readers might read that, not think about its actual implications, and just take it to mean that MPEG-based codecs are never going to be transparent. I had to do a double-take, so I don’t think it’s impossible that somebody with (even) less technical knowledge and/or a latent bias against lossy codecs might misinterpret Woodinville’s intended meaning.

It depends on how you define 'transparent'.  If you mean 'transparent to most people under most conditions', that reflects the actual state of play for high quality lossy.  But no lossy codec at any setting that I know of is claimed to be transparent to all listeners.

I always chuckle when people want "the best" without realising there's often some very inexpensive ways to have good sounding speakers, etc., without spending an absolute fortune.

My thoughts on "best speakers for FLAC" which would be to switch this question to an audio in general question, and it would be to buy what you can afford and like without relying upon b.s. reviews from so-called "audiophile" magazines, websites, etc. How speakers sounds can be subjective - for instance I've always liked a certain set of Sony headphones for the past 20 years which have always cost under $12 USD, whereas other people may be so biased to call them cheap crap, etc., based solely upon their price alone without having ever listened with them.

I always recommend that people go to a hi-fi or home theater store and LISTEN to some speakers.

The problem with that is they won't necessarily sound like they did in the store as they'll sound in someones apartment or house. I've been there and done that back in the early 1990s when getting a new speaker system and won't fall for some store sound ever again since the rooms they have them in may have acoustic advantages which my house will never have.

Just to reiterate Porcus's reply (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=98503&st=0&p=818460&#entry818460) and some of my earlier comments, the other thing that is funny is the idea that a better speaker is warranted because the source is lossless.

Again, based on my understanding, if anything, it is a lossy source that will warrant a better speaker.  Where the qualities of "better" would be flat frequency response and on/off-axis performance.  Deviations from ideal could break masking of perceptual encoding which is not a factor with lossless sources.

Quote from: DVDdoug on 2012-12-27 01:59:50

I always recommend that people go to a hi-fi or home theater store and LISTEN to some speakers.

The problem with that is they won't necessarily sound like they did in the store as they'll sound in someones apartment or house. I've been there and done that back in the early 1990s when getting a new speaker system and won't fall for some store sound ever again since the rooms they have them in may have acoustic advantages which my house will never have.

Decent shops will usually swipe your card for the full amount and let you try them in your home, or at least a couple of places near me will do that.

Quote from: DVDdoug on 2012-12-27 01:59:50

I always recommend that people go to a hi-fi or home theater store and LISTEN to some speakers.

The problem with that is they won't necessarily sound like they did in the store as they'll sound in someones apartment or house. I've been there and done that back in the early 1990s when getting a new speaker system and won't fall for some store sound ever again since the rooms they have them in may have acoustic advantages which my house will never have.

Yes, of course, the room will affect the sound, somewhat, however I believe that's irrelevant in regards to DVDdoug's comment. When I audition speakers, I'm not expecting the speaker to sound exactly the same as it would in my listening room, what I'm doing is comparing two different speakers to each other, in order to determine which of the two I prefer. I assume the speakers I prefer in the store would be the same I prefer at home.

I assume the speakers I prefer in the store would be the same I prefer at home.

I don't imagine that many here will think that's a good assumption to make.

Quote from: 2tec on 2013-02-02 19:36:13

I assume the speakers I prefer in the store would be the same I prefer at home.

I don't imagine that many here will think that's a good assumption to make.

LOL Of course, if you have a better suggestion, I'm all ears. ;~)

So you agree with me then.

So you agree with me then.

You may be assuming too much. I put in my view. That's enough for me, thanks for your concern.