Thread: [Alsa-user] Bose Companion 5 - any experiences?
Brought to you by:
perex
From: Uli <a.s...@gm...> - 2007-07-28 17:20:12
|
Hi! I wanna get rid of my 10 year old crappy speakers and I'm looking for some really high class speakers and sound card. I did some research and it seems that the Bose Companion 5 provides a very good solution. It includes both - USB sound card and speakers - and people say that it really gives the impression of 5 speakers - although there are only 2. Does anyone have any experience with the bose companion 5? Is it known to work with the usb-audio driver? Is the sound really 5.1? I saw that OSS has some bose specific support in oss/cs4232.c. Didn't see anything in the alsa sources though...might that be a problem? Wouldn't wanna pay 400$ for anything less than optimal sound. If you think the companion 5 isn't it, maybe you have a better suggestion? Thanks, Uli |
From: Bill U. <un...@ph...> - 2007-07-28 18:07:27
|
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Uli wrote: > Hi! > > I wanna get rid of my 10 year old crappy speakers and I'm looking for some > really high class speakers and sound card. > I did some research and it seems that the Bose Companion 5 provides a very good > solution. It includes both - USB sound card and speakers - and people say that > it really gives the impression of 5 speakers - although there are only 2. Sorry but I do not believe it. Your better bet is to buy yourself a good set of headphones a small amp and a good soundcard. Headphones are far easier to make "good" No small speaker ( and I assume you are not going to be mounting 20 litre speakers near your computer) can do bass ( simple physics) and no 2 speakers can do 5.1 (not that I have any idea what the usefullness of 5.1 is). > > Does anyone have any experience with the bose companion 5? Is it known to work > with the usb-audio driver? Is the sound really 5.1? > > I saw that OSS has some bose specific support in oss/cs4232.c. Didn't see > anything in the alsa sources though...might that be a problem? IF they comply with usb standards it should not be a problem. But many do not, and I have no idea if Bose does. > > Wouldn't wanna pay 400$ for anything less than optimal sound. If you think the > companion 5 isn't it, maybe you have a better suggestion? > > Thanks, > > Uli > |
From: David D. <sk...@sk...> - 2007-07-28 18:18:33
|
Bose is known to color sound in a certain way. Its called the "bose sound". In the end its down to whether you like it or not. You should definitely do some thorough testing. Wanting "optimal" sound at 400$ plus surround sound is ludicrous. You will indeed be far better off buying decent headphones for that money. Beginner monitor speakers (not the hifi but studio speakers) barely start around that price, 2.0 setups mind you. The 5.1 is most likely created by psychoacoustic effects, so it can always only be simulated 5.1 - without a sub: no .1! ;-) Bill Unruh wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Uli wrote: > > >> Hi! >> >> I wanna get rid of my 10 year old crappy speakers and I'm looking for some >> really high class speakers and sound card. >> I did some research and it seems that the Bose Companion 5 provides a very good >> solution. It includes both - USB sound card and speakers - and people say that >> it really gives the impression of 5 speakers - although there are only 2. >> > > Sorry but I do not believe it. > > Your better bet is to buy yourself a good set of headphones a small amp and > a good soundcard. Headphones are far easier to make "good" No small speaker > ( and I assume you are not going to be mounting 20 litre speakers near your > computer) can do bass ( simple physics) and no 2 speakers can do 5.1 (not > that I have any idea what the usefullness of 5.1 is). > > >> Does anyone have any experience with the bose companion 5? Is it known to work >> with the usb-audio driver? Is the sound really 5.1? >> >> I saw that OSS has some bose specific support in oss/cs4232.c. Didn't see >> anything in the alsa sources though...might that be a problem? >> > > IF they comply with usb standards it should not be a problem. But many do > not, and I have no idea if Bose does. > > >> Wouldn't wanna pay 400$ for anything less than optimal sound. If you think the >> companion 5 isn't it, maybe you have a better suggestion? >> > > > >> Thanks, >> >> Uli >> >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Alsa-user mailing list > Als...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user > > |
From: Bill U. <un...@ph...> - 2007-07-28 20:22:53
|
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, David Deutsch wrote: > Bose is known to color sound in a certain way. Its called the "bose > sound". In the end its down to whether you like it or not. You should > definitely do some thorough testing. > > Wanting "optimal" sound at 400$ plus surround sound is ludicrous. You > will indeed be far better off buying decent headphones for that money. > Beginner monitor speakers (not the hifi but studio speakers) barely > start around that price, 2.0 setups mind you. Of course if you are handy with woodwork, you can always build your own speakers and end up with a pretty impressive set. Eg. Look at http://www.zaphaudio.com/ for some speaker building plans, including cheap but good ones. You will end up with something far better than you could ever buy. Then buy a TransAudio T10.1 stereo amp and feed it off Maudio Transit sound card ( they do pretty well in my tests), and you will have your sub 400 very high quality system. Bass will be a bit deficient, but for that you would have to build yourself a real subwoffer for another $100 or so ( parts and materials) plus another amp. > > The 5.1 is most likely created by psychoacoustic effects, so it can > always only be simulated 5.1 - without a sub: no .1! ;-) > > Bill Unruh wrote: >> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Uli wrote: >> >> >>> Hi! >>> >>> I wanna get rid of my 10 year old crappy speakers and I'm looking for some >>> really high class speakers and sound card. >>> I did some research and it seems that the Bose Companion 5 provides a very good >>> solution. It includes both - USB sound card and speakers - and people say that >>> it really gives the impression of 5 speakers - although there are only 2. >>> >> >> Sorry but I do not believe it. >> >> Your better bet is to buy yourself a good set of headphones a small amp and >> a good soundcard. Headphones are far easier to make "good" No small speaker >> ( and I assume you are not going to be mounting 20 litre speakers near your >> computer) can do bass ( simple physics) and no 2 speakers can do 5.1 (not >> that I have any idea what the usefullness of 5.1 is). >> >> >>> Does anyone have any experience with the bose companion 5? Is it known to work >>> with the usb-audio driver? Is the sound really 5.1? >>> >>> I saw that OSS has some bose specific support in oss/cs4232.c. Didn't see >>> anything in the alsa sources though...might that be a problem? >>> >> >> IF they comply with usb standards it should not be a problem. But many do >> not, and I have no idea if Bose does. >> >> >>> Wouldn't wanna pay 400$ for anything less than optimal sound. If you think the >>> companion 5 isn't it, maybe you have a better suggestion? >>> >> >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Uli >>> >>> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. >> Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. >> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. >> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Alsa-user mailing list >> Als...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Alsa-user mailing list > Als...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user > -- William G. Unruh | Canadian Institute for| Tel: +1(604)822-3273 Physics&Astronomy | Advanced Research | Fax: +1(604)822-5324 UBC, Vancouver,BC | Program in Cosmology | un...@ph... Canada V6T 1Z1 | and Gravity | www.theory.physics.ubc.ca/ |
From: Uli <a.s...@gm...> - 2007-07-28 20:30:01
|
David Deutsch <skOre <at> skOre.de> writes: > > Bose is known to color sound in a certain way. Its called the "bose > sound". In the end its down to whether you like it or not. You should > definitely do some thorough testing. I heard it's strong mids...I like that but I'd definitely wanna hear it first of course. > Wanting "optimal" sound at 400$ plus surround sound is ludicrous. You > will indeed be far better off buying decent headphones for that money. > Beginner monitor speakers (not the hifi but studio speakers) barely > start around that price, 2.0 setups mind you. Ok, say I'd be willing to pay 2k max for a complete 5.1 setup including sound card, amp, and speakers. What would you suggest? > The 5.1 is most likely created by psychoacoustic effects, so it can > always only be simulated 5.1 - without a sub: no .1! Yeah sry, I forgot to mention it but the system includes a subwoofer. Thanks, Uli |
From: Uli <a.s...@gm...> - 2007-07-28 20:23:36
|
Bill Unruh <unruh <at> physics.ubc.ca> writes: [snip] > Your better bet is to buy yourself a good set of headphones a small amp and > a good soundcard. Headphones are far easier to make "good" No small speaker > ( and I assume you are not going to be mounting 20 litre speakers near your > computer) can do bass ( simple physics) and no 2 speakers can do 5.1 (not > that I have any idea what the usefullness of 5.1 is). The system does include a subwoofer, sry I forgot to mention that, see here[1]. I do own two sennheiser headphones. A PC sommething headset (also comes with a soundcard,about 100$) and a fairly old sennheiser hd560 ovation II (was 150$). But I'd like some surround sound...not sure if there exist decent headphones that can do that. Besides headphones, what would be your suggestion then? Should I use some cheap sound card with digital output and go for a high quality digital amp? And a separate set of 5.1 speakers? Not sure what you mean with 5.1 not being useful...what's the alternative if you want surround sound? Thanks, Uli [1] http://www.bose.com/controller?event=VIEW_PRODUCT_PAGE_EVENT&product=companion5_multimedia_index |
From: Bill U. <un...@ph...> - 2007-07-28 20:49:07
|
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Uli wrote: > Bill Unruh <unruh <at> physics.ubc.ca> writes: > [snip] >> Your better bet is to buy yourself a good set of headphones a small amp and >> a good soundcard. Headphones are far easier to make "good" No small speaker >> ( and I assume you are not going to be mounting 20 litre speakers near your >> computer) can do bass ( simple physics) and no 2 speakers can do 5.1 (not >> that I have any idea what the usefullness of 5.1 is). > > The system does include a subwoofer, sry I forgot to mention that, see here[1]. That subwoofer is smaller than 1cu ft. There is no way you can get anything under 100Hz from that. Ie, the woofer is a squeeker-- there is nothing sub about it. . > > I do own two sennheiser headphones. A PC sommething headset (also comes with a > soundcard,about 100$) and a fairly old sennheiser hd560 ovation II (was 150$). > But I'd like some surround sound...not sure if there exist decent headphones > that can do that. You have only two ears. The only difference in the sound coming in from the back is a fall off in the high freq response above about 1KHz (shielding by your ears. If you happen to have no outer ears there will be absolutely no difference. If you happen to have sticky out ears, there will be a greated roll off. )Ie, the in ear response can easily be duplicated by earphones with some tweaking of the signals. That $100 soundcard is almost certainly very poor. ( You could try using my testing program www.theory.physics.ubc.ca/soundcard/soundcard.html)) Ie, the biggest problem with headphones is that the separation of sounds is too great. There exist cicuits which will feed one channel to the other side with the right phase and amplitude info. In fact sox has a module included to do that, but that is clearly useful only for preprocessing sound. Ie, a good pair of headphones augmented with sound processing circuitry will almost certainly be more satisfying than that Bose system. Eg, The Grado Labs SR60s ( which have gotten very good reviews) which I have and like will set you back about $70, plus a good soundcard will almost certainly sound better than any $400 system. > > Besides headphones, what would be your suggestion then? > Should I use some cheap sound card with digital output and go for a high quality > digital amp? And a separate set of 5.1 speakers? > > Not sure what you mean with 5.1 not being useful...what's the alternative if you > want surround sound? > > > Thanks, > > Uli > > [1] > http://www.bose.com/controller?event=VIEW_PRODUCT_PAGE_EVENT&product=companion5_multimedia_index > > |
From: Bill U. <un...@ph...> - 2007-07-28 20:53:19
|
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Uli wrote: > David Deutsch <skOre <at> skOre.de> writes: > >> >> Bose is known to color sound in a certain way. Its called the "bose >> sound". In the end its down to whether you like it or not. You should >> definitely do some thorough testing. > > I heard it's strong mids...I like that but I'd definitely wanna hear it first of > course. > >> Wanting "optimal" sound at 400$ plus surround sound is ludicrous. You >> will indeed be far better off buying decent headphones for that money. >> Beginner monitor speakers (not the hifi but studio speakers) barely >> start around that price, 2.0 setups mind you. > > Ok, say I'd be willing to pay 2k max for a complete 5.1 setup including sound > card, amp, and speakers. What would you suggest? > >> The 5.1 is most likely created by psychoacoustic effects, so it can >> always only be simulated 5.1 - without a sub: no .1! I have no idea what "simulated 5.1" is. You only have two ears. And no number of speakers will alter that. > > Yeah sry, I forgot to mention it but the system includes a subwoofer. No it does not. It includes what could only with great charity be called a woofer, and most audiophiles would call a midrange. > > Thanks, > > Uli > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Alsa-user mailing list > Als...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user > -- William G. Unruh | Canadian Institute for| Tel: +1(604)822-3273 Physics&Astronomy | Advanced Research | Fax: +1(604)822-5324 UBC, Vancouver,BC | Program in Cosmology | un...@ph... Canada V6T 1Z1 | and Gravity | www.theory.physics.ubc.ca/ |
From: David D. <sk...@sk...> - 2007-07-29 08:46:34
|
Bill Unruh wrote: > On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Uli wrote: > > >> David Deutsch <skOre <at> skOre.de> writes: >> >> >>> Bose is known to color sound in a certain way. Its called the "bose >>> sound". In the end its down to whether you like it or not. You should >>> definitely do some thorough testing. >>> >> I heard it's strong mids...I like that but I'd definitely wanna hear it first of >> course. >> >> >>> Wanting "optimal" sound at 400$ plus surround sound is ludicrous. You >>> will indeed be far better off buying decent headphones for that money. >>> Beginner monitor speakers (not the hifi but studio speakers) barely >>> start around that price, 2.0 setups mind you. >>> >> Ok, say I'd be willing to pay 2k max for a complete 5.1 setup including sound >> card, amp, and speakers. What would you suggest? >> >> >>> The 5.1 is most likely created by psychoacoustic effects, so it can >>> always only be simulated 5.1 - without a sub: no .1! >>> > > I have no idea what "simulated 5.1" is. You only have two ears. And no > number of speakers will alter that. > > Of course not. But what you can do is compute how the sound would come out if it were 5 speakers. Yes you have only two ears, with each one, you should normally hear each of these 5 the same, but there are small differences that make your brain compute where that sound is from. You can simulate this (by filters and pitch manipulation iirc) and thus create how each of the 5 speakers WOULD sound like to your ear. The tricky part now is that this is normally only done for headphones, so I guess you would have to put in some more magic for 2 speakers. But I'd say that you could come close. Real 5.1 however is only approachable in that way since everybody has different ears. > >> Yeah sry, I forgot to mention it but the system includes a subwoofer. >> > > No it does not. It includes what could only with great charity be called a > woofer, and most audiophiles would call a midrange. > >> Thanks, >> >> Uli >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. >> Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. >> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. >> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ >> _______________________________________________ >> Alsa-user mailing list >> Als...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user >> >> > > |
From: Uli <a.s...@gm...> - 2007-07-29 09:45:44
|
David Deutsch <skOre <at> skOre.de> writes: > Bill Unruh wrote: [snip] > > I have no idea what "simulated 5.1" is. You only have two ears. And no > > number of speakers will alter that. > > > > > Of course not. But what you can do is compute how the sound would come > out if it were 5 speakers. Yes you have only two ears, with each one, > you should normally hear each of these 5 the same, but there are small > differences that make your brain compute where that sound is from. You > can simulate this (by filters and pitch manipulation iirc) and thus > create how each of the 5 speakers WOULD sound like to your ear. The > tricky part now is that this is normally only done for headphones, so I > guess you would have to put in some more magic for 2 speakers. But I'd > say that you could come close. Real 5.1 however is only approachable in > that way since everybody has different ears. It also comes at the prize of a very specific speaker setup. According to a review I've read bose recommends that the speakers are about 60cm in front of you, facing straight ahead, and that the distance between the two is also about 60cm. Anything else and surround sound is gone. However, once you have that setup the guy says it would sound as if that chopper would be coming from behind you :) Uli |
From: Jamie L. <ja...@sh...> - 2007-07-29 21:20:13
|
Bill Unruh wrote: > > Ok, say I'd be willing to pay 2k max for a complete 5.1 setup > > including sound card, amp, and speakers. What would you suggest? > > > >> The 5.1 is most likely created by psychoacoustic effects, so it can > >> always only be simulated 5.1 - without a sub: no .1! > > I have no idea what "simulated 5.1" is. You only have two ears. And no > number of speakers will alter that. Sure, if you never move your head in any direction, not even breathing, and you don't relax your ear positioning muscles in response to the sound. If you want the sound to sound like real sound which matches what _your_ ears will percieve "as if you were there", you have to produce a three dimensional sound field. 5.1 is just an approximation of course. As a looser approximation, if you want to forgo the effect of physical/physiological changes and just sound "as if you were there but no part of you moves" with psychoacoustic mixing to 2 speakers, that requires calibrating to your head and ears. Or you can produce a more diverse sound field with more speakers, and require less fine, personalised calibration for equivalent results... IMHO, anyone who calls themselves an audiophile and does not care about the interplay of the sound field with their physiology and physicality has clearly never really listened to anything :-) -- Jamie |
From: Uli <a.s...@gm...> - 2007-07-29 09:36:03
|
Bill Unruh <unruh <at> physics.ubc.ca> writes: [snip] > You have only two ears. The only difference in the sound coming in from the > back is a fall off in the high freq response above about 1KHz (shielding by > your ears. If you happen to have no outer ears there will be absolutely no > difference. If you happen to have sticky out ears, there will be a greated > roll off. )Ie, the in ear response can easily be duplicated by earphones > with some tweaking of the signals. The whole thing doesn't seem so easy...last year I heard from the guys at some fraunhofer institute (the one that invented mp3 and aac) that they'd still be working on a solution for that (which they'd probably sell to apple). They wanted to ship some calibration tool with the system with which you could make some adjustments for your head dimensions. I also heard that currently headphones are sold with multiple speakers in them to do the same. > That $100 soundcard is almost certainly > very poor. ( You could try using my testing program > www.theory.physics.ubc.ca/soundcard/soundcard.html)) Sounds real interesting...I'll give it a shot once I've found a cable to connect in- and output. I wonder how the Sennheiser card performs in comparison to my onboard hda-intel. > Ie, the biggest problem with headphones is that the separation of sounds is > too great. There exist cicuits which will feed one channel to the other > side with the right phase and amplitude info. In fact sox has a module > included to do that, but that is clearly useful only for preprocessing > sound. Ie, a good pair of headphones augmented with sound processing > circuitry will almost certainly be more satisfying than that Bose system. > Eg, The Grado Labs SR60s ( which have gotten very good reviews) which I > have and like will set you back about $70, plus a good soundcard will > almost certainly sound better than any $400 system. You're probably right about that. I just looked at the market for PC speakers and the bose system seems to be the best there is according to its price tag and the reviews I've seen. I'll have a look if I can try those grado headphones somewhere. With which sound card would you be running them? That maudio transit you suggested? Would that also be the right choice if one would use a digital amp and some speaker system with it? But like I said I wouldn't be afraid to spend some more money on a sound system if I'd get a decent gain in quality. Unfortunately, there'd be 3 choices to make...sound card, amp, and speakers. Although I just saw an amp from harman kardon[1] for about $1400 which apparently also has a USB audio card in it. How about that? Although one should probably invest more money into the speakers than the amp... Thanks, Uli [1] http://www.harmankardon.com/product_detail.aspx?Region=EUROPE&Country=DE&Language=ENG&cat=REC&prod=AVR%20645/230&sType=C |
From: Bill U. <un...@ph...> - 2007-07-29 17:17:35
|
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, Uli wrote: > Bill Unruh <unruh <at> physics.ubc.ca> writes: > [snip] >> You have only two ears. The only difference in the sound coming in from the >> back is a fall off in the high freq response above about 1KHz (shielding by >> your ears. If you happen to have no outer ears there will be absolutely no >> difference. If you happen to have sticky out ears, there will be a greated >> roll off. )Ie, the in ear response can easily be duplicated by earphones >> with some tweaking of the signals. > > The whole thing doesn't seem so easy...last year I heard from the guys at some > fraunhofer institute (the one that invented mp3 and aac) that they'd still be > working on a solution for that (which they'd probably sell to apple). They > wanted to ship some calibration tool with the system with which you could make > some adjustments for your head dimensions. I also heard that currently > headphones are sold with multiple speakers in them to do the same. > > >> That $100 soundcard is almost certainly >> very poor. ( You could try using my testing program >> www.theory.physics.ubc.ca/soundcard/soundcard.html)) > > Sounds real interesting...I'll give it a shot once I've found a cable to connect > in- and output. I wonder how the Sennheiser card performs in comparison to my > onboard hda-intel. > >> Ie, the biggest problem with headphones is that the separation of sounds is >> too great. There exist cicuits which will feed one channel to the other >> side with the right phase and amplitude info. In fact sox has a module >> included to do that, but that is clearly useful only for preprocessing >> sound. Ie, a good pair of headphones augmented with sound processing >> circuitry will almost certainly be more satisfying than that Bose system. >> Eg, The Grado Labs SR60s ( which have gotten very good reviews) which I >> have and like will set you back about $70, plus a good soundcard will >> almost certainly sound better than any $400 system. > > You're probably right about that. I just looked at the market for PC speakers > and the bose system seems to be the best there is according to its price tag and > the reviews I've seen. There is a real problem between price and quality and exactly what you want with the end result. As I said, if you are handy with tools, making your own speakers is probably the way to go, but that is useless if you are not. The cheap ( about $100) TransAudio T10.1 has gotten rave reviews as an amplifier-- but it is purely stereo and only 15 watts, so it is not going to blast low efficiency speaker-- which any small speaker system will be. > > I'll have a look if I can try those grado headphones somewhere. With which sound > card would you be running them? That maudio transit you suggested? Would that I am not enamoured of the maudio transit, because of there total lack of commitment to Linux. I once asked them which of the files which they sent with their card was the firmware which the Windows system installed and they told me that that information was proprietary. I found out which it was by reading one of their files. Sheesh. On the other hand the card does have very good distorition/noise figures from what I have tested. (The intel onboard cards can be reasonable or terrible.) Note that my testing program works most simply with oss, not alsa. It can be used with alsa with a bit more effort. Also if you are going to be using CD format output, do not get one of the Soundblaster type cars which ONLY work at 48000 Bps. output. They have to speed convert CD rate cards, and alsa speed conversion introduces a lot of noise and distortion ( AFAIK they still only use linear interpolation, which is pretty terrible) I do not however know what the output of computer games is. (ie what rate their output runs at). > also be the right choice if one would use a digital amp and some speaker system > with it? > > But like I said I wouldn't be afraid to spend some more money on a sound system > if I'd get a decent gain in quality. Unfortunately, there'd be 3 choices to > make...sound card, amp, and speakers. Although I just saw an amp from harman > kardon[1] for about $1400 which apparently also has a USB audio card in it. How > about that? I would go for a good soundcard and amp separately. Otherwise you may well get mediocre in both. 1.4K sounds pretty expensive for and amp plus soundcard. By this time making good amps is cheap. > Although one should probably invest more money into the speakers than the amp... Yes. generally that is true. I just noticed on googling that Turtle beach makes a usb soundcard with the head transfer function for headphone built into the soundcard, and it's $39 or so. No idea if it is any good however. Turtle beach did make some pretty good soundcards but I do not know if this is one of them. All I want to say is that if you expand your range of options to include headphones, your options are increased and your pricing drastically decreased. Of course if you want two or three people to all enjoy the sound together, headphones do not really cut it. You could buy two or three pairs of headphones, but that tends to isolate the people instead of bringing them together. (But then 5.1 makes little sense since you pretty well have to sit in the sweet spot to get the 5.1 effect) > > > Thanks, > > Uli > > [1] > http://www.harmankardon.com/product_detail.aspx?Region=EUROPE&Country=DE&Language=ENG&cat=REC&prod=AVR%20645/230&sType=C |
From: David D. <sk...@sk...> - 2007-07-29 09:53:39
|
Uli wrote: > It also comes at the prize of a very specific speaker setup. According > to a review I've read bose recommends that the speakers are about 60cm > in front of you, facing straight ahead, and that the distance between > the two is also about 60cm. Anything else and surround sound is gone. > However, once you have that setup the guy says it would sound as if > that chopper would be coming from behind you :) > Uli > Heh, that is strange for sure. Maybe they could get that figure down to 10cm and then you could just as well get headphones? Also - 60cm between the speakers is a nice space to fit a screen in is it not? Then again - who would want to sit at 60cm proximity to anything larger than a 17" screen. What a crappy idea given that people want 5.1 to watch movies. I always thought people preferred to do that in spaces called living rooms. Ah wait - then its to far from the speakers again! It seems some audio company should have done a bit more research. |
From: Bill U. <un...@ph...> - 2007-07-29 17:20:37
|
On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, David Deutsch wrote: > Uli wrote: >> It also comes at the prize of a very specific speaker setup. According >> to a review I've read bose recommends that the speakers are about 60cm >> in front of you, facing straight ahead, and that the distance between >> the two is also about 60cm. Anything else and surround sound is gone. >> However, once you have that setup the guy says it would sound as if >> that chopper would be coming from behind you :) >> Uli >> > > Heh, that is strange for sure. Maybe they could get that figure down to > 10cm and then you could just as well get headphones? Also - 60cm between > the speakers is a nice space to fit a screen in is it not? Then again - > who would want to sit at 60cm proximity to anything larger than a 17" > screen. What a crappy idea given that people want 5.1 to watch movies. I > always thought people preferred to do that in spaces called living > rooms. Ah wait - then its to far from the speakers again! They are designed for computer speakers, not for living rooms or movies-- ie for computer game playing. > > It seems some audio company should have done a bit more research. They have. It is called market research, not audio research however. |
From: David D. <sk...@sk...> - 2007-07-29 20:27:18
|
Bill Unruh wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, David Deutsch wrote: > >> Uli wrote: >>> It also comes at the prize of a very specific speaker setup. According >>> to a review I've read bose recommends that the speakers are about 60cm >>> in front of you, facing straight ahead, and that the distance between >>> the two is also about 60cm. Anything else and surround sound is gone. >>> However, once you have that setup the guy says it would sound as if >>> that chopper would be coming from behind you :) >>> Uli >>> >> >> Heh, that is strange for sure. Maybe they could get that figure down to >> 10cm and then you could just as well get headphones? Also - 60cm between >> the speakers is a nice space to fit a screen in is it not? Then again - >> who would want to sit at 60cm proximity to anything larger than a 17" >> screen. What a crappy idea given that people want 5.1 to watch movies. I >> always thought people preferred to do that in spaces called living >> rooms. Ah wait - then its to far from the speakers again! > > They are designed for computer speakers, not for living rooms or movies-- > ie for computer game playing. > > Arguably comfortable still. >> >> It seems some audio company should have done a bit more research. > > They have. It is called market research, not audio research however. > Indeed :-) Nor sensible research. |
From: Rene H. <ren...@gm...> - 2007-07-29 21:13:35
|
On 07/28/2007 07:18 PM, Uli wrote: > Does anyone have any experience with the bose companion 5? Is it known to > work with the usb-audio driver? Is the sound really 5.1? > > I saw that OSS has some bose specific support in oss/cs4232.c. Didn't see > anything in the alsa sources though...might that be a problem? No other info, but thought I'd point out that oss/cs4232.c wouldn't have anything to do with any USB audio card. The CS4232 is an old ISA chip. Rene. |
From: Uli <a.s...@gm...> - 2007-07-30 00:23:15
|
Bill Unruh <unruh <at> physics.ubc.ca> writes: [snip] > There is a real problem between price and quality and exactly what you want > with the end result. As I said, if you are handy with tools, making your > own speakers is probably the way to go, but that is useless if you are not. > The cheap ( about $100) TransAudio T10.1 has gotten rave reviews as an > amplifier-- but it is purely stereo and only 15 watts, so it is not going > to blast low efficiency speaker-- which any small speaker system will be. I'm not very handy with tools so I wouldn't dare trying to build my own speakers :) Maybe I'll just by a decent amp and a sound card first and use them with my headphones. Then I can check out some speakers. I can't find that transaudio amp anywhere. I did some more research on amps though and it seems that marantz do build quite good amps for reasonable prices by concentrating on the important stuff - leaving out ipod,ethernet,usb connectors and the like. Also, their amps do have this 'dolby headphone'[1] technology which means one could use some high-end headphones with it and check out the surround sound. I'm considering the SR7001[2] or maybe SR8001 if I can find a good offer somewhere. > Note that my testing program works most simply with oss, not alsa. It can > be used with alsa with a bit more effort. Also if you are going to be using > CD format output, do not get one of the Soundblaster type cars which ONLY > work at 48000 Bps. output. They have to speed convert CD rate cards, and > alsa speed conversion introduces a lot of noise and distortion ( AFAIK they > still only use linear interpolation, which is pretty terrible) I do not > however know what the output of computer games is. (ie what rate their > output runs at). I believe my hda-intel nvidia is one of those running only at 48khz so I'm probably suffering from that interpolation problem. So the m-audio and turtle cards can do 44.1khz also? > I would go for a good soundcard and amp separately. Otherwise you may well > get mediocre in both. 1.4K sounds pretty expensive for and amp plus > soundcard. By this time making > good amps is cheap. I hope so! :) > I just noticed on googling that Turtle beach makes a usb soundcard with the > head transfer function for headphone built into the soundcard, and it's $39 > or so. No idea if it is any good however. Turtle beach did make some > pretty good soundcards but I do not know if this is one of them. If I understand correctly this system adds surround effects to a stereo signal? I think I'd prefer the dolby headphone solution which - apparently - uses a surround input signal and converts it into stereo. Maybe that chopper will actually appear to be coming from behind then :) > All I want to say is that if you expand your range of options to include > headphones, your options are increased and your pricing drastically > decreased. Of course if you want two or three people to all enjoy the sound > together, headphones do not really cut it. You could buy two or three > pairs of headphones, but that tends to isolate the people instead of > bringing them together. > (But then 5.1 makes little sense since you pretty well have to sit in the > sweet spot to get the 5.1 effect) I agree with you. I do use headphones a lot and currently my room is also quite small so that I probably couldn't fully enjoy a surround system. And if I can get some surround sound with headphones - even better. However, since a bigger a room ain't too far in the future I want my equipment to be ready for bigger challenges. Uli [1] http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/headphone.html [2] http://us.marantz.com/Products/1881.asp |
From: Bill U. <un...@ph...> - 2007-07-30 15:45:15
|
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007, Uli wrote: > Bill Unruh <unruh <at> physics.ubc.ca> writes: > [snip] >> There is a real problem between price and quality and exactly what you want >> with the end result. As I said, if you are handy with tools, making your >> own speakers is probably the way to go, but that is useless if you are not. >> The cheap ( about $100) TransAudio T10.1 has gotten rave reviews as an >> amplifier-- but it is purely stereo and only 15 watts, so it is not going >> to blast low efficiency speaker-- which any small speaker system will be. > > I'm not very handy with tools so I wouldn't dare trying to build my own speakers Too bad. It is a good way of getting great speakers for much less than you would pay in the stores. But it does require some skill. > :) Maybe I'll just by a decent amp and a sound card first and use them with my > headphones. Then I can check out some speakers. At least some soundcards have enough power to drive headphones, esp high impedance ones. But that usually is not enough to permanantly deafen you after 5 min use. > > I can't find that transaudio amp anywhere. I did some more research on amps Just goes to show what happens when you rely on memory. That is Trends Audio TA10.1 However they cannot be used with headphones, since there is no common ground, and you will blow the unit if you try to make a common ground ( both sides are already biamped). The advantage is price, size and very low heat generation. ( About 4x2x3 in size plus one of those laptop computer type power bars, and with an efficiency of about 90% at all power levels) plus the reveiws give it very high marks for sound. > though and it seems that marantz do build quite good amps for reasonable prices > by concentrating on the important stuff - leaving out ipod,ethernet,usb > connectors and the like. Also, their amps do have this 'dolby headphone'[1] > technology which means one could use some high-end headphones with it and check > out the surround sound. I'm considering the SR7001[2] or maybe SR8001 if I can > find a good offer somewhere. No idea what the "dolby headphone" technology is. > >> Note that my testing program works most simply with oss, not alsa. It can >> be used with alsa with a bit more effort. Also if you are going to be using >> CD format output, do not get one of the Soundblaster type cars which ONLY >> work at 48000 Bps. output. They have to speed convert CD rate cards, and >> alsa speed conversion introduces a lot of noise and distortion ( AFAIK they >> still only use linear interpolation, which is pretty terrible) I do not >> however know what the output of computer games is. (ie what rate their >> output runs at). > > I believe my hda-intel nvidia is one of those running only at 48khz so I'm > probably suffering from that interpolation problem. So the m-audio and turtle > cards can do 44.1khz also? hda-intel usually can do 44.1 ( and 48 as well) hardware clocks. Ie, you can set the clock speed. The soundblaster only do 48 and thus the software interpolation. > >> I would go for a good soundcard and amp separately. Otherwise you may well >> get mediocre in both. 1.4K sounds pretty expensive for and amp plus >> soundcard. By this time making >> good amps is cheap. > > I hope so! :) > >> I just noticed on googling that Turtle beach makes a usb soundcard with the >> head transfer function for headphone built into the soundcard, and it's $39 >> or so. No idea if it is any good however. Turtle beach did make some >> pretty good soundcards but I do not know if this is one of them. The online reviews of this turtle beach card are really terrible. I would stay far away from it. Sorry for the false alarm. > > If I understand correctly this system adds surround effects to a stereo signal? > I think I'd prefer the dolby headphone solution which - apparently - uses a > surround input signal and converts it into stereo. Maybe that chopper will > actually appear to be coming from behind then :) > >> All I want to say is that if you expand your range of options to include >> headphones, your options are increased and your pricing drastically >> decreased. Of course if you want two or three people to all enjoy the sound >> together, headphones do not really cut it. You could buy two or three >> pairs of headphones, but that tends to isolate the people instead of >> bringing them together. >> (But then 5.1 makes little sense since you pretty well have to sit in the >> sweet spot to get the 5.1 effect) > > I agree with you. I do use headphones a lot and currently my room is also quite > small so that I probably couldn't fully enjoy a surround system. And if I can While I agree that headphones cannot give you complete "surround sound" (eg head movement as spatial localisation mechanism) most rooms and speaker systems do not either (your can localise the speakers easily if your head moves out of the sweet spot or you do not adjust it just right.) And good headphones are a lot cheaper than good speakers. > get some surround sound with headphones - even better. However, since a bigger a > room ain't too far in the future I want my equipment to be ready for bigger > challenges. > > Uli > > [1] http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/headphone.html > [2] http://us.marantz.com/Products/1881.asp > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. > Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. > Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. > Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Alsa-user mailing list > Als...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-user > -- William G. Unruh | Canadian Institute for| Tel: +1(604)822-3273 Physics&Astronomy | Advanced Research | Fax: +1(604)822-5324 UBC, Vancouver,BC | Program in Cosmology | un...@ph... Canada V6T 1Z1 | and Gravity | www.theory.physics.ubc.ca/ |
From: Chris S. <ch...@re...> - 2007-07-30 16:28:30
|
On Saturday 28 July 2007, Uli wrote: > I wanna get rid of my 10 year old crappy speakers and I'm looking for some > really high class speakers and sound card. http://www.hometheaterblog.com/hometheater/2006/03/what_about_bose.html Sound Card Suggestions... PCI: http://www.rme-audio.de/en_products_hdsp_9632.php PCI Express: http://www.rme-audio.de/en_products_hdsp_9632_e.php Speaker suggestions... http://mackie.com/products/hrmk2/splash.html or smaller... http://mackie.com/products/hr624/index.html The 9632 and the original HR824's work really well here. -- Chris |
From: Sergei S. <ste...@li...> - 2007-07-31 21:06:18
|
On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:41:17 -0700 (PDT) Bill Unruh <un...@ph...> wrote: [snip] > > But the question is, for a given amount of money ($400 in the OP case) for > which do you get the bigger bang ( or the better soundstage) for the buck. > I would argue that it is for the headphone route. > Still, it's not clear. I have built a pair of stereo speakers based on "Infinity" car component speakers (way back in 2004) - absolutely marvelous, many friends and non-friends think so :-). The drivers (transducers) were ~$200 (i.e. two $100 sets). Amplifier ... Well, maybe the legendary "GainClone". Here are some links - have not checked them lately: http://eshop.diyclub.biz/product_info.php?products_id=441 http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM3886.html http://www.mhennessy.f9.co.uk/gainclone/ ... and on snubbers: http://www.hagtech.com/pdf/snubber.pdf an amplifier needs a power supply :-). Regards, Sergei. |