Best 2.1 Sound System for Under $400

[esldude]

23 hours ago, patagent said:

In your situation, I would look at active speakers like the JBL LSR 305's which are $288 per pair on Amazon.  Might be able to find them cheaper elsewhere.  A ton of positive reviews for these.  I would also look at a sub $100 DAC (audio recording interface) like the Behringer UMC204HD ($79 on Amazon).  Run this setup using Audirvana upsampling to 176 or 192 KHz.  Don't worry too much about cables.  If anything you can run balanced cables from the Behringer to the JBL's.

 

This is a stellar recommendation here.  The 305s go much lower than you would expect though not quite subwoofer territory.  They sound very good.  Self powered so the amp is built in. The Behringer unit is also a good bit of gear in that price range.  It will actually do much more than you need, but I don't know of a better choice.  Buy your balanced cables from monoprice or GLS and you are set to go for less slightly less than $400.   As a bonus the Behringer will record and has a headphone amp built in to it.

[esldude]

I have heard those Promedias unless they are different than those 2 years ago.  The LSR305s are a good step up from those.  Now whether it is something you consider worth the extra money is for you to answer.  You can often hear the 305s at Guitar Center stores.

 

I have an LSR310 and it is a good sub, and the $280 price is a good price.  I think on a budget you loose little at all if you instead used a Dayton Audio Sub-1000 (10 inch $119) or a Dayton Audio Sub 1200 ($135 12 incher).  They have less power than the JBL, but not that much less and are very good for the money.  I know someone with 305s for front speakers in a video setup and a pair of the Sub 1200s.  One would be enough unless you have a very large listening area.

 

https://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-sub-1000-10-100-watt-powered-subwoofer--300-628

 

https://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-sub-1200-12-120-watt-powered-subwoofer--300-629

 

The LSR310 would simplify things a bit.  You feed from your preamp/DAC into the 310 which rolls off the low end and passes the signal to the 305s while of course rolling off highs fed to the sub itself. 

 

With the Dayton you will have a built in crossover for the sub, but your JBLs on a separate feed would operate full range.  Which can often work, but isn't optimum.

[esldude]

The lowest frequency a room will support well is related to its longest dimension.  You need something like 18 feet to get near 30 hz.  So don't get hung up over one being spec'd a few hz lower.  It is quite likely, when you hear 16 hz organ notes what you are mostly perceiving is the 2nd and 3rd harmonics.  Partly due to few woofers doing a good job with that and partly because only large rooms fully support those frequencies and partly because your ear is very insensitive to frequencies that low.   Your sensitivity is dropping about 20 db per octave.  So 40 hz notes that are reasonably heard need to be 4 times louder and use 10 times more power to be heard as well at 20 hz. 

 

About the bluetooth, yes it is compressed and yes even a 1/8th inch wire will have more quality.

 

In the LSR 310 you send a pair of wires from your DAC to the sub first.  It will fed the sub its signal, and then pass via an output jack to your main speakers.  It will have rolled off the low end for the main speakers in the process.  So all your xover functions are handled by the sub. 

 

With the Klipsch (best I can determine) and definitely with the Dayton, your DAC sends it a signal, it rolls off highs for the sub and that is it.  It has no output.  You need another cable from the DAC feeding the mainspeakers and either something to remove low frequencies or just run them full range.  There are xover units, but none that would fit in your budget.  Unless someone else knows of one and posts it here. You could use these between DAC and main speakers, but these are single ended.  The only balanced ones I know about cost more.  It would be nice to keep things balanced to prevent hum and noise problems.

 

https://www.parts-express.com/harrison-labs-fmod-inline-crossover-pair-100-hz-high-pass-rca--266-274

[esldude]

2 hours ago, Nobear said:

 

 

As for the Behringer interface, funny enough, I was going to ask if there was one affordable interface I could get that was as effective as a standalone DAC, but also good for recording. The UMC204HD looks like just the ticket! I have dabbled in composition before, and would like to get back into it, as well as recording. I see that the ProTools ecosystem has changed dramatically in recent years, and I plan to check if I'm eligible for an educational discount for both ProTools and Sibelius.

 

Key question: Does ProTools really play nicely with third party interfaces now, including the Behringer UMC204HD?

Meant to reply earlier about the recording.  Usually these USB recording interfaces will work with most of the commonly available DAW software.  One of the ads for the UMC204HD says:

 

Compatible with popular recording software including Avid Pro Tools*, Ableton Live*, Steinberg Cubase*, etc.

 

It will come with Traction DAW software.  I have not used it so maybe basic, but for most purposes likely enough.  If not enough Reaper is worth looking into.  You can download and use for free, but should really pay the $40 license if you use it.  An excellent bargain in DAW software.  The fee includes all updates that occur for something like 2 or 3 years at least. 

 

http://www.reaper.fm/

 

ProTools is $25/month or $599 to buy.   So unless you are getting paid it can be pricey. 

[esldude]

When I said the longest length is related to the lowest frequency a room will support well, that doesn't mean there is nothing below that frequency.  Only that the room is not adding support at those frequencies.  As most woofers are rolling off at 12db/octave or 24 db/octave often the room will aid it in reaching its lowest response, and below that point the roll-off is too severe. 

 

So let us take a 25 foot room.  That would be a half wave length at roughly 22 hz.  At that frequency the wave will travel the length of the room reflect and come back in phase with the next wave.  This leads to a resonance and response peak.  The response of a woofer fully flat at 22 hz in an anechoic environment will be greatly elevated right around this frequency and multiples of this frequency.  At frequencies in between the sound wave reflected will partly or mostly cancel out leaving dips in the response.   

 

So what happens below 22 hz.  A partial null and then an area where though sound is still put out by the woofer it is much smaller than the average of those peaks.  If you set the level to the point those even lower frequencies are close to proper, then the resonant peaks will be horrible. 

 

Now this is over-simplified itself of course.  For one thing if you are really close to the woofer those lower frequencies are not cancelled out yet.  Same thing with headphones in your ear.  On the other hand lower frequencies leak partly out of most structures.  Some structures are going to partly absorb lower frequencies. 

 

So why my comment above?  Let us say you have a room long enough to support (augment thru resonance) only 50 hz, and you are comparing a sub that goes to 20 hz with one that goes to 30 hz.  Both will excite and energize the room thoroughly at 50 hz.  Both will be partly cancelled out a bit below that.  And both will be putting out energy probably at their respective 30 and 20 hz, but that is in the region partly cancelled pretty well.  So the important level is 50 hz, and below that sound levels are going to be a good bit lower, and you likely could tell no difference in the two responses.  Everything below 50 hz is too far below the level of the rest of the bass range.  If the woofers were flat to some really low number like 5 hz the output would come back up and if the structure of the room were super solid room gain would again bring the level up, but you can't really hear that anyway.  Your perceptual threshold is 20 db higher at 25 hz vs 50 hz and the level from these woofers due to cancellation is likely to be another 10-20 db down in that same range.  So though they are putting out sound, they effectively will disappear for you. 

 

I suppose that is something that happens with cars having boomy huge woofers.  The woofers are putting out enough to pressurize at lower frequencies, but above that point the resonances are huge.  Leading to that awful uncontrolled booming rolling sound. 

 

[esldude]

4 hours ago, plissken said:

If any...

Agreed. There are a bunch of poorly built $25 and $30 DAC's. He should get the Berhinger UMC204HD for $79. I have one in and the build quality is very good upon pulling it apart and giving it a look over. 

 

If you have it apart pics would be nice.  Also which DAC ADC chips did it use?

[esldude]

1 hour ago, plissken said:

Two CS 4272-CZZ

Thanks for the info. I expected at this price they were using a combined ADC/DAC chip or codec as they are called.  Those are offering pretty good performance these days.  This one has two of each in each chip so I am guessing one chip used balanced for each channel. 

[esldude]

I am going to post some results of the Room Sim in REW.  It isn't perfectly accurate, but I have found it to be pretty well in the ballpark with real results for rectangular rooms.  Other rooms with an L shape or opening into larger spaces are a different thing in terms of simulation.   Listener is near the middle of the room, and the single sub is in the corner.  Moving the listener position or sub position of course effects these things.  So this is a simplified group of examples to illustrate how I think about this and consider it to work. 

 

First up is the response of a subwoofer with a -3 db down point of 5 hz with a xover set to 200 hz in an anechoic environment.  Notice it basically has a flat response at 57 db.

 

 

Next is the same sub in a unrealistic 25 ft square room.  The pink lines show modes. Notice how the level peaks at 22 hz and its multiples.  See how the general level is well above 57 db until you get some cancellation going at 3 octaves higher and above.

 

 

Now we have the same sub in a 10 ft square room.  Notice the general level is lower and response drops way off below the lowest mode at 56 hz.  The small size of the room means spacing of resonant supportive nodes is spread further apart and raises the levels less before the xover cuts response altogether.

 

 

 

Finally the same 10 ft square room if it were sealed.  The Room Sim makes some allowance for leakage and absorption of typical home construction and the parameters are somewhat adjustable.  This graph will be if the room were sealed with some nominal level of absorption.   We see the low response does come back and appears headed toward the 57 db level.  However the partial cancellation of wavelengths means that won't occur until down another couple octaves below the length the room modes support.  And in a real room those frequencies that low are mostly going to leak away.

 

 

Now for a more realistic room, here is the same sub in a room with golden ratio dimensions.  25 ft long, 15.45 ft. wide, and 9.55 ft high.  Pink lines are length modes, green lines are width modes and blue lines are height modes.  You get a more even response.  Peaks are not so high though you still have peaks and dips. 

 

 

 For comparison a golden ratio room with 15.7 ft length, 9.7 ft width. , and a short 6 ft height.   Again nodal support is spread further apart and lowers the overall level in that range due to the smaller size of the room. 

 

 

Hopefully this will make it clear that unless your room has one dimension of 20 ft or more the difference between a sub with response to 25 hz and 30 hz is likely to be effectively non-existent as far as what you could hear of it.

 

[esldude]

As a follow up to the previous post.  Here is the result of a 20 ft long, 14 ft wide, 10 ft high room with a sub with a - 3b point of 25 hz and then same room with a sub having 30 hz -3db response.  Yes they are different.  A couple db below 50 hz.  Also while discussing it especially among cheap subs be careful of specs.  Some quote a -6 db or -10 db response as being the effective limit thinking room gain will help out.  Most often when they do that they just give the low response in hz and don't specify level.  So comparing spec for spec often doesn't tell you much. 

 

25 hz

 

 

 

30 hz

 

 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, STC said:

 

 

 

Please state the location of subwoofer and listener. Thanks.

Middle of the room for listener.  Sub in the corner.

[esldude]

Here is the full screenshot so you can confirm the settings.

 

I did have gain down to -18 db just to place the curves in a middle portion of the chart.

 

[esldude]

26 minutes ago, STC said:

To illustrate my point that the room dimension is no barrier to reproduce the lowest frequency, I moved the listener closer to the wall and move the subwoofer to be approximately the same distance in the two rooms you mentioned.

 

You can see that even in the small room, with the same settings; you still achieve the 57 or 58dB at 20Hz. You can even achieve relatively flat response all the way up by adding adequate absorption.

 

IMO, room dimension is not related in any way to limit the lowest frequency of a subwoofer. Of course, positioning and treatment would play a big role.

 

You have selected sealed for your subwoofer, I had ported selected.  Of course moving speaker and listening area around is part of getting a smooth response.  The peaks of resonance and spacing which can interfere still tend to crop up related to the longest dimensions. 

 

An approach some have taken (I think Dallas Justice is doing this now), is to have a pair along the front wall, a matching pair along the rear wall and delay the rear pair so the initial wave gets thru the room and then gets mostly cancelled.  So resonances are reduced, dips are reduced, response gets more even, I suppose it would reduce the effect of room dimensions.  Making this useful for small rooms.  Of course small rooms don't need four big subs.  So maybe using 8 inchers that reach low would be a good thing for this kind of arrangement. 

 

I once had a long narrow listening room which had a short wall that opened into the kitchen.  I found using panels there was a bass build up in front of that short wall when you sat down.  Spacing my Quads adroitly off the front wall and sitting in front of that short wall put me in a zone where the Quads worked well all the way down to a nice firm 40 hz with no woofer help. 

[esldude]

1 hour ago, Nobear said:

Also (and I intentionally put this in a separate post), there is one question I have that remains unanswered, and is of most immediate importance to me: what should I do with the unopened gear my sister got me a birthday or two ago? Should I try to sell it and upgrade, or open it and use it?

 

What she got me is an AKG P120 condenser mic, and the first version of this M-Audio M-Track interface. I actually don't know the difference between the first version and version II. It looks the same, and they are both limited to 24bit/48kHz recording. I can't find the output resolution, but the thing does have outputs, and so doubles to offer the same basic DAC functionality as the Behringer that people recommend here.

 

How does the quality compare between the M-Track I have and the recommended Behringer? And am I likely to notice a difference in practice, with either my ProMedia or any of the speakers that people have recommended here for my budget?

 

What about for recording? Will there be a noticeable difference in quality between the two interfaces using a P120 mic? Should I be recording in high resolution (even if I don't have the gear to hear the difference myself), or would I need more expensive components and/or a better studio environment for high resolution recording to make a meaningful difference given the right playback gear?

Maudio is fine.  The Behringer might be a little better, but likely not a huge difference maybe even none. 

 

The Maudio would be just dandy.  There is very little gained, I mean tiny little difference, at rates higher than 48 khz.  It has not ever been shown conclusively that people can hear a difference of 48 khz vs higher rates despite all the hoopla. 

 

The P120 is a not bad inexpensive condenser mike.  It probably isn't good for measurements though using for that might tell you some useful things.  For any music or voice recordings your Maudio and P120 will do fine.  For playing back music it will do fine.  If you have some higher rate music tracks they can be downsampled to 48 khz.  I suggest using Foobar for playback if on Windows.  Your Maudio should have come with Ableton Lite DAW software.

 

You can hear it in use here:

 

 

 

 

[esldude]

13 minutes ago, STC said:

 

 

 

Positioning and treatment is part of room acoustics. I am only addressing to the myth that small room or even a cubic room cannot reproduce the lowest frequency as your mentioned in your earlier post. Room dimension got nothing to do with the ability of subwoofer to produce the lowest frequencies according to their specification. 

 

 

 

Here is another chart of a perfect cube shaped room. As you can see the lowest frequency will be produced by the subwoofer but in a smaller room the resonance would interfere at other frequencies. If you treat your room adequately than that shouldn't be a problem.

 

 

@GUTB, I am not sure if golden ratio is bull or not but my room is room in room with golden ratio dimension. I know very little about acoustics and when this room was built I just wanted to have the golden ratio and two walls to act as bass trap. It worked out to be perfect where I do not have any resonance problem although the sound was too dead which I addressed later. Do you mind pointing out which part of room acoustics in this thread you consider as lies and misinformation?

 

I do agree there could some misinformation or simply we do not understand the message about room acoustics in audiophile forums. One thing I learned is a flat room response is no good. 

Well if you had perfect absorption there are no reflections and it will be an anechoic chamber or outdoors.  I can't see in the screenshots what you have the absorption set on.  I used a nominal 10% for illustrative purposes.  In my own room two walls I guessed were about .30 (double gypsum on 2x4 walls), and two were about .25 (gypsum backed by brick).  I ended up adjusting that a few hundredths to get the best match to my actual measurements.  The match is reasonably close. 

 

Here is a list of different materials absorption at different frequencies.

https://www.acousticalsurfaces.com/acoustic_IOI/101_13.htm

 

That is what this comes down to.  If you don't have much absorption the size will heavily influence response that causes standing waves from repeatedly reflected waves building at given frequencies and cancelling at others.  Absorption is good and helps. Otherwise the size will effect heavily the result.  To reiterate when I said support I was thinking in terms of support or augement sound at those lengths.  Not that sound couldn't occur at lower frequencies.  However the room won't aid those lower frequencies in forming without cancellation effects or tremendous absorption which gets difficult at lower frequencies.  Since this thread is about a $400 total system, I don't think suggesting several hundred dollars of bass absorbers is warranted.  Though our discussion got away from thinking of system cost in the interim. 

[esldude]

I added some youtube clips using your P120 mike above in my last post.  I think I added them after you replied.

[esldude]

I don't necessarily agree with the run in statements.  However, JBL 305s are run 100 hrs at max level before leaving the factory.

[esldude]

Follow up on the max power test.  I take it from the statement below that I misinterpreted it as being done to every 305 at the factory.  Looks like the final design has to pass the test, but not that each one is run in for 100 hrs. 

 

JBL Professional Reliability - Prior to becoming a production-ready design, each 3 Series model is subjected to JBL’s tough 100 hour power test, in which the speaker is required to play continually at full output for 100 hours without failure. This demanding test ensures your 3 Series speakers will deliver years of reliable performance.

 

From this page:

 

http://www.jblpro.com/www/products/recording-broadcast/3-series/lsr305

[esldude]

https://www.amazon.com/Hosa-CMP-153-Stereo-Breakout-Cable/dp/B000068O3C

 

This should do what you want.  The 1/4 are unbalanced, but the 1/8th inch stereo is unbalanced as well.  I can't remember do the Promedia speakers just need a single 1/8th stereo or is it two 1/8th inch mono (one for each speaker)?

 

If the latter the above won't work, but versions that do what you want are available.

[esldude]

14 minutes ago, Nobear said:

 

ProMedia's use a single 1/8" stereo. I was looking at those, I just wasn't sure if splitters and breakout cables could be used in reverse. Thanks.

 

Should it still be an improvement in signal and sound quality to connect the ProMedia's this way (balanced output to unbalanced), compared with connecting them directly into the laptop?

Yes the interface will have less noise, better isolation from computer activity, and higher output.