Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner

Do you have external speakers hooked up to your Mac?

  • Yes

    Votes: 95 82.6%
  • No

    Votes: 20 17.4%

Do you have external speakers hooked up to your Mac?

21K views 94 replies 58 participants last post by  Sugith 
#1 ·
Do you have external speakers hooked up to your Mac? If so, which ones? (Please provide linky to speaker website, photos if possible!?)
 
#69 ·
I have the Harman/Kardon Champagne speakers in beige hooked up to my desktop. They have been with me a long time and they still sound great.
 

Attachments

#70 ·
good to see lots of M-Audio monitors on there!! I've got the M-Audio Studio Pro speakers.. and they run through a Line 6 TonePort UX8 and I love them both.. the studio pros were free.. a local music shop had me come in for a day and teach their staff how to use Garage Band (as they had a nice 24" iMac set up with the keystation 88 and a Fast Track pro.. as pay, they gave me the monitors.. if I had a choice though, I would have gone bigger.. maybe the BX8 or CX8 clearly DRASTICALLY different monitors.. but, the studio pros have been working great.. and I actually do most of my mixing with headphones.. then reference it with the monitors afterwards..



 
#72 ·
Ok, it's confession time. I read the thread front to back and replied to the first M-Audio post I came across without realizing that a fair number of people later on. I hope nobody feels offended over my remarks about M-Audio speakers, which were based on my experience dealing with them in professional environments where they've caused multiple lost time incidents that I've had to deal with. This is an inconvenience to people who can't work when their audio monitoring's down, it's inconvenient when equipment has to be found or purchased (and budgeted for) and substituted whenever an M-Audio speaker dies, and it's frustrating for everybody involved. In several years of experience, I have yet to encounter any of these problems with Edirol, KRK, Genelec, or various combinations of external power amplifiers and passive nearfield monitor speakers.

Ok, enough about that...what do I have set up at home?

My bedroom: I have a cable brought out so that I can hook up my laptop to the stereo there easily. When I do that, the 13" MacBook Pro's connected to a Scott 299D integrated amplifier driving a pair of Kef Concerto speakers. This is a nice sounding setup. I went through the amplifier and thoroughly overhauled it about nine years ago, but I've put a lot of hours on it and the power tubes are started to show it noticeably in the fall so I'll be replacing the four 7591 tubes soon along with the 5AR4 rectifier tube that's been supplying the juice to them all this time.

Living Room: My roommate's Paradigm speakers (set up in a 7.1 configuration) are set up there. My roommate just replaced an old Pioneer surround sound receiver with a brand new 9040txh from a Boxing Day sale. My old G5 Power Mac's hooked up to the TV through a DVI to HDMI cable and I brought the audio out to the new receiver using an optical SP/DIF cable (was previously using a 1/8" stereo to RCA adaptor cable with the old receiver since it was analogue only). The Pioneer 9040txh performance is excellent, far better than the old Pioneer, with movies where the surround sound processing is active but it sounds dull and lifeless for two channel music listening from multiple sources including the G5, with anemic bass.

I honestly thought I had - and checked everything over for a phasing problem on my hands when I heard it playing two channel music in its stereo mode the first time. The new Pioneer's performance at playing music isn't as good as the old one, and is really disappointing considering what the full purchase sticker price would have been, Boxing Day sale aside. If I can't adjust away the deficiencies with the Pioneer's two channel sound through the settings in the various menus, I might take the left and right pre-outs of this and use the pair of Dynaco Mk4s I've been sitting on after overhauling them and set up a speaker switch if the Pioneer's power amps are the culprit. If it's the Pioneer's preamp at fault, I'll have to set up a dedicated two channel chain with a separate preamp feeding the Dynacos, feeding a speaker switch. If I do any of that, the roommate's going to kill me for making things more complicated.
 
#73 ·
I used to have speakers connected to my imac but the speakers on the new imacs have improved so I removed them...
here is what I used to use.
 
#74 · (Edited)
" ... I hope nobody feels offended over my remarks about M-Audio speakers, which were based on my experience ..."

Certainly not; sound quality can be assessed relatively easily; reliability takes time and any user experience is welcome. My AV-40's are about 18 months old and have performed flawlessly in that time, but from your description they don't sound like they are suffering under the same design or manufacturing issues as the BX5a's, which may or may not have been corrected during the production period. Certainly China production is plagued by occasional quality issues; counterfeit and sub-quality capacitors is a known issue that has plagued many products in the past.

Time will tell, of course, but recent reports suggest that the acquisition of M-Audio by Avid (who placed M-Audio under Digidesign management) about 4 years ago resulted in a marked improvement in product reliability once the legacy products were retired and replaced with new models. In the case of the BX5a, it was re-engineered in January 2008.

I think the AV40's are a fine desktop loudspeaker for computer use; and at around $150/pair they are not terribly expensive (the campus computer store at my alma matter sells them to alumni at $119/pair).

I don't expect Pro-level robustness, but I don't send live music or mixes through them either. I'm not so sure I would trust most computer-interface speakers for use in a work-a-day production environment, with cubic dollars on the line when experiencing downtime, but I realize that many do and that M-Audio/Berringer/Edirol do market them as such.

In the end, when you consider that a quality true pro-level alternative will start at perhaps $2K (e.g. Westlake Lc5.75 + a 200W/ch amplifier) and can easily be more, even a unit that lasts for a year might still be a bargain. 90+ % of the best home loudspeakers I'm familiar with would not handle the demands of live/studio production use without driver failures, at a minimum.

Loudspeakers are one area where the products available today are often drastically better than the equivalents of yesterday, especially at the low/mid range, and without question you get far more for a dollar today than ever in the past. When you can buy a $200 self-powered speaker that outperforms a $600 best-of-class unpowered unit of 25 years ago ($1,083.39 in today's dollars via the Bank of Canada inflation calculator) it's a major improvement and everyone benefits.

Along with those cost reductions comes a price: a stunning lack of build quality and robustness, and by no means am I singling out loudspeakers here ... it's evident in virtually every item on the store shelf.

" ... i have a old logitech, am thinking its around 10yr old now lol ..."

Good for you. Don't fix what isn't broken.

We are all used to it now, and consumers have learned to accept a default level of quality that is far lower than in the past. I would have a hard time thinking of a product available today that would meet the reliability standard expected by my parents generation; and if we do meet such a unit, the price asked sends many into apoplectic shock, even though it may only be twice of it's competitors.

The refrigerator that my grandfather gave my parents as a wedding present ran continuously for more than 50 years before it was replaced, still working, by a new unit, and that was considered only slightly remarkable; it was assumed it would last 30 years like everyone else's fridge did.
 
#77 ·
Loudspeakers are one area where the products available today are often drastically better than the equivalents of yesterday, especially at the low/mid range, and without question you get far more for a dollar today than ever in the past. When you can buy a $200 self-powered speaker that outperforms a $600 best-of-class unpowered unit of 25 years ago ($1,083.39 in today's dollars via the Bank of Canada inflation calculator) it's a major improvement and everyone benefits.
I think I'd like to make an inflation calculator for amplifier power...

200 watts in 1973 is like 1000 watts in 2010!!
 
#75 ·
#76 ·
Glad to see some love for Klipsch. :clap:

I'm not on a Mac, but I used my Klispch ProMedia 2.1s for a few years, and then upgraded to the 5.1 Ultras w/ RSX-4 front satellites and enjoyed them thoroughly for a year or two. The amp in the subwoofer has since crapped out and I have downgraded to some ancient pair of GNT speakers which do not do any justice.

Recently bough the Cinema 8 set though and am looking forward to setting that up in the living room... I'll probably stick to headphones in the office for a while.
 
#80 ·
It would take a 300 watt amplifier to double the volume output of your system, and that's a fairly affordable power level if you buy used. I don't know how well your speakers or your neighbours would like the increase in power output :D

My parents had a 20 watt per channel Rotel amplifier and it wasy good until they bought a gigantic pair of B & W speakers that were tough to drive, and the left channel's output transistors failed shorted. Thankfully the protection fuse blew so it didn't apply DC to the speaker long enough to blow it. They bought a 50 watt amplifier to replace to Rotel, to avoid the risk of blowing it again on the same speakers. I'd have bought a 100 watt amplifier or larger to give more headroom when driving those speakers at the same volume, but they've been using the same 50 watt amplifier years now with no problems so I guess the 3.98 dB of gain they got going from 20 to 50 watts was enough...
 
#81 ·
Ha! My neighbours would be alright with it. They had something in their apartment that was louder than my rig. I stuck my SPL meter in the hallway, just out my door, and it was 84db. They listened to their 'beats' all of saturday. Weekends were a free for all in the building. It was a nice setup!

My grandparents have a technics system they bought in 1993. Its gorgeous! Nice big solid amplifier and its used for listening to AM radio and background music for dinner parties! The system is so old school even the remote control is made in Japan :love2:
 
#82 · (Edited)
" ... 200 watts in 1973 is like 1000 watts in 2010!! ..."

I'm pretty sure 200 watts is still 200 watts. It's interesting, though, that you picked 1973, since that was during a time when manufacturers pulled power ratings out of a hat, and many were wildly misleading. It was not until 1974 that the US Federal Trade Commission introduced the "Power Rule" specifying how amplifier power could be advertised.

Prior to 1974, some used the voluntary EIA (Electronic Industry Association) standard which required one channel driven at 1 Khz at 1% THD. Others used burst tones of short duration, and distortion figures from 10% to full saturated clipping (100%). Amplifiers would be tested at 8 ohms, and then using a formula, not a test, that number would be extrapolated to 2 ohms, with a simple multiplication by 4. And so on.

I remember seeing amps in the Sears catalog with cheezy BSR changers selling for $79.95 and claiming 300 watts of power when I was a kid, and I listened to them at friends' houses, wondering why they crapped out when another friend's dad's amp claimed 10 watts per channel and blew it out of the water.

Although it's difficult to correlate these inflated figures with what the FTC method would produce, it was not unknown to discover the worst offenders claims were 10 or more times higher than the power they could deliver via the 1974 FTC Amplifier Rule.

An example, however, of a FTC rule amplifier using the typical methods, would go something like this:

Given unit A: an amplifier that can deliver 10 watts/ch, both channels driven, from 20~20Khz at 1% THD into 8 ohms.

First we test with just one channel. It manages to do 14 watts.
Then, we test with just an easy 1 Khz signal; now it does 17 watts.
Not enough. Okay, lets move the distortion level to 10% instead of 1%. Now we get 21 watts.
This is the end of the testing.

The rest is just math:
We measured RMS values, let's use Peak values (RMS = .707 x peak). Now we have 29.7 watts. We'll round that up to 30.
We tested into 8 ohms, let's just convert to 2 ohms. That's 30 x 4 = 120 watts. Now we're talking.
Remember, that was just one channel. Add em up.
"Our amp puts out 240 watts!"
Call the ad agency.

The FTC rule requires a specified warm-up period (60 mins at 1/3 power followed by 5 at full power) before testing, and defined the claims advertisers could make. Probably the most valuable rule was one that stated the FTC method power must be the one most prominently displayed in advertising ... you couldn't claim your wild power and then put the FTC number in the fine print.

The warm-up period eliminated specifying power into 2-ohm values by even most well made amplifiers, since the warmup would generally mean the amp would simply go into protection mode and shut down before the 2-ohm test completed. When cold, it may have been able to complete the test.

The 1974 standard required that all "associated channels" of an amplifier must be driven to full rated power simultaneously during power-measurement tests, but Home Theatre manufacturers found a loophole whereby they could define which channels are "associated".

The modern 5 and 7 channel amplifiers sold today broadly speaking cannot deliver full power to all channels at the same time, but might be able to deliver decent power to two or three of the 5 or 7.

Home Theater amp makers took that as an opportunity to rate their amps differently than stereo units. They would test the amps in 2-channel sets; ie the front two alone, the rear two alone, and if a 7.1 amp, the next two rears alone, and finally the centre channel by itself. Then add it all up for an overall power rating.

Currently there is no FTC standard for multichannel amps. The FTC has been proposing one for more than a decade (since 1997), but the industry has stalled the process, and it's still in the comments stage. In 2002, the Consumer Electronics Association proposed it's own standard (CEA-490-A, "Test Methods of Measurement for Audio Amplifiers").

That got the FTC off their back for a while, until the FTC noticed that most manufacturers were not even using that standard proposed by, essentially, themselves. So, currently, the FTC is again threatening to make multichannel amp testing standards a law.

However, it's important to remember that it won't change much ... don't expect a standard demanding all 5 or 7 channels driven simultaneously, with the warmup, etc. Manufacturers have convinced the FTC that this would force them to re-rate amplifiers they are already selling with more optimistic ratings. Expect something similar to the "2-1-2" method.

It should also be noted that a few manufacturers do rate their multichannel amps by the full 1974 FTC method now, with all channels driven simultaneously (eg Bryston, Classe, etc).

The wildly inflated power claims never actually went away ... any "portable device" is exempt; that includes TVs if they have a handle somewhere, car stereos, blasters, iPod music systems, etc. Makers of these devices can still basically claim whatever they want.
 
#83 ·
Gord, I dont think I've ever seen a more interesting poster on any forum anywhere. I end up reading everything you post, and enjoying it too.

My comment was inspired by a friend of mine buying a thousand watt home theatre the other week. I cant possibly think of how that power rating was found, and the entire package with the speakers weighs 50lbs, including speakers, a sub and it plays dvds! :eek:

Blu-ray technology with 4 tallboy speakers HT-BD1255 - Home Theatre Systems - Home Theatre | SAMSUNG
 
#84 · (Edited)
That particular unit is an integrated system with speakers, so it's not covered by the FTC rule.

Samsung does provide some (incomplete) detailed specifications, though (from the owner's manual at the site you linked to).
The loudspeakers are rated at 3 ohms, so the power rating would also be at 3 ohms.
They do not specify the frequency or distortion of the power rating.
They use a 2-1-2 test method, plus the sub separately.
They rate the front and rear at 165W x 2 each, and the centre channel at 170W. The Sub is rated at 170W (total: 660W + 170W + 170W = 1000 watts @ 3 ohms).

The entire unit is rated for 85 Watts at 120V power consumption. We must not confuse power consumption in watts with amplifier output in watts, as they are different things.

However, you can't put out more power than the power supply can deliver, so it is related.

From the size and shape of the receiver, it could only be using a Class D amplifier. Anything else would be too large to fit, and run too hot, with anything close to those power ratings.

Even with a very efficient Class D amplifier stage (perhaps 90% efficient) it's unlikely to deliver anywhere close to 1000 Watts, even at 3 ohms. You need about 54 watts at 120V to power a Class D amp FTC rated at 50W x 2 @ 8 ohms; or about 120W x 2 @ 3 ohms, and there's the blu-ray player and some other stuff to power as well; if we give them 21 watts there's the whole shebang.

That would make sense; actually ... 165 watts at 1 Khz and perhaps 3% THD @ 3 ohms might be available provided you tested only two channels at once. That there is no room for other channels to run at anything close to rated power at the same time is evident by the fact that when only one channel is driven (centre or sub) the power only goes up by 5 watts.

The unit is possibly capable of delivering 20 watts @ 3 ohms to all 6 channels simultaneously at 20~20Khz with reasonable distortion (1% or less).

This is in line with the FTC standard for units that are not covered by the 1974 FTC Amplifier Rule. You sometimes see these mentioned in Home Theatre specifications; mass-market brand HT receivers (eg Pioneer, etc) often cite the DIN standard, for example. The FTC 16 CFR Part 432 is supposed to apply to everything.

DIN EN 61305-3 (Germany): would mean each individual channel is tested alone with no warmup, and the power rating must be sustainable for 10 minutes.
FTC 16 CFR Part 432 (US) says all channels "in the same frequency range" should be capable of running at 1/8 power simultaneously for 5 minutes; except subwoofer channels, which are tested alone.

In practical terms, you would expect the sub to have the highest power demand, followed by the fronts, then the centre, and finally the rears. In use, you might be able to throw 50 watts at the sub, 15 each to the fronts, 10 to the centre and a few to the rears at the same time. It will play decently loud but will run out of steam quickly if you push it. It should be fine for TV use but probably not so hot as a music system.
 
#85 ·
My Pioneer SX-535 with Pioneer Atom V6's are hooked up to my pc. The setup also includes a Rega P1. Vintage audio ftw.
 
#87 ·
Awesome info, GordGuide. Always a pleasure reading your information as it's easy for me to understand. :)

I do have a little question for you, if you have a spare moment.

My Pioneer VSX-919AH-K receiver supports internal bi-amping from the surround back outputs if the unit isn't being used for 7.1 surround.

Music comes first for me, with theater a distant second. I'm wondering if this amp set up for bi-amping is providing any significant benefit for music quality on my Energy CF-30 loudspeakers?

919 power rating:

Power 120 x 7 Channels
THD: 1 kHz w/0.05% THD @ 8 ohm

I think the system sounds great, but I'm wondering if connecting the CF-30's to a dedicated 2 channel amp for music would yeild me much benefit over the bi-amping provided by the 919?

Thanks in advance!
 
#88 ·
Forgot to mention, all music is ripped from CD/Vinyl to Apple Lossless, or played directly from an Ion Profile USB Turntable.

The Mac Mini is connected directly through Mini Toslink. :)
 
#89 · (Edited)
The 919 is rated with 2-channels driven, 20~20Khz into 8 ohms @ 0.05% THD at 90 w/ch. With the DIN method (1 channel alone, 1 Khz, 8 ohms, 0.05% THD) it's 120 watts. Also, Pioneer rates this as a 5-channel amplifier, despite it's having 7 channels available.

A test report- pdf warning 216 Kb (just the first one that actually had measured the amp, rather than read the press release back to me) showed 97 watts FTC method and 128 DIN method. When they tried to run it multichannel (5 channels driven) it went into protection mode and began reducing the rail voltage, which would result in a reduction of power across all channels.

Home Theatre magazine does test HT amps with 5 channels driven ... with an 8-ohm load, 5 channels driven, no frequency specified, they got 34.1 watts per channel from the unit at 0.1% THD and 36.7 watts/ch at 1.0% THD.

The amp tested quiet, had a good wideband frequency response, and decent distortion characteristics. The only eyebrow raiser was channel separation, which was merely adequate.

Based on that, I don't think it's a good candidate for bi-amping. However, you have everything you need to try it, except perhaps two speaker cables which won't cost much. You could try it and see.

In fact, bi-amping usually goes that way with any gear, unless it's simply a matter of throwing Kilowatts around like in a concert setting. Every combination doesn't respond predictably for hifi applications. It's a test it and see thing.

Sometimes you lose the continuity and the result isn't an improvement, and sometimes easing the burden on the HF amplifier cleans up the sound. You can't predict the outcome.

I like these Pioneers and I just picked up an 819 for a friend literally two days ago, but I'm not under any illusions that they are going to blow away every other unit out there. You get a lot for your $300~500 but there is no magic bullet that will make a $500 receiver a giant killer. Every manufacturer has access to the same parts at the same prices and occasionally find they use the same factories.

He will be using it as a 2-channel amp, but wants the iPod interface, and the video switching/processing. He has plenty of vinyl and a good Denon AC motor Direct Drive table, and an unused preamp to use for a phono stage. He has no intention of adding surround channels, but has a pair of above-average efficiency speakers. In his case, it's a perfectly appropriate unit for the job.

But you have to realize they need to compete with their peers; you are not going to get magic for $300 to $500. However, it should work fine with your Energy speakers in 2ch modes for music listening, and also do it's HT job when called upon.

Well, I think I've hijacked the Mayor's Poll enough for one day, so I'm going to leave it at that.
 
#90 ·
i Have this little guy hooked up for now on my G5 dual 2.5.


looking to get this one in the next few days


That is if i can find it. They are hard to get :heybaby:
 
#94 ·
That gear is gorgeous! :)

It would be absolutely perfect for driving some decent speakers linked to an AP Express through toslink.

Thanks for the links! :)
 
#92 ·
Thanks, GordGuide. I appreciate the advice. :)
 
#95 ·
It sounds even more gorgeous. Really made me get cracking at ripping all my CD's to Apple Lossless because the combo and convenience can't be beat, IMHO.

It's a terrific office system, especially as the speakers are quite compact but give out incredible sound, including astonishing bass given their size. And for late night as it's a home office, there's a built in and excellent headphone amp.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top