Antec Soundscience Rockus 3D 2.1 Speakers
by Dustin Sklavos on November 18, 2010 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Audio
- Antec
- Soundscience
- Rockus 3D
Music on the Rockus 3D
Music playback testing was done much more comprehensively than I had previously; I tried just about everything. The first issue I took with the Rockus 3D, but one that became progressively more minor as I became accustomed to the character of the sound the system produced, was that the high end feels a bit tinny. Double-blind with the Bose, the Rockus generally sounded better and produced clearer, more dynamic sound that was in many cases far less muddy. The problem is that some of that muddiness did mask compression and artifacting in some of the songs; you can't really fault the speakers for doing what they're told, but the highs can be so thin that it can get to the point of making some of the artifacts physically painful to listen to.
The sound also isn't quite as rich and full as one would hope. It certainly has worlds more depth than you'll get from a hundred dollar speaker set, but the highs and mids nonetheless can feel a bit thin and sometimes don't feel like they're separating quite as well as they could. You'll pick up nuances and details in the music better than you might with cheaper speakers; I just wish the sound had more body in those regions. When you get to the lows, the subwoofer does a solid if unexceptional job of picking up the rear. Not having a more fine-grained control over the subwoofer's power beyond the three presets hurts, but even the highest preset can feel a little weak.
Across different types of music, I found that industrial and electronic music could actually feel the thinnest in the highs and mids, but softer more instrumental fare works far, far better. If "Spitfire" by The Prodigy produces a good if not outstanding listening experience, something more downtempo like Red Hot Chili Peppers' "Otherside" can sound quite lovely.
Trying to buff up those thin highs and mids through the equalizer is an exercise in futility, though, and this is one of the Rockus 3D's biggest perks and worst flaws: the speaker system is calibrated to sound as good as it possibly can from the factory, a point the Antec rep was keen on mentioning and something that I can confirm in practice. The Rockus 3D is never going to sound better than it does shipped from the factory, and tweaking the equalizer in either analog or digital connection modes only seemed to make it worse.
That said, across the board the Rockus 3D sounded better than the Bose Companion II's attached to the Xonar DX.
While playing music, however, just go ahead and keep your finger off the 3D mode. It allows the speakers to suddenly produce a tremendous amount of body, but it more or less massacres the arrangement of the instruments in whatever you happen to be listening to. On a couple of songs I felt like the listening experience was slightly improved by 3D mode, but in almost everything else the distortion completely ruined them. Listening to music in 3D mode on the Rockus is akin to watching a standard-aspect movie stretched across an HDTV.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
67 Comments
View All Comments
Gunbuster - Thursday, November 18, 2010 - link
You should take speakers apart and tell us the manufacturere and ratings on the drivers. It's hard to judge scale from the pictures but I am sceptical of even that 25w power rating on the satilites. I am also guessing the driver is a reletivly small ones hidden behind the plastic grill.hybrid2d4x4 - Saturday, November 20, 2010 - link
Just like logitech's satellites, they probably rate them @ 10% THD (!!!). For reference, the cheapest 5.1 AVR I found rated its output at 0.08%THD. Yes, it may not be fair to compare against a $300 AVR, but it goes to show how huge the gap is between "computer speakers" and home theater gear. Also, Logitech's 10% is a horrible number to settle on as most people will hear 1% distortion.sonci - Thursday, November 18, 2010 - link
Thres no way, these things can compete against similar priced active monitors fromM audio or Swans, unless you have a really small room
I think people should be aware of real speakers and stop buying crap logitech or antec or whatever manufacter them, especially now that pc audio is becoming quite acceptable.
sonci - Thursday, November 18, 2010 - link
ps: audiophiles wont buy anything with the name "3D"kmmatney - Thursday, November 18, 2010 - link
Would these be good?http://www.amazon.com/M-Audio-Studiophile-AV-Power...
Patrick Wolf - Thursday, November 18, 2010 - link
Not to a real audiophile. I'm sure they're decent, but the overall sound quality will be limited by their smaller size.And I agree that completely subjective reviews like this don't belong here. Sound card reviews maybe, but that's it. Leave everything else to the dedicated audio sites. All of these cheap popular brand (gimmicky) speakers sound about the same anyway; which in all honesty is not too good.
chrnochime - Friday, November 19, 2010 - link
I'd say the same about M audio and to lesser degree swans. There's a reason M audio speakers don't go higher than 1000 USD, and the fact that they don't make any speaker for use outside of studio....Go dig up what audiophiles in HK think of Swans.
I can think of a bunch of speakers that exceed Swans: Dali, B&W(803 and up arguably), Mcintosh, sunfire, magnepan, Martin Logan(vantage and up), vandersteen, salk, magnepan(maggie).....
AnnihilatorX - Thursday, November 18, 2010 - link
While the article mentioned it supports PCM only, does it support HD PCM though, by HD I mean non standard 192kHz 24bit 2ch PCM. Not many equipment support this however.Off topic but the reason Toslink/SPDIF is getting replaced by HDMI is that, the format is old and physically cannot carry information of 192kHz/24-bit for more than 2 channels. While 48khz/24-bit DTS/Dolby Digital Live 5.1 are compressed signals are fine, DTS-HD Master Audio or Dolby TrueHD for examples, can't. HDMI can do all, even DSD, in flying colors.
Dustin Sklavos - Thursday, November 18, 2010 - link
It can't do HD PCM. Tops out at 96kHz.Dug - Thursday, November 18, 2010 - link
I'm so tired of measurements and anechoic chambers and testing with one recording that no on else can get. That's only important if you care.These are computer speakers. I'm not going to sit at my computer for critical listening, and I don't really think these need to reviewed that way.
I have friends that have spent thousands on creating great listening rooms, with measurements in one seating position. Trying to avoid reflections and create a flat response.
Tell you the truth. Can't imagine why. I didn't find it to be that great. So measurements don't mean crap.
Maybe what I like isn't "correct". But I don't care.
Just like a properly calibrated monitor or TV. I find it very flat and boring. I like a little more contrast.
After its all said and done, I just want to know if they sound good.