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
Testing the Rockus 3D
I'll go ahead and preface again in saying this testing is largely subjective, and with a $249 speaker set that admittedly becomes a little harder to excuse. That said, if this is going to bother you, I strongly recommend curling up with your studio monitors, because at the end of the day this is still a consumer product. A moderately expensive one, but a consumer product.
The first big point that needs to be made is the difference between the Music and 3D modes for the Rockus 3D. The Music mode could probably be more accurately referred to as "reference mode:" the Rockus 3D simply tries to produce as clean and accurate a sound as possible and functions as a basic albeit high quality 2.1 speaker system.
Switching to 3D mode invokes what Antec calls "3Dsst," a sound processing algorithm designed to simulate a larger space. This should be fairly familiar to most users, as even many sound cards include some way to try and simulate surround sound using only two speakers (i.e. the HS1 we reviewed recently had a similar mode it could operate in). I'll tell you right now, 3D mode isn't going to produce accurate sound, but its value depends entirely on how you're using the speakers at a given time. The rep was very proud of 3Dsst; I personally tend to be skeptical of simulated surround environments and haven't yet heard one that felt convincing.
I'll also point out that I tested the Rockus 3D using three different connections: I used the optical connection plugged into my ASUS Xonar DX, tried it again with the TOSLINK port on my motherboard (Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R), and then used an analog connection with the Xonar. I actually asked the rep via e-mail which connection he felt would present the Rockus 3D in the best light, and he suggested using the analog connection with the Xonar. Color me surprised when I found that the digital connection seemed best overall, regardless of whether I used the motherboard sound or the Xonar DX. In fact, the Xonar's equalizer wouldn't affect the sound quality at all, while the equalizer in my motherboard's Realtek ALC889 drivers was able to manipulate the digital signal just fine.
I also frequently double-blinded my existing Bose Companion II speakers connected to the Xonar against the digitally connected Rockus 3D. It's not entirely fair, but close enough: the speakers and sound card together cost about $200, just $50 shy of the Rockus 3D.
With all that said, I did the majority of my testing with the Rockus 3D connected optically to my motherboard, and before getting into any of the nitty-gritty of it, I feel it prudent to note that unless you have a more expensive sound card, an optical connection is probably going to be the way to go. Analog quality is for the most part comparable, but the digital just works, requires very little calibration, and operates independent of the quality of analog components used by the audio hardware itself.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
67 Comments
View All Comments
sinPiEqualsZero - Thursday, November 18, 2010 - link
Hi Dustin/Anandtech,I truly believe that you’ve given your best recommendation based on the available data, and I appreciate the time spent doing the review. I pay particular attention to speaker reviews since I wear hearing aids and need amazing speakers to understand speech, and thanks to you I have some more data with which to make a decision. I'm even in the market for them since my old ones just died last week.
In general, as you are well aware, audio review is an under-appreciated and subjective process. In this case, I have reservations about the one used for the review. But first, a small bit of relevant background based on some of Anandtech recent accomplishments.
When SSDs were coming out, you picked apart their parts, algorithms, and used the awesome collective knowledge of Anandtech to make big waves in the industry. We are still benefiting from those articles today and I guarantee that the major manufacturers and engineers are reading all related articles they can. You even referred to working directly with some manufacturers!
Then the iPhone4 reception issues came along, and you did what no one else did; you measured the effect of the wild claims that were flying around and erased all doubt. We may never know the true extent that your article influenced the notoriously secretive Apple, but I bet the impact wasn't small.
Let's get back to speakers. There are so many things that can be measured with speakers: distortion, maximum/minimum settings that can be compared to manufacturer's claims, and more. The quantifiable data is there, you just need to find ways to measure it. Heck, you could even disassemble the speakers and look at their components, and comment on how their use/placement/etc. affect the sound and cost.
I'd love to see a true "Anandtech"-level audio review where that creativity was on full display. Given the shady claims and misinformation that pervade the speaker market, connecting repeatable readings, analysis, and some physics know-how with the overall listening experience would be amazing and unique. That is exactly the reservation I mentioned above - there is no reason that a speaker review should only be subjective, and I've love to see some of our finest minds in the industry tackle the problem of defining "good" speakers.
Again, thank you for the time and effort you’ve put in. No matter how many negative comments you get, there are many who appreciate what you do. In this case, though, I believe you have chance to once again take up the mantle of industry leader and go where almost no one else does. Best wishes to you and to all of the people at Anandtech!
VietPham - Friday, November 19, 2010 - link
I can't believe that this review was on AnandTech. I've read the criticism of the review methodology (all warranted) but there are more fundamental issues. The reviewer just doesn't seem to understand the basics.For instance, he uses the term "double blind" when it's clear that he doesn't understand what it means. It's okay if he's not already familiar with the term, but he could have taken just a few minutes to google the phrase if he was unsure if he should use it. To skip this basic self-education is a disservice to readers, who expect better from AnandTech.
I'm also troubled by his claim that he uses a set of Bose as his standard speaker system. Bose? I believe this is the same reviewer who compared the HS1 to a set of Bose headphones a few weeks ago. Lots of people do think Bose products are of sufficient quality, but I'm worried when an audio reviewer uses them as a benchmark.
Between his admission of his liking for Bose, his testing audio with YouTube clips, and his misuse of very basic terms, I'm afraid that this review has told me nothing about the actual quality of this product. It's more like a diary of his experience with a free set of speakers he got, written from the point of view of a non-audio expert.
Not AnandTech quality.
rscoot - Friday, November 19, 2010 - link
I'm not an audiophile but I concur with using Bose speakers as a baseline. They're overpriced snake oil junk.Shinobi_III - Friday, November 19, 2010 - link
For that kind of money you could easily get a pair of Behringer 2x20watt digital studio monitors.Obviously there's no subwoofer, but accuracy and pressure is high. probably more bass anyway. And since they already contain DAC's, you won't even need a good sound card..
Matrices - Saturday, November 20, 2010 - link
I don't really see the need for an army of numbers in this sort of review, since they will simply march past the consciousness of readers who don't measure their listening experiences quantitatively - but I do think that you really need to have at least two comparable systems for comparison. And I also think that those systems should almost never be Bose products, for obvious reasons.At any rate, $250 for a 2.1 PC setup is, quite frankly, ridiculous. The reason Klipsch and Logitech all but stopped producing PC speakers around that price range is because most PC users who have that sort of money to spend on PC sound realized that they could do far better with real speakers hooked up to a cheap receiver. Even back then, Logitech's mid-tier 5.1 system went for around $250. A 2.1 system from a new contestant that's the same price? It's going to tank terribly.
plague911 - Sunday, November 21, 2010 - link
but seriously why does it seem like none of the major manufactures put any effort into that for these smaller sound systems. I mean half of them are outright ugly.musicgadgetz - Friday, June 4, 2021 - link
We felt that the local area was not guided as expected when it came to inspecting the sound pieces or controlling them through the way toward choosing the correct instrument to play. In this way, we volunteered to assist the local area with our insight and involvement with the field. In addition to the fact that we practice with different instruments put present manners by which one can rehearse and improve from them. Visit https://www.musicgadgets.net/gibson-vs-prs-end-of-...