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
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.