[Review] M-Audio Studiophile LX4 Speakers


Recommended Posts

Introduction

M-Audio has been in the music industry not so much as a competitor for PC consumers, but more for recording musicians who use their products to create and record audio. Those of us enthralled by all things audio usually find ourselves stepping away from entry-level soundcards and speakers, but it's always been more difficult trying to find a good pair of stereo speakers for a PC setup due to limited selections. This is what makes the Studiophile LX4 speakers so versatile; their capability of either 2.1 or 5.1 speakers can accomodate the music or movie user. At only $350 USD for the 2.1 setup, it's price is affordable and does not sacrifice performance (the 5.1 expandable speakers can be purchased for an additional $150). For the purpose of this review, I will only be evaluating the system in 2.1 mode.

maudio017ms.jpg

Evaluation

The LX4 arrived at my front door before I was home from work. To my amazement, the box itself was huge and looked like it could've housed a typical 5.1 PC speaker system. Upon opening it, there were only the common accessories like speaker wires, power cable, and manual. Being the hardcore audio enthusiast that I am, I did not bother to read the manual and proceeded to set up the speakers without any guidance.

maudio026bo.jpg

Setup soon became a nightmare as I soon realized that the integrated amp on the subwoofer required 1/4" phono plugs. I had to make an emergency trip to RadioShack to pick up several items necessary to properly set up the system.

maudio104ot.jpg

maudio099sb.jpg

I had to get three 1/4" phono-to-RCA plugs to hook up to the integrated amp on the subwoofer, a 1/8" Y-adapter stereo-to-RCA plug for hookup to the soundcard, and finally a 1/8" stereo-to-RCA single adapter for the subwoofer cable (LFE). Make note of these items if you plan to buy a set of these speakers.

maudio063in.jpg

Here is a closer look at the LX4 speaker system, front and back. The subwoofer wasn't as monstrous as I had expected it to be, but its performance proved otherwise.

maudio114hf.jpg

maudio031hz.jpg

maudio046cv.jpg

Those of you with little children may want to reconsider getting these because like all traditional monitor speakers, there is no protected grill cover. Here is a comparison of the LX4 monitor's size alongside a Logitech Z-2200 satellite speaker.

maudio053ja.jpg

maudio084jg.jpg

Finally onto the setup. I never use the factory supplied speaker wires since they are almost always cheap quality, so I scrounged through my box of spare cables and managed to dig up a pair of MonsterXP speaker wires. I also used a set of Monster Interconnects for hookup to the left/right audio channels. While I'm not a big fan of Monster cables (they sound harsh and don't do a good job of filtering the brightness), I figured it was appropriate to pair them with the LX4 considering they are in the same category of price/performance.

maudio141ig.jpg

maudio135rg.jpg

maudio071ip.jpg

Here is the back of the X-Fi soundcard.

maudio126vv.jpg

After 30 minutes of fiddling around with speaker angles and calibrating, I finally had the LX4 in their temporary positions for music evaluating. The monitors have to be toed in slightly and have a distance of no less than 3.5 feet between them for the best soundstage.

maudio150jl.jpg

The Music

The LX4 definitely has the detail and clarity level of higher-end bookshelf speakers in the $600-$1000 range, capable of producing rich high-frequencies and maintaining a solid tonal balance between midrange and low-frequencies. The subwoofer is not at all too overpowering and outputs more accurate bass than I've heard from any of the Logitech Z-5500 or Klipsch 5.1 Ultra line of speakers. Lows are quick and punchy with all types of music and never once did I hear any muddiness. All material I played through the LX4 allowed for good depth, focused imaging, and was easy to listen to after properly calibrating the speakers.

Garth Brooks as Chris Gaines' track It Don't Matter To The Sun in HDCD really revealed the true character of the LX4. His voice was extremely neutral and the guitar strikes were so revealing it made me almost forget I was listening to speakers. These monitors really do an excellent job at detail execution!

The Games

I did not have the chance to test the LX4 on many different games but let me just say that of the few games tested, the LX4 had chills running down my spine! During the intro screen of Need For Speed: Most Wanted (right before you select users), I heard crystal clear details of tires screeching and engines revving in the far background. I was amazed that I had played this game 100 times before (using X-Fi and Z-2200) and those subtle details never stood out enough to "wow" me. Even at just this intro screen, cars chased left and right behind my ears. I was stunned! The one problem these speakers did have with gaming was the bleeding highs; however, this problem was quickly fixed by adjusting the treble down to about 25% using the X-Fi volume panel.

The Downside

There is no volume control anywhere else on this system except behind the subwoofer which makes it a hassle. I have been using the X-Fi software to adjust volumes but will more than likely resort to hooking everything up to an external integrated amp/processor for easier volume adjustment. The system was not intended for use with only PCs, therefore no phono plugs and adapters were included. I wish M-Audio would've supplied its consumers with these for the sake of simplicity. As far as sound performance, the LX4 monitors do tend to sound a bit bright at times (especially at higher volumes). I have spent hours tweaking and calibrating but cannot get it perfect. I guess you cannot expect too much from a system that is only $350, although I'm sure with the right soundcard (EMU 1212) the LX4 would definitely perform better.

Conclusion

I have found the M-Audio Studiophile LX4 system to be one of the best sub $400 speakers for PC enjoyment. Low frequencies were solid without any boominess and soundstage was dead-center! Compared to my old set of B&W 602S3 bookshelf speakers, the soundstage isn't as wide but when you factor in that it is only $350 these reference monitors are excellent.

Packaging: 10/10

Design: 8.5/10

Ease of Setup: 7/10

Accessibility: 8.5/10

Music: 9.5/10

Games: 9.5/10

Value (Price/Performance): 10/10

OVERALL: 9/10

Score Comparison Reference Guide:

Dynaudio BM5A Studio Monitors: 9.5/10

Logitech Z-5500: 8/10

Klipsch ProMedia 2.1: 8/10

Logitech Z-2200: 7.5/10

Logitech Z-2300: 6/10

Edited by coolmonk

Great review coolmonk. I have a slightly off topic question though. In your experience, why did you give the Z-2300 a 6/10? Thanks.

Well depending on what type of "audio" user you are, you may or may not agree with my opinion. From the POV of an audiophile or hardcore audio enthusiast, the Z-2300 just isn't capable of producing any accurate details, whether it be highs or lows. Bass is too boomy and highs are cloudy...and this was on the X-Fi soundcard. You really can't complain considering it's a budget speaker, and I rated it low because it came out after the Z-2200 (which is superior to the Z-2300) so it's supposed to be an upgraded version yet fails to outperform its predecessor. In my opinion, the best budget 2.1 PC speakers are the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1!

I will be doing another review over the weekend on the Dynaudio BM5A monitor speakers ($1,500/pair) and will use the EMU 0404 soundcard. These speakers are believed to be the BEST thing you can get for under $3,000. Keep an eye out for it...

Do you make music then?.. because these arn't the type of speaker the usual consumer would buy.

No I don't make music...I just enjoy listening to it. While these speakers aren't primarily aimed at PC consumers, it is well within the same price as other sets (Z-5500 is $350+ and Creative Gigaworks is $500). Therefore, I'm simply justifying that for a similar price you can have yourselves a much better speaker.

Now...the Dynaudio BM5A that I will be getting this weekend are more for audiophiles, yes, but it's always nice and fun to read a review about extreme products every now and then, right? :yes:

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      460
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!