AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › $15K to spend - Salk, Von Schweikert, or Ascend?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

$15K to spend - Salk, Von Schweikert, or Ascend? - Page 3

Poll Results: Which speakers would you buy (with cost being a factor)?

 
  • 44% (15)
    Salk Sound (get the best, cost be damned!)
  • 5% (2)
    Von Schweikert (conservative bet w/ an ultra smooth tweeter)
  • 50% (17)
    Asend Acoustics (go with the RAAL on a budget and save some cash for a Anthem D2V!)
34 Total Votes  
post #61 of 82
7/11/12 at 6:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

I recently heard two different sets of Selah's CBT arrays at the recent T.H.E. Show in Newport Beach, CA.
One room was actually Don Keele's, the person that designed the arrays. They were crossed over to Hsu's VTF-15H. Sounded very good.
Across the hall was another set in the Trinnov room, not the same model, but Don Keele designed CBT's, also built by Selah/Rick Craig. This room sounded a bit better...for whatever reason, presumably because of the EQing. A sound engineer happened to be in the room at the same time, with one of his recordings on a CD to demo. He was very impressed.

Actually a little explanation is needed here. The CBT36 in the Audio Artistry room was engineered by Marshall Kay and Don Keele of Audio Artistry so they deserve all the credit for that design. The CBT45 "GameChanger" in the Trinnov room was more of a joint project between the three of us. I had some ideas of using a larger woofer / different tweeter combination that could also be used with a passive crossover (the CBT36 is strictly an active system). Most of the design work on the CBT45 was done up front by Marshall and Don. The passive shading network I designed based on the target response that Don gave me and I also engineered the optional passive crossover version. I also wanted a matching center channel for the CBT45 and we've just completed the cabinet for that and it's ready to go to the finisher tomorrow.

I spoke quite a bit with Curt Hoyt of Trinnov before the show and gave him some ideas for setting up their DSP crossover. Don and Marshall also added their input after he did a trial run prior to the show opening. To the OP - sorry for this detour in the thread.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #62 of 82
7/11/12 at 8:30pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by advanced101101 View Post

Salk does well because they have Nuance to cheerlead for them smile.gif I have never seen a thread discussing speaker recommendations over $1500 where he wasn't pushing Salks. I have heard a set of Selah's and own a set of Salks, I would put them in the same league and "sound type", which I would classify as super accurate to the source, which is good and bad. As always demo whatever your going to buy. I own a set of Dynaudios and they have a different flavor of sound, and I actually prefer them to the Salks for Classic Rock and Electronic. IMHO of course.

Which Salks do you own/heard? "Super Accurate" often means ruthlessly revealing. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

-Brian
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 82
7/11/12 at 8:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy View Post

Kudos for sending your speakers to Soundstage NRC!
Looking further at the measurements, is there an increased in energy around 2K - 3K @ 45 degree off axis? Is that an issue? Or not?

That's not that unusual for a 2-way with a fairly low crossover point. As you move further out the tweeter's directivity changes plus there's the interaction with the baffle. If you look further down on the page there's what they call the "listening window" graph which is a composite of curves. That graph is probably a good indicator of what the tonal balance will be.

Constant directivity is a big debate right now and the waveguide / horn designers would say their approach has an advantage when moving out further in the horizontal plane. Based on my experience with the CBT designs I think there's actually more benefit to constant directivity that can extend lower in frequency (typically most of the waveguide designs can only control down to about 500hz at best). I also think the rolloff in the top octave is a disadvantage with waveguides / horns. It's all about tradeoffs!
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 82
7/11/12 at 8:48pm
Thread Starter 
Here is a customer review of on Audio Circle regarding the Saleh Verita:

"i purchased a pair of rear ported, paper coned verita monitors from rick back in jan. these are the ones with the "RAAL" tweeter and the 7 inch scan-speak illuminator woofer (paper cone version). my initial impressions were, wow i didn't know that a monitor could sound that good. the words "mesmerizing" and "inticing" came to mind. it took me a few minutes to wrap my head around the sound as does with all new speakers. now the main strength of the tweeter is its accuracy. the main strength of the woofer is its ability to throw the sound. the imaging is pretty damn good. did i mention that instead of two speakers it sounds like one giant wall of sound. these aren't the loudest things on the planet so if loudness is a must for you, these aren't for you. you'll end up blowing them. i think for my next speakers though i'd ask rick to build me a pair with "a regular" tweeter (instead of a ribbon type) and i'd still keep the paper coned scan-speak woofer cause i'm quite amazed with that. the reason for this is because the "RAAL" tweeter seams to be kind of far back in the presentation. the high trebles don't come out and grab you for some reason. i have to be honest here about this tweeter. though the reason these speakers have the qualities listed above is because this tweeter DOES have an accurate and natural sound, so it is good that way. i guess you'd have to make up your own mind on the "RAAL" tweeter. this is my review and i'm here to answer any questions yall might have .i'd give these monitors 9 and a half out of 10. the missing half out of 10 is only because of my reservations about the tweeter."

The "recessed" tweeter seems to be a common theme whereas there is not a single mention of the Salks having a recessed sound. I'm not saying one is better than the other its just an interesting difference.

For what its worth Saleh DOES have several detailed measurments on their site for each product which look commendably flat.

Rick is the Verita the closest speaker you make to the Soundscape M7? I think the M7 uses 2 inch thick walls. Care to comment on the Verita?

Thanks,

-Brian
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 82
7/11/12 at 8:53pm
Thread Starter 
Soundstage review of the Verita again mentioning the laid back top end:

"However, and going back to my statement that I was not completely overwhelmed by the Verita’s treble, what did seem somewhat diminished was upper-level air and space, accompanied by a slight softening of percussive strokes (think wooden drumstick hitting metal cymbal). Instead of a backdrop “clear as air” or “images floating in space,” there was more of an inky-black, dead-silent backdrop to the Verita’s overall sound. I tend to prefer the former, so I swapped out the Acoustic Zen Silver Reference II interconnects and Apogee Wyde-Eye digital cable I’d had in place and replaced them with the relatively more austere-sounding Stereovox Colibri-R and XV2, respectively. This definitely added some welcome sparkle and zip, but the basic character described above remained."

-Brian
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 82
7/11/12 at 8:57pm
Thread Starter 
50% of people say I should go with the Ascend towers. I'm not suprised given their popularity. Im also not suprised that the VS has only one vote. They are not very popular speakers on this site. I LOVED my VR4-jrs.

-Brian
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 82
7/11/12 at 9:17pm
Regarding the RAAL, here is what David Fabrikant said with his detail measurements and comparison of the tweeter to the standard NrT tweeter.
Quote:
Notice that nearly all energy from the tweeter is fully dissipated between 0.39 msec and 0.59
msec. Nearly equal decay time throughout the full bandwidth of the tweeter results in a more
cohesive and detailed performance, closer to how sound is produced in nature. For example, a 2
kHz note dissipates at nearly the same time as a 30 kHz note. I believe that it is this remarkable
transient “speed” and uniform decay times that correlate to listeners describing the ribbon sound
as being more delicate and transparent.

The measurements and commentary can be found here:
http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/SRT/Ascend%20Sierra%20Ribbon%20Tower.pdf

In my experience, the RAAL certainly does not come out a grab you when compared do the dome in the Salk SongTower or the NrT tweeter in the standard Sierra Tower(I actually do not think these two grab you either, but they are a bit more forward than the RAAL). IMO, if you think the sound of dome is "normal", I think you will think the RAAL is "recessed" at first, until you really start to notice the kind of detail it puts forth.

BTW...I've heard the VR-4jr a while back at CES....probably 7 years ago or so, and really liked it.
Edited by cschang - 7/11/12 at 9:22pm
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 82
7/12/12 at 2:35am
If you get a chance to demo something from Legacy Audio as well, I think it would be worth it.

http://www.legacyaudio.com/products/view/signature-se/
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 82
7/12/12 at 5:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bghead8che View Post

Soundstage review of the Verita again mentioning the laid back top end:
"However, and going back to my statement that I was not completely overwhelmed by the Verita’s treble, what did seem somewhat diminished was upper-level air and space, accompanied by a slight softening of percussive strokes (think wooden drumstick hitting metal cymbal). Instead of a backdrop “clear as air” or “images floating in space,” there was more of an inky-black, dead-silent backdrop to the Verita’s overall sound. I tend to prefer the former, so I swapped out the Acoustic Zen Silver Reference II interconnects and Apogee Wyde-Eye digital cable I’d had in place and replaced them with the relatively more austere-sounding Stereovox Colibri-R and XV2, respectively. This definitely added some welcome sparkle and zip, but the basic character described above remained."
-Brian

Looking at the Soundstage measurements I can see why the tweeter was "recessed" sounding.

The Salk and Ascend speakers I've heard that utilize the RAAL tweeter do not have that "rolled off" characteristic at all. With that said, like cschang stated the RAAL won't come out and grab you; the high frequencies don't call attention to themselves. They are just there, passing through the information properly. I think they are a little more accurate than the dome in the SongTower or Sierra Tower, just as Curtis mentioned. YMMV, though, so definitely best to audition before you buy. Even if two three or four manufacturers use the exact same drivers there is no guarantee the speakers will perform the same. The crossover and cabinet design is just as important as the driver selection.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 82
7/12/12 at 6:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Craig View Post


That's not that unusual for a 2-way with a fairly low crossover point. As you move further out the tweeter's directivity changes plus there's the interaction with the baffle. If you look further down on the page there's what they call the "listening window" graph which is a composite of curves. That graph is probably a good indicator of what the tonal balance will be.
Constant directivity is a big debate right now and the waveguide / horn designers would say their approach has an advantage when moving out further in the horizontal plane. Based on my experience with the CBT designs I think there's actually more benefit to constant directivity that can extend lower in frequency (typically most of the waveguide designs can only control down to about 500hz at best). I also think the rolloff in the top octave is a disadvantage with waveguides / horns. It's all about tradeoffs!

Thanks. Yes, I did notice the listening window 5-point average measurement looks great.

Again, kudos for sending your speaker to Soundstage / NRC!
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 82
7/12/12 at 6:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bghead8che View Post

...I tend to prefer the former, so I swapped out the Acoustic Zen Silver Reference II interconnects and Apogee Wyde-Eye digital cable I’d had in place and replaced them with the relatively more austere-sounding Stereovox Colibri-R and XV2, respectively. This definitely added some welcome sparkle and zip..."

Really funny how these reviewers talk about cables/ interconnects! biggrin.gif

Bottom line, everyone will have a different opinion, good or bad. biggrin.gif
Edited by AcuDefTechGuy - 7/12/12 at 7:26am
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 82
7/12/12 at 8:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicardoJoa View Post

Thats was funny about rick. Seriously i cant tell from pics which woofer the SS8 uses, they look like the ones in the selah visionario..but only the SS8 are cheaper and dig lower.

No they don't look the same if you compare the frames. I am 99% sure it came from one of two manufacturers - both of which I have used before the SS8 was even built. Good drivers for the $ if it came from one of them. As far as going lower than the Visionario there's no SS8 graph to compare with. To reach 25hz @ -3db with an 8" and no active equalization involves some tradeoffs.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 82
7/12/12 at 8:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bghead8che View Post

Which Salks do you own/heard? "Super Accurate" often means ruthlessly revealing. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
-Brian

Own the HT2-TL, also heard the HT-3. There are always trade-offs with speaker designs. I like the way the Salks dig deep into clean recordings but sometimes I don't want to hear to nastiness of the poor ones. Also, the Salks are very true to the signatures of your source components. Spending time auditioning and researching sonic signatures will help tailor the sound to your preference. With these speakers I prefer a tube component in the chain or else they can get too clean that it makes me cringe, if that makes sense. I had to get rid of my Class D Rotel amp, and changed it to a hybrid AVA amp. Next, I will add a tube pre-amp. Also, it seems that the ceiling for SQ advancement through upgraded sources is high. Meaning that you could hear differences in high end components, due to the speakers accuracy.
For newer classical recordings with piano and violin the sound is to die for. For guitars, drums and synthesized sounds (electronic) I prefer my dynaudios, they seem to be able to rock and smooth over the rough edges. And I understand that means adding their own "signature" to the sound and not staying true to the source, but hey, it's all about musical enjoyment.
In my opinion, I feel that people need to demo the Salks before buying them. Especially if you listen to classic rock. IMHO, the HT2-TLs are a great buy and Jim Salk is fantastic to deal with. I will probably never sell these speakers, no need to for anymore accuracy and bass (crossover to Fathom F113).

If strickly for HT I would recommend the setup that I posted earlier. I use my HT2-TLs crossed over at 80 to my Fathom and man, they can throw a ton on SPL while maintaining SQ, using only 2 speakers.

If you have any other questions, you can message me.
Edited by advanced101101 - 7/12/12 at 9:05am
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 82
7/12/12 at 9:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bghead8che View Post

Here is a customer review of on Audio Circle regarding the Saleh Verita:
"i purchased a pair of rear ported, paper coned verita monitors from rick back in jan. these are the ones with the "RAAL" tweeter and the 7 inch scan-speak illuminator woofer (paper cone version). my initial impressions were, wow i didn't know that a monitor could sound that good. the words "mesmerizing" and "inticing" came to mind. it took me a few minutes to wrap my head around the sound as does with all new speakers. now the main strength of the tweeter is its accuracy. the main strength of the woofer is its ability to throw the sound. the imaging is pretty damn good. did i mention that instead of two speakers it sounds like one giant wall of sound. these aren't the loudest things on the planet so if loudness is a must for you, these aren't for you. you'll end up blowing them. i think for my next speakers though i'd ask rick to build me a pair with "a regular" tweeter (instead of a ribbon type) and i'd still keep the paper coned scan-speak woofer cause i'm quite amazed with that. the reason for this is because the "RAAL" tweeter seams to be kind of far back in the presentation. the high trebles don't come out and grab you for some reason. i have to be honest here about this tweeter. though the reason these speakers have the qualities listed above is because this tweeter DOES have an accurate and natural sound, so it is good that way. i guess you'd have to make up your own mind on the "RAAL" tweeter. this is my review and i'm here to answer any questions yall might have .i'd give these monitors 9 and a half out of 10. the missing half out of 10 is only because of my reservations about the tweeter."
The "recessed" tweeter seems to be a common theme whereas there is not a single mention of the Salks having a recessed sound. I'm not saying one is better than the other its just an interesting difference.
For what its worth Saleh DOES have several detailed measurments on their site for each product which look commendably flat.
Rick is the Verita the closest speaker you make to the Soundscape M7? I think the M7 uses 2 inch thick walls. Care to comment on the Verita?


Actually if you look at the last post in that thread the owner changed his mind about his original opinion on the treble. This is all very subjective; in fact, here's a link where a few people commented the Verita was too bright http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/754352-post95.html
I would imagine if you go back and read some reviews on the speakers you mentioned as being too bright you'll find some opinions that the balance was neutral (or maybe even laid back). Room interaction, recording quality, etc all play a part. Reviews always must be taken with a grain of salt and there's no substitute for being able to hear the speakers in your own room with good quality recordings that you're familiar with.

The Verita is different than the M7 (2-way versus 3-way) and in a much lower price range. The Tempesta 3-way would be a closer comparison and is the best stand-mounted monitor that we make.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 82
7/12/12 at 2:17pm
Just to add a little to the NRC measurement discussion. I don't know any speaker mfg that sends their speakers to the NRC for measurements. Perhaps PSB as I know he uses the facility for speaker design but i have not seen any of his measurements on his ad material (but maybe I have just not looked hard enough). Now Soundstage is a review magazine and they do send some speakers there for measurements and that is great but some would argue there should be addtional measurements done to give a fuller picture. I wrote them once (Soundstage) to get a contact as I pondered spending my own money to have them measure a speaker I owned but received no reply. I have no idea how speakers are selected for review but perhaps RIck can let us know how that happened for him (or maybe Curtis knows the background for Ascend)?

In any event, on a podcast with Sean Olive that i listened to (Home Theater Podcast...Scott Wilkinson), Sean said the cost was $500 plue delivery to and from of course. I do find it interesting that rarely if ever to the NRC measurements match the ones offered by the mfg....some closer than others of course. Finally, I am sure Rick knows of Earl Geddes regard for polar response measurements which you rarely see except for some pro speakers.

I did mention to Earl Geddes that some hobbyist would appreciate a speaker mfg offering third part measurements rather than their own, and Earl in his own inimitable way said, what don't they trust the mfg.

The other thing is that most of us (me certainly) don't know really how to interpret speaker measurements. I once had Tom Nousaine look at some speaker measurements of a speaker that was from one of the mfg discussed here and while he said everything looked pretty good he proceeded to try to educate me (he failed:-) on how the presentation was being made in the best possible light. Food for thought.

Finally, Don Keele kind of wrote the book on speaker measurements. I would trust his.
Edited by Randy Bessinger - 7/12/12 at 2:44pm
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 82
7/12/12 at 4:25pm
As far as Soundstage is concerned, my understanding is that they learn about speakers, and if there seems to be enough interest (whether it be internally or externally), then ask the manufacturer product to review. I am not sure what the criteria is for sending a speaker off to the NRC for measurements.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 82
7/13/12 at 8:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bessinger View Post

Just to add a little to the NRC measurement discussion. I don't know any speaker mfg that sends their speakers to the NRC for measurements. Perhaps PSB as I know he uses the facility for speaker design but i have not seen any of his measurements on his ad material (but maybe I have just not looked hard enough). Now Soundstage is a review magazine and they do send some speakers there for measurements and that is great but some would argue there should be addtional measurements done to give a fuller picture. I wrote them once (Soundstage) to get a contact as I pondered spending my own money to have them measure a speaker I owned but received no reply. I have no idea how speakers are selected for review but perhaps RIck can let us know how that happened for him (or maybe Curtis knows the background for Ascend)?
In any event, on a podcast with Sean Olive that i listened to (Home Theater Podcast...Scott Wilkinson), Sean said the cost was $500 plue delivery to and from of course. I do find it interesting that rarely if ever to the NRC measurements match the ones offered by the mfg....some closer than others of course. Finally, I am sure Rick knows of Earl Geddes regard for polar response measurements which you rarely see except for some pro speakers.
I did mention to Earl Geddes that some hobbyist would appreciate a speaker mfg offering third part measurements rather than their own, and Earl in his own inimitable way said, what don't they trust the mfg.
The other thing is that most of us (me certainly) don't know really how to interpret speaker measurements. I once had Tom Nousaine look at some speaker measurements of a speaker that was from one of the mfg discussed here and while he said everything looked pretty good he proceeded to try to educate me (he failed:-) on how the presentation was being made in the best possible light. Food for thought.
Finally, Don Keele kind of wrote the book on speaker measurements. I would trust his.

At one time several of the major Canadian manufacturers used the NRC but I'm not sure how many currently do. They have the reputatation of being one of the best facilities in the world so I was honored to be able to see my design tested there. I think SoundStage offers to use the NRC for all speaker reviews but don't quote me on that. I do know that some companies decline - maybe for cost of shipping a large speaker or other reasons. There tests were pretty close to my own measurements so I cannot explain the differences that you've noted. That could be due to several factors such as the equipment used, software, environment, etc.
I would say if the manufacturer has a response curve that looks way better than one from the NRC it would raise a red flag to me.

Not all designers agree on what measurements are best (Earl being a prime example) but in my opinion the NRC tests can tell you quite a bit about how the speaker will sound before you even listen to it. The "listening window" curve they have is a good guide because it is a composite of the response from several different angles. The linearity curves (taken and different volume levels) are a good sign of how the speaker performs under additional stress at higher output levels. If you see a large deviation (usually a drop in output but sometimes an increase) it indicates a driver and / or crossover problem. This test is especially good for speakers going into a HT system where the owner wants a reference level output capability. Impedance of course is a familiar one for determining a good amplifier match but you can also look at the phase angles to see if the speaker is going to be more difficult to drive. The distortion graphs also help - woofers possibly running out of excursion, crossover points / slopes that don't do a good job protecting the tweeter,and so forth.

It's really sad that very few magazines (online and print) provide measurements with reviews. I think it really is a great tool for making a purchase decision and one that I used before I started building my own speakers. I agree about Don Keele; in fact, I just talked with him yesterday about coming here to do some testing. I aways looked forward to his reviews in Audio magazine because of the wealth of information. Having worked with him I can tell you that he's very much a purist when it comes to measuring speakers.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 82
7/13/12 at 11:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Craig View Post

There tests were pretty close to my own measurements...I would say if the manufacturer has a response curve that looks way better than one from the NRC it would raise a red flag to me...the NRC tests can tell you quite a bit about how the speaker will sound before you even listen to it.

Excellent point.

For some, money and time is a huge issue as far as sending speakers to NRC.

But I also think for some, it's a huge risk as well because the results may not be what they expected - putting faith in other people to measure your speakers.

But in general, I would rather buy a speaker that has been measured by NRC.
Edited by AcuDefTechGuy - 7/13/12 at 11:28am
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 82
7/13/12 at 11:38am
I too would like to see more NRC or at least 3rd party testing. I don't really see the risk associated with the mfg. doing it. They certainly don't have to publish the information and I think they could use it in the design process. What I don't know is if besides the $500 there may have to be an agreement in place not to publish without an agreement (and perhaps additional $) to publish the results to the public. Would be interesting to know.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 82
7/13/12 at 12:23pm
I just listened to the Gallo CL-4's yesterday and was absolutely impressed. I know that what i heard, the imaging, the detail has to be related to the tweeter. However, the Cl4 is 35 inches tall and it filled the room with music. Head to toe. WOW! is all i have to say. I had the classicos when they first came out and these things were just better by spade.
Reply
Reply
post #81 of 82
7/13/12 at 12:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bessinger View Post

I too would like to see more NRC or at least 3rd party testing. I don't really see the risk associated with the mfg. doing it. They certainly don't have to publish the information and I think they could use it in the design process. What I don't know is if besides the $500 there may have to be an agreement in place not to publish without an agreement (and perhaps additional $) to publish the results to the public. Would be interesting to know.

Or maybe it actually costs money to publish it - like a form of advertisement. biggrin.gif
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 82
7/13/12 at 12:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by advanced101101 View Post

Salk does well because they have Nuance to cheerlead for them smile.gif I have never seen a thread discussing speaker recommendations over $1500 where he wasn't pushing Salks. I have heard a set of Selah's and own a set of Salks, I would put them in the same league and "sound type", which I would classify as super accurate to the source, which is good and bad. As always demo whatever your going to buy. I own a set of Dynaudios and they have a different flavor of sound, and I actually prefer them to the Salks for Classic Rock and Electronic. IMHO of course.

What Selah's have you heard? I've read good things about Rick's offerings but never got a chance to hear the speakers.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › $15K to spend - Salk, Von Schweikert, or Ascend?