AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › The Official Salk Sound Owner's And Discussion Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Official Salk Sound Owner's And Discussion Thread - Page 224

post #6691 of 8706
3/8/12 at 1:06pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bghead8che View Post

So no thoughts on the black hole or cap upgrades? Any thoughts on my proposed package?

Skip the caps, go with the black hole and downgrade the rears unless you'll be frequently listening to multi-channel music or pulling them off the wall to use as a small 2-channel system elsewhere occasionally. That's just too much speaker for rears in my opinion, but it's your money. Personally I'd put the money toward a great amplifier, DAC or something you're missing yet (music streamer, etc).
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #6692 of 8706
3/8/12 at 1:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

...and downgrade the rears unless you'll be frequently listening to multi-channel music or pulling them off the wall to use as a small 2-channel system elsewhere occasionally. That's just too much speaker for rears in my opinion, but it's your money. Personally I'd put the money toward a great amplifier, DAC or something you're missing yet (music streamer, etc).

Sound words indeed! I would much rather get SS8 for the front than spending that much on the rears, unless it is for other reasons as Nuance mentioned.

And oh, I am also super-sensitive to bright(er) speakers, and that was one of the big reasons for me going from ST to HT2-TL. Absolutely no regrets here, but of course self-demo is still the best option.
Reply
Reply
post #6693 of 8706
3/8/12 at 1:41pm
Point taken. $3K on rears, yikes! Maybe I'll go for a RAAL bookshelf with a single SEAS driver instead. Jim recommended skipping the caps for now.

Regarding getting the S8s for the fronts that would work, however, to get the matching center and rears I would be out $15K vs $10K. I would then have to purchase the fronts, wait a year, buy the center, then wait again, and buy the rears. Don't know if its worth the wait and extra $$$$.

Rishi, did you go from the ST domes to the HT2-TL RAAL? You found the SongTowers forward?

Thanks guys.

-Brian
Reply
Reply
post #6694 of 8706
3/8/12 at 2:02pm
Thread Starter 
If you went the SS8 route it'd be $8000 for the speakers, another $3000 for the center and then you could just spend $900 on SongSurround for rears (they really don't need to be timbre matched unless this is a multi-channel music system).

Otherwise, if you do as planned, the HT2-TL's, matching center and regular SongSurround's for rears will be awesome.
Reply
Reply
post #6695 of 8706
3/8/12 at 2:07pm
I'm OCD when it comes to my HT system. Since 50% of my HT use is multi-channel music using my Onkyo SSP I'd want a timbre matched system. Hmmm.... decisions, decisions.

Can you imagine an SS8, C center, and M7 rears?!!?

-Brian
Reply
Reply
post #6696 of 8706
3/8/12 at 2:27pm
Brian - I did go from ST domes to HT2-TL RAAL. ST domes were excellent domes - I wouldn't call them 'forward' in general sense of the word, but they did walk close to that on some of my material *for me*. Like I mentioned, I am very sensitive to this, so this may not apply to others though.

Jim had actually recommended me HT2-TL with SongCenter as I had that already with ST. But I decided to go with HT2C nevertheless. Jim or others may know more about alternate centers for SS8.

Btw, I have Polk rears and I am fine that. How's that for timbre-matching
Reply
Reply
post #6697 of 8706
3/8/12 at 3:58pm
@ Brian - I'm in a similar boat with sensitivity to brightness. I have some hearing loss and wear digital hearing aids (adds another piece of electronics in the chain - there are even forums to deal with that issue!).

I am seriously considering one of the Salk's with RAAL based on all the chatter here. I've not yet seen a single comment that would indicate brightness/harshness/fatique. If you do purchase please post back your impressions specifically with regard to this issue. I'll do the same, but my purchase will likely be a few months off.

I currently have Paradigm Studio 40's v.4. I find them fatiguing. I have the opportunity to pick up a pair of used Signature Beryllium tweeters for reasonable cost and will experiment with those in the Studios first.

If I turn back to Salk, there will then be the difficult choice between lines and models - but glad to have that problem!
Reply
Reply
post #6698 of 8706
3/8/12 at 4:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

*As long as you're not nearfield.

yup...

i listen to a lot of mch music, and i find the ht-1's* to be a real good match for the ht2-tl's... and they are no slouch for movies either... granted, i cross everything at 80... and i have a small room, and thus may be closer to the surrounds than others are...

i didn't realize the supercharged songs were such a significant price upgrade...

* mine are on-walls that jim special built for me... another reason to purchase from him... he will make you what you want, as long as it is possible...
Reply
Reply
post #6699 of 8706
3/8/12 at 4:43pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bghead8che View Post

I'm OCD when it comes to my HT system. Since 50% of my HT use is multi-channel music using my Onkyo SSP I'd want a timbre matched system. Hmmm.... decisions, decisions.

Can you imagine an SS8, C center, and M7 rears?!!?

-Brian

Yes, yes I can imagine an all SoundScape setup; I've been doing that every day since last Saturday.

The HT2-TL is an awesome setup, so don't break the bank in order to go with SS8's. Sure, they're better, but you gotta do what you gotta do. How about subwoofers? Do you have any yet?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pstrisik View Post

@ Brian - I'm in a similar boat with sensitivity to brightness. I have some hearing loss and wear digital hearing aids (adds another piece of electronics in the chain - there are even forums to deal with that issue!).

I am seriously considering one of the Salk's with RAAL based on all the chatter here. I've not yet seen a single comment that would indicate brightness/harshness/fatique. If you do purchase please post back your impressions specifically with regard to this issue. I'll do the same, but my purchase will likely be a few months off.

I currently have Paradigm Studio 40's v.4. I find them fatiguing. I have the opportunity to pick up a pair of used Signature Beryllium tweeters for reasonable cost and will experiment with those in the Studios first.

If I turn back to Salk, there will then be the difficult choice between lines and models - but glad to have that problem!

Even the Beryllium tweeters are bright in comparison to the RAAL tweeter, though the former is much better than what Paradigm uses in the Studio series.
Reply
Reply
post #6700 of 8706
3/8/12 at 4:45pm
I'll have a couch between my surrounds. Depending on where one sits they will be 5-7 ft away. The SC SS IIs should be more than adequate! They are twice the efficiency of the HT1s which was my other choice.

-Brian
Reply
Reply
post #6701 of 8706
3/8/12 at 7:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

Even the Beryllium tweeters are bright in comparison to the RAAL tweeter, though the former is much better than what Paradigm uses in the Studio series.

Exactly my sense if I were predicting. Worth a try though given getting the tweeters for $250. It will only add to the value of the 40's if and when I sell them. Not to mention the fun experiment!
Reply
Reply
post #6702 of 8706
3/8/12 at 8:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by pstrisik View Post

Exactly my sense if I were predicting. Worth a try though given getting the tweeters for $250. It will only add to the value of the 40's if and when I sell them. Not to mention the fun experiment!


I hope that you realize you can't just drop in those Be tweets in your studio 40's and expect them to sound good. You would have to modify the crossover, and even then, might not be much of an improvement. Seems like wishfull thinking, and although a good idea in theory, might not turn out like you are predicting.
Reply
Reply
post #6703 of 8706
3/8/12 at 9:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martycool007 View Post

I hope that you realize you can't just drop in those Be tweets in your studio 40's and expect them to sound good. You would have to modify the crossover, and even then, might not be much of an improvement. Seems like wishfull thinking, and although a good idea in theory, might not turn out like you are predicting.

It's been debated many times. I've seen two posters that have done it (with Studios other than the 40s) and liked the improvement. It might not be huge, and it might have issues that some ears wouldn't hear. We'll see, if I get the opportunity.

If you know more about the crossover, I'd be interested. The sigs and studios both crossover at 2K. But the sig crosses with 3rd order and the studio with 2nd order. I'm not sure of the implications. My limited understanding is that this means the roll off would be steeper in the sigs, unless I have it backwards. I don't know if that difference has any other implications.

As far as experimenting, the voice coil/dome assemblies are interchangeable as well, leaving the rest of the tweeter as is.

(This is getting a bit off topic and I don't yet know the latitude in this thread, so tell me to stop if necessary.)
Reply
Reply
post #6704 of 8706
3/9/12 at 5:30am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bghead8che View Post

I'll have a couch between my surrounds. Depending on where one sits they will be 5-7 ft away. The SC SS IIs should be more than adequate! They are twice the efficiency of the HT1s which was my other choice.

-Brian

They are also more money, and rears do not need to be more efficient. You simply level match your system and you're good to go. I'd put the money toward something else, but if you want Super-Charged SongSurrounds go for it. Your surrounds will cost more than my fronts.
Reply
Reply
post #6705 of 8706
3/9/12 at 5:48am
I was confused awhile ago whether this conversation has turned to surrounds or rears, but DM has suggested MB0W1's as surrounds to match the Philharmonics. Might they work also with Salks as rears in a 7.1 configuration? Yeah, not as much wow factor, but with the extra $ you could send your significant other to a spa (or Paris) to schmooze her for a future upgrade.
Reply
Reply
post #6706 of 8706
3/9/12 at 7:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi76 View Post

Sound words indeed! I would much rather get SS8 for the front than spending that much on the rears, unless it is for other reasons as Nuance mentioned.

And oh, I am also super-sensitive to bright(er) speakers, and that was one of the big reasons for me going from ST to HT2-TL. Absolutely no regrets here, but of course self-demo is still the best option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bghead8che View Post

I'm OCD when it comes to my HT system. Since 50% of my HT use is multi-channel music using my Onkyo SSP I'd want a timbre matched system. Hmmm.... decisions, decisions.

Can you imagine an SS8, C center, and M7 rears?!!?

-Brian

I've heard the SongTower, HT2-TL, and the SoundScape 10, and they all had very similar voicing. I believe this mostly due to Dennis' crossover work. You might talk to Jim about it, but I would have no problem using surrounds from a different Salk line because of their very similiar voicing.

Like Nuance said, personally I would save on the surrounds and put that money into getting the SoundScape 8 over the HT2-TL. I think overall you'll end up with a better system since the front speakers dominate what we hear.
Reply
Reply
post #6707 of 8706
3/9/12 at 7:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

Room will treatments will help a lot too, and will resolve issues room correction cannot (like decay times/ringing).

This is OT but I'd like to add that positioning of multiple subs can go a long way improving the SQ in the room even without formal treatments. And though room treatments are obviously of great value to SQ, they're not easy to get right- certainly a challenge to the DIY'er. I've decided that with the results I'm getting with Audyssey MultEQXT32 and 2 carefully placed subs, that
1. I will defer room treatments for now because of poor WAF and expense. and
2. I'll probably have a professional assess the room acoustics and do an estimate if and when I do consider treatments. See this thread for cool ideas.

As to decay times/ringing, I have to respectfully disagree with your statement. DSP RC technology has improved rapidly over the past few years and has become very sophisticated. The topic is very technical (kinda over my head actually) but I've read multiple documented instances of measured improvements in such areas with the use of newer versions of good DSP RC, like Audyssey and ARC. If you're interested, do some searches or take a look at these links below. IIRC Kal Rubinson has posted waterfall graphs in his column over the past couple years of Audyssey, ARC and perhaps Trinnov. Here is a brief post by Kal with preceeding discussion on the topic including craig john's postings here.

There is additional info on this in the Audyssey thread-for a brief description of Audyssey corrections in the time domain see here.
Reply
Reply
post #6708 of 8706
3/9/12 at 7:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy View Post

....But Salk offers a 30-day return policy, right? You pay shipping both ways, but at least you can return them if they don't work out........

At the time I ordered my HT2-TLs (late 2010), Jim indicated to me that the 30 day return policy only applied to the SongTowers in standard finish. He said that in the more expensive models most customers want custom finishes so it would be harder to resell them.

Perhaps Jim can respond if this has changed.
Reply
Reply
post #6709 of 8706
3/9/12 at 7:49am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcuDefTechGuy View Post


Nothing is perfect in life. Nothing is a 100% guarantee. Nothing.

What about disappointment or death? Those are 100% guaranteed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoundofMind View Post

This is OT but I'd like to add that positioning of multiple subs can go a long way improving the SQ in the room even without formal treatments. And though room treatments are obviously of great value to SQ, they're not easy to get right- certainly a challenge to the DIY'er. I've decided that with the results I'm getting with Audyssey MultEQXT32 and 2 carefully placed subs, that
1. I will defer room treatments for now because of poor WAF and expense. and
2. I'll probably have a professional assess the room acoustics and do an estimate if and when I do consider treatments. See this thread for cool ideas.

As to decay times/ringing, I have to respectfully disagree with your statement. DSP RC technology has improved rapidly over the past few years and has become very sophisticated. The topic is very technical (kinda over my head actually) but I've read multiple documented instances of measured improvements in such areas with the use of newer versions of good DSP RC, like Audyssey and ARC. If you're interested, do some searches or take a look at these links below. IIRC Kal Rubinson has posted waterfall graphs in his column over the past couple years of Audyssey, ARC and perhaps Trinnov. Here is a brief post by Kal with preceeding discussion on the topic including craig john's postings here.

There is additional info on this in the Audyssey thread-for a brief description of Audyssey corrections in the time domain see here.

I agree about the subwoofers and improvement in averaged FR at all locations, but I still haven't seen any measurements in which Audyssey or ARC has improved decay (waterfall plots would be cool to see). Would you mind providing links to such measurements? Even if it does improve decay, I'd be willing to bet it won't do it as well as room treatments and bass traps will. However, I could be entirely wrong, and if so I'll happily admit it.
Reply
Reply
post #6710 of 8706
3/9/12 at 8:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

Even if it does improve decay, I'd be willing to bet it won't do it as well as room treatments and bass traps will. However, I could be entirely wrong, and if so I'll happily admit it.

You are not wrong but the sheer bulk of treatments that are as effective in the 20-100Hz range often makes them impractical.
Reply
Reply
post #6711 of 8706
3/9/12 at 8:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

.....I agree about the subwoofers and improvement in averaged FR at all locations, but I still haven't seen any measurements in which Audyssey or ARC has improved decay (waterfall plots would be cool to see). Would you mind providing links to such measurements? Even if it does improve decay, I'd be willing to bet it won't do it as well as room treatments and bass traps will. However, I could be entirely wrong, and if so I'll happily admit it.

I'm struggling to understand how ringing/decay times can be affected by an electronic device. Seems like no matter what it changes (amplitude, phase, timing, etc.) the sound leaving the speaker is still going to bounce around the room in the same manner as before processing.
Reply
Reply
post #6712 of 8706
3/9/12 at 9:16am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

You are not wrong but the sheer bulk of treatments that are as effective in the 20-100Hz range often makes them impractical.

I completely agree. I guess I too am struggling to understand how electronically altering the signal can reduce ringing/decay. I suppose if you pull a peak down far enough it won't ring as prominently at that frequency??? But what about the rest of the FR? For example, I can EQ my subwoofers to achieve a nice linear response, but my waterfall plots remain unchanged. Adding bass traps, however, significantly changes said waterfall plot.
Reply
Reply
post #6713 of 8706
3/9/12 at 9:56am
What happens if you open a door or window?
Reply
Reply
post #6714 of 8706
3/9/12 at 10:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai View Post

What happens if you open a door or window?

You better shut them ASAP.
Reply
Reply
post #6715 of 8706
3/9/12 at 10:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nethawk View Post

I was confused awhile ago whether this conversation has turned to surrounds or rears, but DM has suggested MB0W1's as surrounds to match the Philharmonics. Might they work also with Salks as rears in a 7.1 configuration? Yeah, not as much wow factor, but with the extra $ you could send your significant other to a spa (or Paris) to schmooze her for a future upgrade.

Jim already offers a variant on the MB0W1--it's the SongSurround I, which is my CA0W1. It's the same as the MB0W1 except that it uses the Seas ER15 woofer (to match the SongTowers) instead of a GR-Research woofer.
Reply
Reply
post #6716 of 8706
3/9/12 at 10:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

Haha - you turds. The best I can do is show a picture of the SoundScape 8 that I took (just a phone picture). It's not that bright of a red in real person; it's more like Jim's pics. My phone's camera flash is responsible for the color...

Those look pretty nice....

I'm really glad I picked up the M7's used for less then 1/2 the price and run my LMS with it... More bass then I'll ever need... Same World class sound....

Also, for those interested in a Center to go with the SS's, I went with the HT2-Center and I couldn't for the life of me feel that I made a poor decision in that choice... Jim built it to match my existing SS M7's and its beautiful...

What brand are those Passive Radiators on that unit... wowsers they are not the prettiest looking...

That phone of yours takes awful pics, can't believe you are suggesting I make the move to it...
Reply
Reply
post #6717 of 8706
3/9/12 at 3:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuance View Post

I completely agree. I guess I too am struggling to understand how electronically altering the signal can reduce ringing/decay. I suppose if you pull a peak down far enough it won't ring as prominently at that frequency??? But what about the rest of the FR? For example, I can EQ my subwoofers to achieve a nice linear response, but my waterfall plots remain unchanged. Adding bass traps, however, significantly changes said waterfall plot.

The answer is simple. You pull down a frequency's magnitude with a filter and all practical filters have effects over time. Thus, if you match a filter's decay properties to the extended decay/ringing at that frequency, you will reduce the net decay. Meridian had a nice AES paper on the topic.
Reply
Reply
post #6718 of 8706
3/9/12 at 4:45pm
Is the specs page for the SongTower Supercharged in error where it says
"(1) RAAL ribbon tweeter , (2) Seas ER15RLY midwoofers?"

http://www.salksound.com/songtower%2...ifications.htm

Those are the midwoofers for the standard SongTower, right? But doesn't the SongTower Supecharged use Seas Excels?
Reply
Reply
post #6719 of 8706
3/9/12 at 6:44pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson View Post

The answer is simple. You pull down a frequency's magnitude with a filter and all practical filters have effects over time. Thus, if you match a filter's decay properties to the extended decay/ringing at that frequency, you will reduce the net decay. Meridian had a nice AES paper on the topic.

Ah, I see. Thanks, Kal. I will look for that Meridian AES paper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

Is the specs page for the SongTower Supercharged in error where it says
"(1) RAAL ribbon tweeter , (2) Seas ER15RLY midwoofers?"

http://www.salksound.com/songtower%2...ifications.htm

Those are the midwoofers for the standard SongTower, right? But doesn't the SongTower Supecharged use Seas Excels?

Yes - the W15's.
Reply
Reply
post #6720 of 8706
3/10/12 at 8:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Murphy View Post

CA0W1..............uses the Seas ER15 woofer

Wouldn't that make it an EROW1?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › The Official Salk Sound Owner's And Discussion Thread