or Connect
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 283

post #8461 of 9127
Question for Salk owners

If everything goes smoothly we will close on our first home on Friday. While this is obviously exciting, even more so is the fact that the wife has agreed to allow me to purchase my first pair of Salks to go in the new home

That being said, I've had my eyes on the SCST for awhile but for $ purposes have also considered going with the ST with the RT upgrade. If I went with the ST with the RT upgrade I'd defintely pair it was a sub, but I don't think I'd do the same with the SCST at this time.

If I'm using it for 100% music purposes and a majority of that will be for vinyl, what would you guys recommend?
post #8462 of 9127
For what you'd spend for a sub in addition to the STs, why not go for the SCST and forego the sub?
Much simpler and since you're primarily a vinylite the SCST should have plenty of bass response.
post #8463 of 9127
I agree, for 100% music, I'd go SCST in a 2.0 system. That is what I have and I don't feel anything is lagging in the bass department. I also like the simplicity of it. The cost of a good sub will more than help make up the difference to the SCST.
post #8464 of 9127
That's what I'm debating now. The only difference is that I can get a great deal on a sub that would put me at about $1500 less than the SCST and potentially more bc I doubt I could resist getting them customized haha

I'm leaning towards the SCST just on the fence since we have to furnish a home as well.

Stoked either way!
post #8465 of 9127
For just 2 channel music, and vinyl at that, I'd go the SCST route. Cleaner setup, which I'm sure the wife would appreciate. You can always add a sub down the road if you feel you need it.
post #8466 of 9127
Sorry didn't see " 100% music " part SCST for sure
post #8467 of 9127
What sub are you getting a good deal on?
post #8468 of 9127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99 View Post

For what you'd spend for a sub in addition to the STs, why not go for the SCST and forego the sub?
Much simpler and since you're primarily a vinylite the SCST should have plenty of bass response.

But you don't. Not in comparison.

A good $1000 sub (the price difference) should get pretty loud at ~20Hz. The SCST will not.
Further, by pulling 32-60 or 32-80Hz away from the SCST, you get more volume before clipping.
And the ST has more x-max than the SCST to begin with, so more still.

So SCST = presumably better midrange.
ST-RT + Sub = louder and lower.
post #8469 of 9127
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

But you don't. Not in comparison.

A good $1000 sub (the price difference) should get pretty loud at ~20Hz. The SCST will not.
Further, by pulling 32-60 or 32-80Hz away from the SCST, you get more volume before clipping.
And the ST has more x-max than the SCST to begin with, so more still.

So SCST = presumably better midrange.
ST-RT + Sub = louder and lower.

And in both cases if a sub is used to handle bass duties you will notice an improvement in midrange clarity. I noticed this with my HT2-TL as well.
post #8470 of 9127
While Jim Salk is a great guy, I would like to bring another Salk to your attention for a moment.

Jonas Salk invented the first polio vaccine in 1955. When asked who owns the patent to his miracle in a syringe he explained that there was no patent. "Could you patent the sun?", he asked.

According to Forbes, Jonas gave up 7 billion dollars so that more people could use his vaccine. Pharmaceutical companies should take a lesson.
post #8471 of 9127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkish54 View Post

While Jim Salk is a great guy, I would like to bring another Salk to your attention for a moment.

Jonas Salk invented the first polio vaccine in 1955. When asked who owns the patent to his miracle in a syringe he explained that there was no patent. "Could you patent the sun?", he asked.

According to Forbes, Jonas gave up 7 billion dollars so that more people could use his vaccine. Pharmaceutical companies should take a lesson.

Lol...made me laugh. Why does everyone else need to take lessons on "giving stuff away"? I am sure the money you spent on speakers could have been better spent helping the homeless in SE Malaysia or Texas or someplace.

Just saying... Man in the mirror and all that.
post #8472 of 9127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkish54 View Post

While Jim Salk is a great guy, I would like to bring another Salk to your attention for a moment.

Jonas Salk invented the first polio vaccine in 1955. When asked who owns the patent to his miracle in a syringe he explained that there was no patent. "Could you patent the sun?", he asked.

According to Forbes, Jonas gave up 7 billion dollars so that more people could use his vaccine. Pharmaceutical companies should take a lesson.

A little OT, but I have to add something, Jared. I met Jonas Salk many years ago. He was most unpresuming, kind, and egoless. You could talk to him for days and never know of his massive achievement. Quite a wonderful guy from my meeting with him. Kinda like Jim. smile.gif
post #8473 of 9127
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

But you don't. Not in comparison.

A good $1000 sub (the price difference) should get pretty loud at ~20Hz. The SCST will not.
Further, by pulling 32-60 or 32-80Hz away from the SCST, you get more volume before clipping.
And the ST has more x-max than the SCST to begin with, so more still.

So SCST = presumably better midrange.
ST-RT + Sub = louder and lower.

I'll take the SCST, please. smile.gif

Unless the guy has a lot of organ music, I'll take the more refined midrange and extension the TL offers.
Edited by Milt99 - 3/25/13 at 9:45pm
post #8474 of 9127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99 View Post

I'll take the SCST, please. smile.gif

Unless the guy has a lot of organ music, I'll take the more refined midrange and extension the TL offers.
They are both TL speakers.

It's not clear that there is a midrange improvement between the two drivers.

It is clear that running full range will hurt the midrange output.

I believe (though don't know) the midrange quality is thus:
SCST +Sub > ST-RL +Sub > SCST > ST-RL

With that middle ">" being the most certain and largest change; because a slew of issues go away when we limit the reproduction range of the driver.

Don't get me wrong: The SCST's sound *amazing* without subs; but given this specific choice...
post #8475 of 9127
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

They are both TL speakers.

It's not clear that there is a midrange improvement between the two drivers.

It is clear that running full range will hurt the midrange output.

I believe (though don't know) the midrange quality is thus:
SCST +Sub > ST-RL +Sub > SCST > ST-RL

With that middle ">" being the most certain and largest change; because a slew of issues go away when we limit the reproduction range of the driver.

Don't get me wrong: The SCST's sound *amazing* without subs; but given this specific choice...

Eh? I thought that running the speakers full range was only a bad idea if the amps didn't have the oomph. How, otherwise, would running full range limit the mid-driver? What are the issues that go away?

And one is not going to change any bass drivers' excursion limits/distortion levels by eliminating full range. Amp headroom is the only issue AFAIK. Are you saying that more information sent to a driver limits its production? 'Fused.
post #8476 of 9127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mudslide View Post

Eh? I thought that running the speakers full range was only a bad idea if the amps didn't have the oomph. How, otherwise, would running full range limit the mid-driver? What are the issues that go away?

And one is not going to change any bass drivers' excursion limits/distortion levels by eliminating full range. Amp headroom is the only issue AFAIK. Are you saying that more information sent to a driver limits its production? 'Fused.

Part of the issue as I understand it is due to the doppler effect. Think about what happens when that driver is reproducing 1khz and 40hz and the same time. The large excursions due do the 40hz signal are going to distort the 1khz signal. While the difference may not be huge, in my experience with my former HT2-TL the difference is clearly audible. It simply sounds cleaner, less distorted, when bass duties are handed over to the sub. I believe this is also, at least in part, why the SoundScape line sounds cleaner with a full range signal (they have a dedicated midrange).
post #8477 of 9127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mudslide View Post

Eh? I thought that running the speakers full range was only a bad idea if the amps didn't have the oomph. How, otherwise, would running full range limit the mid-driver? What are the issues that go away?

The Doppler effect mentioned between your post and this one is certainly one example. Another is with distortion incurred by LF output (if driver is driven to distortion by one frequency, it will affect all frequencies). Yet another has to do with wave addition. If a driver is trying to reproduce a 40Hz signal and a 120Hz signal, and the 40Hz signal is causing the driver to mechanically clip, and the 120Hz signal has a peak at the same spot as the 40Hz signal, what happens? -3db, that's what.
Quote:
And one is not going to change any bass drivers' excursion limits/distortion levels by eliminating full range. Amp headroom is the only issue AFAIK. Are you saying that more information sent to a driver limits its production? 'Fused.

The excursion needed for 80Hz at a given SPL is a fraction of the excursion needed for 32Hz at the exact same SPL. Remove the lowest frequencies and you lower the requested movement for a given driver at a given SPL.

Same thing is true (for the same reasons) for power. The bottom octaves a driver reproduces are the ones eating the most wattage. Remove these and you lower the power running through a driver and, by extension, lower causes of distortion (like overheating).

I haven't discussed the amp at all (though that can come into play). I've assumed an infinitely powerful amp. I'm only discussing the problems with a speaker.
post #8478 of 9127
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

The Doppler effect mentioned between your post and this one is certainly one example. Another is with distortion incurred by LF output (if driver is driven to distortion by one frequency, it will affect all frequencies). Yet another has to do with wave addition. If a driver is trying to reproduce a 40Hz signal and a 120Hz signal, and the 40Hz signal is causing the driver to mechanically clip, and the 120Hz signal has a peak at the same spot as the 40Hz signal, what happens? -3db, that's what.
The excursion needed for 80Hz at a given SPL is a fraction of the excursion needed for 32Hz at the exact same SPL. Remove the lowest frequencies and you lower the requested movement for a given driver at a given SPL.

Same thing is true (for the same reasons) for power. The bottom octaves a driver reproduces are the ones eating the most wattage. Remove these and you lower the power running through a driver and, by extension, lower causes of distortion (like overheating).

I haven't discussed the amp at all (though that can come into play). I've assumed an infinitely powerful amp. I'm only discussing the problems with a speaker.

Thanks Jerry.

My technical understanding is limited, so your explanation is appreciated. The bottom line for me is the result; relieving the mid driver of bass duties results in cleaner sound. wink.gif
post #8479 of 9127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saturn94 View Post

Thanks Jerry.

My technical understanding is limited, so your explanation is appreciated. The bottom line for me is the result; relieving the mid driver of bass duties results in cleaner sound. wink.gif

I thought we were talking about the "mid-driver", as you state, and not the bass driver...which is why I said it makes no sense. A subwoofer won't have a lot of effect at the mid's frequencies in any Salk 3-way. The bass driver is indeed being relieved of some lower frequency duties when a sub is introduced, however. The question I have is at what level does a particular bass driver go into audible distortion when driving multiple frequencies. I'd imagine that requires a highly technical response to the specs of Salk's bass drivers.

But then I could be, as I said, totally confused. Not an unlikely scenario. frown.gif Or it could simply be a matter of semantic definition of mid vs. bass drivers.
post #8480 of 9127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mudslide View Post

I thought we were talking about the "mid-driver", as you state, and not the bass driver...which is why I said it makes no sense. A subwoofer won't have a lot of effect at the mid's frequencies in any Salk 3-way.

The two speakers in question , the ST-RT and SCST, are both 2-way designs.

You are correct. Adding a sub only affects the output of the bottom speaker (LF driver). In the case of these two speakers, that's the midrange driver.

This would be a non-starter when discussing a SoundScape or Veracity HT3
post #8481 of 9127
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

The two speakers in question , the ST-RT and SCST, are both 2-way designs.

You are correct. Adding a sub only affects the output of the bottom speaker (LF driver). In the case of these two speakers, that's the midrange driver.

This would be a non-starter when discussing a SoundScape or Veracity HT3

Exactly.

My apologies for not being clear, Mudslide. In this case I was referring to the mid/bass driver in the 2 way designs as Jerry pointed out. You're right this conversation doesn't make sense when talking about the 3way designs with a dedicated mid.
post #8482 of 9127
I asked Jim Salk at Axpona what the difference was between the 2 seas speakers on the SCSTs, he said they were identical. I asked even the crossovers and he said yes. Am I missing something or maybe Jim misunderstood what I was asking? I was thinking one speaker was configured somehow to be more of a midrange and the other more for bass.
post #8483 of 9127
The SCST are a 2 way design..not a 2.5 way design. Both Seas Excel drivers act as midrange and woofer.
post #8484 of 9127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Tomaskovic View Post

I asked Jim Salk at Axpona what the difference was between the 2 seas speakers on the SCSTs, he said they were identical. I asked even the crossovers and he said yes. Am I missing something or maybe Jim misunderstood what I was asking? I was thinking one speaker was configured somehow to be more of a midrange and the other more for bass.

If this is a response to my use of the phrase "bottom speaker", I was referring to what sound it output, not the physical location. In this case, I actually am referring to two drivers (the two SEAS drivers).

There is no difference in output between the two matched drivers on any version of the SongTower.
post #8485 of 9127
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryLove View Post

If this is a response to my use of the phrase "bottom speaker", I was referring to what sound it output, not the physical location. In this case, I actually am referring to two drivers (the two SEAS drivers).

There is no difference in output between the two matched drivers on any version of the SongTower.
thanks. I wasn't too sure about .this and when I read your post I was thinking something didn't match what Jim told me. I don't claim to be an expert in a lot of this.smile.gif
post #8486 of 9127
I noticed that the Silk is now on the Salk web site. I don't recall seeing it there previously.
post #8487 of 9127
Well. I was torn and went to the salk site with the wife to look at the different speakers and then found the currently available section.

We ended up finding a pair of the STRT with a sub on sale there with the Lamborghini yellow finish. My wife loved the finish and said buy those.

Being the good husband I am, lol, I said ok!

So I should be a salk owner very shortly!

Now I have to get a new amp. Any recommendations? Want to keep it under $500.
post #8488 of 9127
post #8489 of 9127
Any feedback on the silk
post #8490 of 9127
So...... I had planned on buying a songtower, song center, and 2 sets of song surround 1 (100 a set up charge to make them wall mountable). Now after listening to some HT2-TL's I am wanting to upgrade to the Supercharged Songtowers with the Supercharged SongCenter. The problem is my budget will not allow it (without the wife throwing me out of the house). I am thinking I could swing the Supercharged if I went basic (non Salk) on my surrounds and started out as a 5.1 and purchased a few more speakers later to get 7.1. I saw that Dennis Murphey and others have recommended the NHT Superzeros with the Salk's for a home theater setup. Are there any other speakers I should look at in this price range (superzeros are currently $99 a speaker) or a little more expensive. The surround speaker must be wall mountable.

I figured other Salk owners have probably experienced this conundrum, so where better to ask than here.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › The Official Salk Sound Owner's And Discussion Thread