A Salk fan-boy takes action

[Irvrobinson]

Thanks! Always nice to get details on how someone (who cares enough to devote serious time and thought) went about refining their system/tuning.
Didn't you also take in-room measurements? How did that process integrate with the above?
Thanks!

I use a Dayton Audio OmniMic V2 to do in-room measurements, which is how I determine where the peaks and gaps are in bass response. I measure first, then listen on headphones, then listen to the speakers.

I also use the OmniMic to help position the main speakers, though lots of distance (>4 ft) between the speakers and the side walls and back walls, and placement in an equilateral triangle with the listening seat, often ends up being the best main speaker positions for speakers like mine. The problem is, of course, that positioning like that is often suboptimal for bass, hence the temptation for subs for fill-in. In my case, I lucked out, because my main speakers are quite potent to nearly 20Hz, so for music use, running them full range, it is like having three subs, so I only needed to buy one more.

 

[KEW]

Sounds kinda like a bass trombone, but I don't know if there is such a thing...

Not only is their a bass trombone, but there is a contra-bass trombone! It has essentially the same range as a tuba. The sound is rather different. When played aggressively in the lower notes, the CB Trombone reveals a "blat" (which I think might be the bell "breaking up") at the peak of each flap of the performer's lips. The tuba has the extra material to handle and "control" these peaks better (it is still there on the lowest notes)! I say better, but personally, I prefer the sound of the CB trombone (content dependent, of course).

 

[herbu]

Got the Graceland CD. Listening to "Diamonds On The Soles Of Her Shoes", I discovered the difference between Direct and Stereo is absolutely stunning!

I have always preferred Direct for any music above background-noise volume. But I never realized there was such an overwhelming difference. With this song and the Phil3s, Stereo mode sounds like it's coming from a box or echo chamber. It is objectionably artificial and unpleasant. Direct mode, on the other hand, is magnificent!

I can see how this song would be a good choice, (in Direct mode), for evaluating speakers.

 

[KEW]

Got the Graceland CD. Listening to "Diamonds On The Soles Of Her Shoes", I discovered the difference between Direct and Stereo is absolutely stunning!

I have always preferred Direct for any music above background-noise volume. But I never realized there was such an overwhelming difference. With this song and the Phil3s, Stereo mode sounds like it's coming from a box or echo chamber. It is objectionably artificial and unpleasant. Direct mode, on the other hand, is magnificent!

I can see how this song would be a good choice, (in Direct mode), for evaluating speakers.

Can you elaborate on what your "Stereo" mode entails?
I assume you are not talking "Stereo Direct", but is Audyssey processing included? Anything else?
I assume with the Phil3's for music the subs are out of the picture?
Also what AVR?
Thanks!

 

[Swerd]

Got the Graceland CD. Listening to "Diamonds On The Soles Of Her Shoes", I discovered the difference between Direct and Stereo is absolutely stunning!

Glad you like it. That album was a very good quality recording and sounds great over good speakers. If I remember, it was made in 1986 – 30 years ago! It was among the last vinyl LPs I ever bought.

Much later I got the CD, so its also one of the few albums for which I have both the LP and the CD. And yet, I've never bothered to sit down to comparatively listen to both. In fact, I've never played the LP again since getting the CD.

 

[KEW]

In fact, I've never played the LP again since getting the CD.

CD's are an excellent system for keeping your LP's in pristine condition. More effective and less expensive than most other options!

 

[herbu]

Can you elaborate on what your "Stereo" mode entails?
I assume you are not talking "Stereo Direct", but is Audyssey processing included? Anything else?
I assume with the Phil3's for music the subs are out of the picture?
Also what AVR?
Thanks!

My AVR is a Denon X4000. With Direct mode, the source signal is passed, unadulterated, to the speakers. In the case of a stereo input, the L/R speakers are set to Large and the subs are not used. Neither is any Audyssey processing, AFAIK.

In Stereo mode, the L/Rs are set to small and the subs are engaged. Crossovers and Audyssey functions are engaged according to my settings, (80Hz crossover, MultEQ XT32 Audyssey, Dynamic EQ ON w/ 10dB Reference Level Offset, Sub level 0dB from Audyssey setup).

Naturally, I've played with, (and continue to play with), these settings. Haven't done so yet with this song, and not sure it's necessary. These settings work for TV/Movies, and I'm not sure there's a reason to optimize them for music since Direct mode is so easy, accurate and pleasant to my ears. (And since the Phil3s are so capable!)

 

[slipperybidness]

Got the Graceland CD. Listening to "Diamonds On The Soles Of Her Shoes", I discovered the difference between Direct and Stereo is absolutely stunning!

I have always preferred Direct for any music above background-noise volume. But I never realized there was such an overwhelming difference. With this song and the Phil3s, Stereo mode sounds like it's coming from a box or echo chamber. It is objectionably artificial and unpleasant. Direct mode, on the other hand, is magnificent!

I can see how this song would be a good choice, (in Direct mode), for evaluating speakers.

Dunno what AVR you have.....but my older Pio elite when I use "stereo", it allows for DSP and allows for MCACC settings to activate.

I tend to go Direct--that has no processing other than activate my LFE channel for the sub

Then, I have Pure Direct--no processing at all (no sub channel).

 

[wlmmn]

I went inside the Salk demo room at the Rocky Mountain Audio fest twice, once in the morning and again in the afternoon, so I got to hear two different towers. I was.......underwhelmed. The speakers seemed just a bit too rolled off in the highs, and it didn't have the mid-range detail of PSB speakers or the nice brightness of Paradigm. It's almost like Salk's trying too hard to be accurate, which is for studio monitors instead of home theater/recreational music listening speakers (and yes, I was an audio engineer for years, went to a school for it too, so I know what studio monitors are supposed to sound like and why). Unless I was just hearing the wrong type of music for that.

Did I cast judgement too quickly on Salk? Or has anyone else gotten that impression?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I went inside the Salk demo room at the Rocky Mountain Audio fest twice, once in the morning and again in the afternoon, so I got to hear two different towers. I was.......underwhelmed. The speakers seemed just a bit too rolled off in the highs, and it didn't have the mid-range detail of PSB speakers or the nice brightness of Paradigm. It's almost like Salk's trying too hard to be accurate, which is for studio monitors instead of home theater/recreational music listening speakers (and yes, I was an audio engineer for years, went to a school for it too, so I know what studio monitors are supposed to sound like and why). Unless I was just hearing the wrong type of music for that.

Did I cast judgement too quickly on Salk? Or has anyone else gotten that impression?

Different strokes for different folks.

Some people don't like the sound of Paradigm or PSB speakers. Some people don't like Salk. It's probably the same with any brand.

There is a speaker for everyone.

 

[shadyJ]

I wouldn't be quick to judge the sound of speakers at audio shows. The rooms are never the best for acoustics, the exhibitors typically only get a day to set their system up, and attendees don't often have access to the sweet spot seating. I wouldn't walk away from any audio show exhibit with a definitive opinion on these speakers' sound. I will say on the occasions that I have heard Salk speakers, I have always enjoyed them and thought they were quite good.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I went inside the Salk demo room at the Rocky Mountain Audio fest twice, once in the morning and again in the afternoon, so I got to hear two different towers. I was.......underwhelmed. The speakers seemed just a bit too rolled off in the highs, and it didn't have the mid-range detail of PSB speakers or the nice brightness of Paradigm. It's almost like Salk's trying too hard to be accurate, which is for studio monitors instead of home theater/recreational music listening speakers (and yes, I was an audio engineer for years, went to a school for it too, so I know what studio monitors are supposed to sound like and why). Unless I was just hearing the wrong type of music for that.

Did I cast judgement too quickly on Salk? Or has anyone else gotten that impression?

If you're listening to unfamiliar recordings it is impossible to draw conclusions.

Why is accuracy for studio monitors and not for home systems?

 

[charmerci]

I went inside the Salk demo room at the Rocky Mountain Audio fest twice, once in the morning and again in the afternoon, so I got to hear two different towers. I was.......underwhelmed. The speakers seemed just a bit too rolled off in the highs, and it didn't have the mid-range detail of PSB speakers or the nice brightness of Paradigm. It's almost like Salk's trying too hard to be accurate, which is for studio monitors instead of home theater/recreational music listening speakers (and yes, I was an audio engineer for years, went to a school for it too, so I know what studio monitors are supposed to sound like and why). Unless I was just hearing the wrong type of music for that.

Did I cast judgement too quickly on Salk? Or has anyone else gotten that impression?

I have Murphy's New Philharmonitors (designs most crossovers for Salk) with the RAAL tweeters. Rolled off highs are simply not an issue.

 

[KEW]

I went inside the Salk demo room at the Rocky Mountain Audio fest twice, once in the morning and again in the afternoon, so I got to hear two different towers. I was.......underwhelmed. The speakers seemed just a bit too rolled off in the highs, and it didn't have the mid-range detail of PSB speakers or the nice brightness of Paradigm. It's almost like Salk's trying too hard to be accurate, which is for studio monitors instead of home theater/recreational music listening speakers (and yes, I was an audio engineer for years, went to a school for it too, so I know what studio monitors are supposed to sound like and why). Unless I was just hearing the wrong type of music for that.

Did I cast judgement too quickly on Salk? Or has anyone else gotten that impression?

I am not being facetious; just want to understand your perspective for this statement. So are you saying that what you (as an audio engineer) produced the recording to sound like on your monitors is not what you want the end user to hear? In other words the speakers should add their own sound signature to the music to make it right?

I have two personal comments on "accurate sound":

1) I play in a big band, and one of my litmus tests for speakers is that a trumpet, sax, or trombone should sound like what I hear with the band. I know these sounds as they are presented from a distance of 3 to 20 feet away with very little between me and the source. However, if my exposure to these sounds was from 150 feet back in the audience of a larger size music hall, with the sound absorption from the audience, it would be a different sound, losing some of the edge I am used to. I can't say my POV is right, but it is what I look for in a quality speaker! FWIW, most Big Band recordings are mixed from mikes on or close to the stage (aside from the Guitar, Bass, and Electric Piano).
2) A few years ago, with my brother, I compared my Behringer Truth monitors to his Advent Legacy speakers. Perhaps the biggest difference was the character of the bass, and I was impressed by the difference of the bass depending on the music content. When I played the Eagles Hotel California (the original version) the Advents presented a wonderful fullness and richness to the bass line and the Behringers sounds almost "empty" (in comparison). Conversely, when I played Steely Dan's "I Got the News" the Behringers were tight and articulate, while the Advents were muddy. Both my brother and I had the same conclusions. I honestly believe if I pulled random people from the street I could determine which speaker they preferred by selecting which song they heard. Ultimately, I would be inclined to go with the Behringers because I felt the Advents were less accurate (most likely due to cabinet resonance) and the additional resonance for Steely Dan was immediately noticeable (for me, much of the joy of listening to Steely Dan is lost with muddy bass), while the Behringer sounded fine on Hotel California (as long as I didn't compare to the Advents).

 

[herbu]

Why is accuracy for studio monitors and not for home systems?

That's exactly what I was wondering.

 

[Alex2507]

Did I cast judgement too quickly on Salk? Or has anyone else gotten that impression?

It doesn't take much time to realize you don't like something but NOBODY else prefers PSB to Salk.

Gotta go through the thread later ... there better be pic's.

 

[Swerd]

Gotta go through the thread later ... there better be pic's.

See Jim Salk's photos on post #101, page 6
http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/a-salk-fan-boy-takes-action.104028/page-6#post-1148112

I meant to take my own photos, especially photos of old ST vs. new VST to compare the finishes, but I still haven't done it. Maybe this will get me to recharge the batteries on my camera.

 

[TLS Guy]

I went inside the Salk demo room at the Rocky Mountain Audio fest twice, once in the morning and again in the afternoon, so I got to hear two different towers. I was.......underwhelmed. The speakers seemed just a bit too rolled off in the highs, and it didn't have the mid-range detail of PSB speakers or the nice brightness of Paradigm. It's almost like Salk's trying too hard to be accurate, which is for studio monitors instead of home theater/recreational music listening speakers (and yes, I was an audio engineer for years, went to a school for it too, so I know what studio monitors are supposed to sound like and why). Unless I was just hearing the wrong type of music for that.

Did I cast judgement too quickly on Salk? Or has anyone else gotten that impression?

From your description it sounds as if they are really nice speakers. The Paradigm brightness is not at all nice and they sound really awful to me.

Be very suspicious of a speaker that grabs your attention right away.

Good speakers disappear to the extent that the passing observer would think the speakers had nothing to do with what is being heard. The sound stage should be wide and well behind the front plane of the speakers.

 

[djreef]

Sorry for the confusion, herbu, Swerd is correct. I was talking about two separate problems.

Diamonds on the Soles of Her Shoes has some rather unusual percussion in it, with considerable complexity going on in the 80-120Hz range, which is right where most people tune the crossover from mains to subs. Though I didn't use this recording to help tune my system, it didn't sound right with the sub engaged until I figured out the best way to integrate my system. (This turned out to be running my mains full-range and using the sub with PEQs to fill in dips below 100Hz.)

I am a big solo piano fan; I have several hundred solo piano CDs. For my favorite works, like the Beethoven piano sonatas, I own multiple versions. To me, it is very annoying to hear piano notes that sound unnaturally loud or soft, so I literally use certain recordings to test my system tuning. I use high-quality headphones to determine what the amplitudes should be independent of the room, and then try to make the in-room response approximate it. Certainly not a perfect process, as it relies on my hearing, but over a period of months with trial and error (lots of error), I got "close enough", and I haven't touched the system since. The octaves below 120Hz have been a particular problem for me, and at audio dealers subs always seemed to make the situation worse, no matter what the sales guy did. Even after I bought my current sub, it took me months to get happy with it.

Actually, it sounds like a perfectly good system for measuring note placement and amplitude - think about it, who is going to listen to your rig more than you?

DJ

 

[Irvrobinson]

Actually, it sounds like a perfectly good system for measuring note placement and amplitude - think about it, who is going to listen to your rig more than you?

DJ

Thank you for the kind words, but the truth is it's a kludge. In my current listening room, where the speakers are placed quite far from the back wall, at least eight feet from the side walls, my listening seat is about five feet from the nearest wall, the ceiling is over 12 feet high, and the floor is a concrete slab, I've just solved most of the roughness problems over 200Hz with sheer space. Bass is a lot easier to fix than mids and highs. In my previous room, with its smaller dimensions and weird asymmetry and suspended floor, I never figured out a great solution. What I have learned is that good headphones are a good tool for helping to identify some room effects, and measuring tools like OmniMic can give you some hints about what you're hearing in-room. The third tool is live recordings made in the room to give you a reference. Chasing accuracy is a worthy goal, it's the only thing that makes me happy, but it can make for a frustrating set-up process.