How much better do better speakers actually sound? Where's the breaking point of value/performance?

[Swerd]

Like others, I enjoy reading your thoughts as you think out loud . That you write in complete sentences with proper punctuation certainly helps too. All that helps motivate us to read & respond to your posts.

Thinking more on the subject of a tower speaker vs bookshelf and the benefits of having more drivers in a cabinet to allow for more surface, a lot of that really comes down to the bass response, right? So really, looking at towers with several large woofers is really looking at speakers with more potential for bass response in terms of extension and higher SPL into lower ranges with a higher sensitivity from the larger volume cabinet.

It is true that "having more drivers in a cabinet allow for more surface", but this applies to any frequency, not just bass. Think of it this way, if you use two mid-woofers, as in an MTM tower, those two drivers can move less to produce the same loudness as one similar driver moving more. Because speaker distortion is a direct result of driver excursion, less excursion leads to less distortion – and cleaner sound. This may be more obvious with bass frequencies, but its also true for the mid range frequencies, where most musical energy is.

So looking at this from the perspective of using several sub-woofers to handle a lot of the lower frequency ranges, it makes me wonder, do I really need look at towers with larger woofers? Maybe it makes more sense to focus more on towers that have smaller woofers and are generally better equipped for upper bass frequencies and the all-important mid range frequencies? Or am I thinking backwards with this?

Yes, most towers benefit from the addition of a sub woofer(s). And yes, towers with smaller mid-woofers, in the size range of 5"-6" diameter, will be able to crossover to a tweeter more smoothly, without suffering from the break up noise that all drivers develop if driven to high enough frequencies. In general, smaller drivers go into break up at higher frequencies than larger drivers. Because smaller mid-woofers can go higher, they don't require high priced tweeters built robust enough to perform well without significant distortion at frequencies lower than 2 kHz. Both of these reasons allows building 2-way speakers that avoid the two most common sources of mid range distortion. If that sacrifices some lower frequencies, that's why we have sub woofers.

I often wonder if a lot of towers are designed around the idea of not including a sub-woofer and so that's why they push so many larger woofers into a tower to extend it's bass response and volume at those frequencies, designed as a pair of stereo speakers without any other additional help. Not all of them obviously, as many towers have built in 8" and 10" or larger passive woofers, which seems to show that they were designed to operate on their own without an additional subwoofer for most applications. This of course to me seems more oriented to music in general, as most music outside of the synthetic production reaches down way below 30hz in general for very long.

Most all music, other than that for pipe organs, has little if any primary tones below roughly 30 Hz, more likely 32-34 Hz. It is rare for a "full range" floor standing speaker to sucessfully reproduce frequencies down to an honest 25 Hz. And these speakers will be expensive. To go down to 20 Hz costs quite a bit more. Again, that's why we have sub woofers.

So how about towers that are more designed for the purpose of home theater with the use of a subwoofer to crossover to and compliment? Or, does that really fall to bookshelf speaker designs? … …

Ultimately I would much rather have potent and numerous subwoofers to handle low frequency rather than ask a tower speaker to do it all. So I'm interested in natural sounding (vocals and instruments sounding natural and not synthetic or odd) towers and less interested in their bass extension perhaps. But maybe I have this wrong?

Your thinking is on the right track . In fact, your use of 4 less expensive and possibly less potent sub woofers is also on the right track. They allow putting them in 4 different locations in the room. Any single sub woofer in a single location will suffer from frequency response losses and gains due to interactions with sound reflected off of ceiling, floor, and walls. With multiple subs in different locations, each will have different patterns of losses and gains, but all together they will produce smoother bass.

 

[MalVeauX]

It is true that "having more drivers in a cabinet allow for more surface", but this applies to any frequency, not just bass.

Because smaller mid-woofers can go higher, they don't require high priced tweeters built robust enough to perform well without significant distortion at frequencies lower than 2 kHz.

Most all music, other than that for pipe organs, has little if any primary tones below roughly 30 Hz, more likely 32-34 Hz.

Your thinking is on the right track . In fact, your use of 4 less expensive and possibly less potent sub woofers is also on the right track. They allow putting them in 4 different locations in the room. Any single sub woofer in a single location will suffer from frequency response losses and gains due to interactions with sound reflected off of ceiling, floor, and walls. With multiple subs in different locations, each will have different patterns of losses and gains, but all together they will produce smoother bass.

Thank you for your thoughts and clarification.

I suppose I was looking at a tower cabinet with 3x~4x 6.5" to 8" woofers compared to the single 4~5" woofer and single tweeter and generalizing the logic of it being fairly clear to assume adding those extra large woofers aren't to correct response or increase SPL of frequencies in the upper mids and treble, where fewer speakers are needed for those frequencies to achieve listening level in a particular room it seems. Perhaps this logic is flawed. But it seems to follow that the increased number of larger woofers in the cabinet is to extend lower mids, upper bass and lower bass frequencies and then having two matching cabinets slightly flattening that out and gently increasing SPL, but not by much (the idea of adding even just one more larger woofer to a cabinet, knowing it will be in pairs, is essentially adding two, four, etc depending on design, thus looking at a tower with a mid-woofer, tweeter and slightly larger woofer, or merely two mid-woofers would be mid-centric while the same cabinet or similar cabinet with 3 larger woofers added would be increasing the overall number of larger woofers by 6 in a pair, which would increase SPL and range in the lower frequencies they are tuned for significantly more...).

Again, that logic may be flawed. However, it does pose the question, what about towers with mostly smaller woofers for mids, where the bulk of everything our ears are most responsive to are congregated? That's the underlying question behind whether to look at a tower with 3x 7~8" woofers and a single 5" woofer and tweeter, versus looking at a tower with 2x 5.25" woofers and a tweeter in the same average room size space, knowing a few subwoofers will be included to handle the rest of the lower range of frequencies.

And if that holds any water, maybe it would be beneficial to seek out towers, or even bookshelves, with the smaller woofers for the reasons you stated with respect to handling of treble & mid frequencies without problems and the compromise is to lose lower frequency response, but that is picked up by the subwoofers. If that's close to the right pathway of thinking in this thought experiment, I'm curious then which towers or bookshelves with smaller woofers (4" to 5.25" maybe?) are in the $1,000 per speaker range that would be excellent at producing natural, neutral life-life dialog specifically, which would also encompass instruments. I totally agree that very few natural musical or human vocal range sources will bother with any real dips below 30hz, where it's mostly synthetically produced. So I don't care for a speaker to go that far, knowing a purposeful subwoofer has that duty.

Speaking of the subs, that's exactly why I ended up with four inexpensive subwoofers in general, to be able to place them in each corner of the room to flatten out overall response as the frequency range drops and increase SPL a tad in that area at the same time, ultimately so that any listening position sounds "pretty good" compared to just the ideal position.

Very best,

 

[baronvonellis]

Another option if you're on a budget is to get studio powered monitors. They are super accurate and designed to be flat. They have separate amps for the tweeter and woofer built in and active powered crossovers which are better than passive crossovers in hifi speakers. They also have wider stereo separation, and have tone controls to adjust their sound to the acoustics in your room. I have some KRK V8's for my computer and studio room that sound amazing. You could get 5 or 7 identical speakers so they would all match. The only downside is they each need AC power, so they would need to be able to be plugged into the wall which may be hard depending on your room layout. They also look utilitarian if the looks of speakers is important, they don't ever have wood veneer and are usually industrial black. If your mostly watching movies in a dark room that might not matter.

You could check out the KRK V6's that are $599 each. You could listen to them at a Guitar Center in the recording section.

 

[MalVeauX]

Another option if you're on a budget is to get studio powered monitors. They are super accurate and designed to be flat. They have separate amps for the tweeter and woofer built in and active powered crossovers which are better than passive crossovers in hifi speakers. They also have wider stereo separation, and have tone controls to adjust their sound to the acoustics in your room. I have some KRK V8's for my computer and studio room that sound amazing. You could get 5 or 7 identical speakers so they would all match. The only downside is they each need AC power, so they would need to be able to be plugged into the wall which may be hard depending on your room layout. They also look utilitarian if the looks of speakers is important, they don't ever have wood veneer and are usually industrial black. If your mostly watching movies in a dark room that might not matter.

You could check out the KRK V6's that are $599 each. You could listen to them at a Guitar Center in the recording section.

That's an interesting approach to it as well, thank you. I wonder however how they would really be for movies in a living room though?

Very best,

 

[baronvonellis]

That's an interesting approach to it as well, thank you. I wonder however how they would really be for movies in a living room though?

Very best,

Well music and movies are recorded and mixed on these speakers so they will sound exactly as the sound engineers intended the movies to sound.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Something else to consider is to focus on overall speaker performance vs individual driver performance. Multiple drivers share power handling and thermal load. Lager woofers are often more sensitive and easier to drive and IMO deliver better dynamics in a more effortless way. My mains have 12” woofers and are useful into the 30’s. I’ve crossed them anywhere from 110hz down to full range. They’ve been at 80hz for a long time as it’s a good balance in my room. IMO and my use case, I would never buy BS speakers to do the same job. My LP is at 15’ so that will obviously make a difference, but Ime smaller woofers just aren’t as much fun lol. I’ll finish this blab after Tapatalk crashes...

 

[MalVeauX]

Well music and movies are recorded and mixed on these speakers so they will sound exactly as the sound engineers intended the movies to sound.

That is a very good point! But I'm sure those little speakers in a small acoustically treated room are not the same when put in a typical living room with larger volume and no treatment?

Something else to consider is to focus on overall speaker performance vs individual driver performance. Multiple drivers share power handling and thermal load. Lager woofers are often more sensitive and easier to drive and IMO deliver better dynamics in a more effortless way. My mains have 12” woofers and are useful into the 30’s. I’ve crossed them anywhere from 110hz down to full range. They’ve been at 80hz for a long time as it’s a good balance in my room. IMO and my use case, I would never buy BS speakers to do the same job. My LP is at 15’ so that will obviously make a difference, but Ime smaller woofers just aren’t as much fun lol. I’ll finish this blab after Tapatalk crashes...

Thanks, that's quite true, it's the overall presentation from the speaker that is ultimately what matters. I'm merely thinking out loud about what goes into the speaker in the first place for purpose, such as evaluating the size and function of the woofer design, such as comparing a tower with two mid woofers and a tweeter (a bookshelf essentially with more volume in the cabinet) to a tower with the same two mid woofers and tweeter but with 2~3 additional larger woofers for bass extension and volume).

Very best,

 

[baronvonellis]

That is a very good point! But I'm sure those little speakers in a small acoustically treated room are not the same when put in a typical living room with larger volume and no treatment?

The woofer has it's own 155 watt amp, that should get plenty loud in a typical living room.
Yes, any speaker will sound better in a acoustically treated room.

You could do some acoustical treatment in your room if you want to. Putting some on the first reflection points help alot and some bass traps in the corners work really well. Do you have carpeting or hard floors? If you have hard floors a big area rug in front of the listening position helps alot.

 

[MalVeauX]

The woofer has it's own 155 watt amp, that should get plenty loud in a typical living room.
Yes, any speaker will sound better in a acoustically treated room.

You could do some acoustical treatment in your room if you want to. Putting some on the first reflection points help alot and some bass traps in the corners work really well. Do you have carpeting or hard floors? If you have hard floors a big area rug in front of the listening position helps alot.

Thanks, oh I wish I could do a whole total treatment. When we build our next home, I will have the opportunity at a dedicated room. For now, it's our living room. I have curtains up on as many surfaces as the wife will allow and carpet on the floor and lots of furniture and other things to help soften it up. No echos. But, a portion of the living room opens into another room and there's one large window. We make do. But it could be better. For now though, I'm not likely allowed to put acoustic panels up, hah! The dedicated room, however, will allow for such things.

I certainly would like to get more into room treatment though. I know it will not fix issues with low quality speakers, but at least preventing some common issues would be good. I wonder if it's something I can also measure?

I oddly do wish I had a little sound room, a little one, just for stereo listening. Maybe I can work that in one day... probably not even useful until the kids are out of the house, so I have some time. For example, I was up at 4am this morning in a quiet, dark house; all the little ones asleep and everything is off, no buzzing, no screaming, no horsing around and so I had some good headphones on and spent the first 4 hours of my morning with coffee and a few records at what is essentially the noise floor of my house when it's empty. I can't do speakers in the off hours when they're asleep even at this point, so no point in having a listening room either until the house is truly a tomb!

Very best,

 

[Swerd]

I suppose I was looking at a tower cabinet with 3x~4x 6.5" to 8" woofers compared to the single 4~5" woofer and single tweeter and generalizing the logic of it being fairly clear to assume adding those extra large woofers aren't to correct response or increase SPL of frequencies in the upper mids and treble, where fewer speakers are needed for those frequencies to achieve listening level in a particular room it seems.

I don't know if I follow that long sentence. I think you might be generalizing too much here. Because drivers have the same diameter doesn't mean they perform equally.

In my limited experience, speakers which have three or four 6.5" or 8" woofers seem to use more lower quality & less expensive drivers in an attempt to accomplish what one or two better quality drivers can do. This is true of speakers in the Polk and Infinity price ranges. Other speakers with drivers of similar diameter may have significantly better performance due to the better performance of individual drivers. So, it quickly becomes unwise to generalize with regard to driver diameter. Its far better to understand how their electro-mechanical properties (called Thiele/Small or T/S parameters) and cabinet dimensions determine their loudness and bass performance. This is a subject better handled by chapters in one of several books on speaker design – not an internet audio forum.

Perhaps this logic is flawed. But it seems to follow that the increased number of larger woofers in the cabinet is to extend lower mids, upper bass and lower bass frequencies and then having two matching cabinets slightly flattening that out and gently increasing SPL …

Your logic isn't flawed, but you have some facts incorrect .

Multiple woofers that are otherwise the same can make for louder sound, but they cannot extend the frequency response to lower frequencies. A woofer's low frequency response is largely determined by its free air resonance frequency (abbreviated as Fs). Its one of those T/S parameters I mentioned above. If a woofer has an Fs of 44 Hz, it doesn't matter if a speaker design uses one, two, or more of them, the net free air resonance is still 44 Hz. A speaker with two of these woofers will be louder in the low frequencies than what a single woofer could reproduce, but it cannot extend bass response to lower frequencies. (I chose as an example the Seas ER15RLY 5.5" Reed Paper driver, the mid-woofer used in the Salk SongTower. If you scroll down to the table, you can find all those T/S parameters, including Free Air Resonance of 44 Hz.)

 

[baronvonellis]

Multiple woofers that are otherwise the same can make for louder sound, but they cannot extend the frequency response to lower frequencies. A woofer's low frequency response is largely determined by its free air resonance frequency (abbreviated as Fs). Its one of those T/S parameters I mentioned above. If a woofer has an Fs of 44 Hz, it doesn't matter if a speaker design uses one, two, or more of them, the net free air resonance is still 44 Hz. A speaker with two of these woofers will be louder in the low frequencies than what a single woofer could reproduce, but it cannot extend bass response to lower frequencies. (I chose as an example the Seas ER15RLY 5.5" Reed Paper driver, the mid-woofer used in the Salk SongTower. If you scroll down to the table, you can find all those T/S parameters, including Free Air Resonance of 44 Hz.)

You know I have wondered about woofer size myself. For instance the Supercharged Song tower uses 5.5" woofers and the veracity ST tower uses 6" woofers. The frequency response is the same and the Fs is the same for both woofers. So why would one pay $1000 more for woofers that are a 1/2" larger if they perform the same and have the same bass? They have the same tweeters.

 

[Swerd]

You know I have wondered about woofer size myself. For instance the Supercharged Song tower uses 5.5" woofers and the veracity ST tower uses 6" woofers. The frequency response is the same and the Fs is the same for both woofers. So why would one pay $1000 more for woofers that are a 1/2" larger if they perform the same and have the same bass? They have the same tweeters.

Those two mid-woofers (W15 in the SCST and W16 in the Veracity ST) may have the same lower limit to bass, but they don't perform exactly the same. The devil is in the details:

Seas W15CY 5.5" Magnesium woofer

Seas W16NX 6" Magnesium woofer

Some differences:

• The W16 has a larger and more robust motor than the W15:
  It's voice coil diameter is 38 mm, vs 26 mm in the W15.
  The W16 magnet is bigger, 0.64 kg vs 0.42 kg in the W15.
• The W16 voice coil, hence the cone, moves farther while maintaining a linear response:
  The W16's Linear voice coil travel is 14 mm (peak-to-peak),and the maximum travel is 22 mm.
  In the W15, those values are 8 mm and 14 mm.
• The W16 handles higher power levels:
  Short term power handling: W16 250 Watts, W15 200 Watts.
  Long term power handling: W16 80 Watts, W15 70 Watts.
• The W16 moves more air:
  Effective piston area is 94 cm² for the W16 and 75 cm² for the W15.

Other parameters that define the lower bass extension, Fs, VAS, and Qts are remarkably similar in those two drivers. But overall, the W16 handles more power and can be driven louder than the W15.

I'm glad you asked that question because it allows me to go into detail about why generalizing about woofer diameters can be misleading.

It also shows you're a man who has spent a lot of time studying the Salk web site. It takes one to know one .

 

[MalVeauX]

In my limited experience, speakers which have three or four 6.5" or 8" woofers seem to use more lower quality & less expensive drivers in an attempt to accomplish what one or two better quality drivers can do.
Your logic isn't flawed, but you have some facts incorrect .
Multiple woofers that are otherwise the same can make for louder sound, but they cannot extend the frequency response to lower frequencies.

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification, it really does help wrap one's head around some of these things. I'm certainly not looking to be an engineer, but rather just have a little better understanding of what I'm looking at a little closer than before. I certainly like the concept of a better quality driver doing what lesser quality multiple drivers, in a well designed system, can do.

I honestly do like the idea of a tower or bookshelf with less drivers that simply has higher quality and is more simple with better components. While I enjoy watching air pistons do their thing, I'm less interested in seeing a wall of drivers versus how it sounds as an arrangement.

Thanks again!

Very best,

 

[Bucknekked]

Thanks all,

I'll definitely look into Salk. I'm sure I will learn of many new brands/makes which is a good thing!
t,

Jim Salk has a program where he keeps a listing of owners who are willing to do in home demo's of their speakers. When I was shopping I contacted Jim and he looked around my area and came up with an owner who was gracious enough to grant me an audition in his home. Many other Salk purchasers have had the same experience. Seeing a set of the speakers I was interested in in an actual home with real walls and real equipment and interconnects was a great way to audition music that I brought along for the occasion. I was able to have a conversation with the owner as well and get some pretty candid opinions. Much, much superior listening experience to a crappy big box store with a room with 200 other speakers in it.

SVS does offer a free home trial with money back guarantee. I know a fellow Audioholic in my area that has SVS from soup to nuts. They are very very good price performers and sound wonderful.

@Swerd is a bona fide Salk fanboy and can probably share with you his Salk experiences and a ton of useful knowledge about both the speakers and the company and man you will deal with. His help gave me the courage to go ahead and pull the trigger and purchase a set. I will tell you plainly : they are the best speakers I have ever owned. One man's opinion of course. And it is an opinion. I love 'em though.

There are a number of other Audioholics that have stepped up and bought Salks and endured the wait time to delivery. The wait time to delivery is a right of passage. You can't become a Salk owner without passing through the time of darkness while you wait.

My two cents. Glad you are doing a thorough job of sifting through all the choices out there.

 

[MalVeauX]

Jim Salk has a program where he keeps a listing of owners who are willing to do in home demo's of their speakers. When I was shopping I contacted Jim and he looked around my area and came up with an owner who was gracious enough to grant me an audition in his home. Many other Salk purchasers have had the same experience. Seeing a set of the speakers I was interested in in an actual home with real walls and real equipment and interconnects was a great way to audition music that I brought along for the occasion. I was able to have a conversation with the owner as well and get some pretty candid opinions. Much, much superior listening experience to a crappy big box store with a room with 200 other speakers in it.

SVS does offer a free home trial with money back guarantee. I know a fellow Audioholic in my area that has SVS from soup to nuts. They are very very good price performers and sound wonderful.

@Swerd is a bona fide Salk fanboy and can probably share with you his Salk experiences and a ton of useful knowledge about both the speakers and the company and man you will deal with. His help gave me the courage to go ahead and pull the trigger and purchase a set. I will tell you plainly : they are the best speakers I have ever owned. One man's opinion of course. And it is an opinion. I love 'em though.

There are a number of other Audioholics that have stepped up and bought Salks and endured the wait time to delivery. The wait time to delivery is a right of passage. You can't become a Salk owner without passing through the time of darkness while you wait.

My two cents. Glad you are doing a thorough job of sifting through all the choices out there.

Thanks, that's helpful information; both about the SVS & Salks. I'm interested in both, but honestly, if something like a Salk speaker is truly an end-game experience, I'd rather buy once than twice and skip the in-between. It's certainly not out of the question. I will have to look into finding someone local for an audition, if nothing else, that's valuable experience even if I don't go that direction.

If you all don't mind sharing, how long was the waiting time? I don't mind waiting times for quality.

Very best,

 

[Bucknekked]

Thanks, that's helpful information; both about the SVS & Salks. I'm interested in both, but honestly, if something like a Salk speaker is truly an end-game experience, I'd rather buy once than twice and skip the in-between. It's certainly not out of the question. I will have to look into finding someone local for an audition, if nothing else, that's valuable experience even if I don't go that direction.

Very best,

The "end game" idea is a great idea most people looking to upgrade ignore or don't consider. We have a lot of new people come to the forum to gripe about the upgrade they just did. They went from a $500 speaker to a $750 speaker and they aren't hearing any great improvement. That's because the speaker wasn't truly an upgrade at all, it was just another purchase in a long string of purchases.

I am of the opinion (and its just my point of view) that if you are looking to upgrade, then you should take some time to save your shekels and truly invest in a real deal upgrade. Something you can have confidence is a true upgrade and not just a more expensive speaker. There are plenty of more expensive but not really better speakers.

For me, the Salk speakers (and there's a wide spectrum of choices there) are an end game choice. That's just me talking. But, for me, they were a true upgrade and I haven't had the upgrade itch since. If I were to put together another additional system in another part of my house, I would seriously consider another Salk purchase or something from Dennis Murphy using Salk cabinetry. We havn't spent any time talking about the Salk cabinets, but holy cow that is an entire discussion area all by itself. PM @Swerd and let him give you some insight in to the Salk cabinet process. Its a journey all by itself.

 

[ryanosaur]

There are a number of other Audioholics that have stepped up and bought Salks and endured the wait time to delivery. The wait time to delivery is a right of passage. You can't become a Salk owner without passing through the time of darkness while you wait.

My two cents. Glad you are doing a thorough job of sifting through all the choices out there.

My own experience is not too dissimilar. I am a Salk customer and fan by default, though. My original order was through Philharmonic Audio. Jim was building the cabinets for Dennis.
When Dennis fell ill and ultimately shuttered Philharmonic, my project was put on hold. Eventually, word came down that Dennis gave Jim the green light to reach out to the individual customers that Dennis had projects with in Jim's house. I had already been in contact with Jim, both as a potential customer and sorting through Dennis being Ill and how it might affect my project. Through this whole process, Jim was a champion, even logging into the Dennis-Fan-Club thread on that other site and giving some updates.
For me, Jim priced the completion of the Speakers fairly and I was able to continue the project.
Dennis Murphy is an Audio Hero to me because of his sheer mastery of making sound sound good! Jim earned his status as a hero for me because he stuck with a project that was assuredly a loss on his books, but the support for his longtime friend and a one of his friend's twit customers (me) was astounding.
I never asked him for anything in the process other than ways that might help realize the projects completion. I even suggested that I would pay for the finished cabinets and assembled parts plus instructions to complete myself!
At the end, the speakers were packed and scheduled to ship when I got an email saying that there was a concern about the test measurements and they were going to unpack and fix the crossovers. I offered to pay for the parts, even.
I never got that bill, but I did get the speakers. Jim's build of Dennis' Flagship the Philharmonic 3.

 

[baronvonellis]

Those two mid-woofers (W15 in the SCST and W16 in the Veracity ST) may have the same lower limit to bass, but they don't perform exactly the same. The devil is in the details:

Seas W15CY 5.5" Magnesium woofer
View attachment 29905

Seas W16NX 6" Magnesium woofer
View attachment 29907

Some differences:

• The W16 has a larger and more robust motor than the W15:
  It's voice coil diameter is 38 mm, vs 26 mm in the W15.
  The W16 magnet is bigger, 0.64 kg vs 0.42 kg in the W15.
• The W16 voice coil, hence the cone, moves farther while maintaining a linear response:
  The W16's Linear voice coil travel is 14 mm (peak-to-peak),and the maximum travel is 22 mm.
  In the W15, those values are 8 mm and 14 mm.
• The W16 handles higher power levels:
  Short term power handling: W16 250 Watts, W15 200 Watts.
  Long term power handling: W16 80 Watts, W15 70 Watts.
• The W16 moves more air:
  Effective piston area is 94 cm² for the W16 and 75 cm² for the W15.

Other parameters that define the lower bass extension, Fs, VAS, and Qts are remarkably similar in those two drivers. But overall, the W16 handles more power and can be driven louder than the W15.

I'm glad you asked that question because it allows me to go into detail about why generalizing about woofer diameters can be misleading.

It also shows you're a man who has spent a lot of time studying the Salk web site. It takes one to know one .

Thanks alot! That was really helpful, I didn't understand what all those things meant and how they relate to sound.

Haha, yea, I've been researching Salk since January. I ordered the Song 3 with a custom open back midrange design from his other speakers. I'm intrigued how the open back midrange will sound! I ordered them May 2nd. So I've been checking his website alot while I wait for my speakers to be built. So far only the cabinets have been assembled. It's going to be a long wait!

I also found through Jim Salk a person that owned the Song 3A in my area and auditioned them in their home, we had a great time too! It really helped me get a feel for the speakers with my own music. For me the Accutron was too detailed and chiseled sounding, and the Song 3 was cheaper too, and he said it's less detailed, so I went with those.

 

[MalVeauX]

The "end game" idea is a great idea most people looking to upgrade ignore or don't consider. We have a lot of new people come to the forum to gripe about the upgrade they just did. They went from a $500 speaker to a $750 speaker and they aren't hearing any great improvement. That's because the speaker wasn't truly an upgrade at all, it was just another purchase in a long string of purchases.

I am of the opinion (and its just my point of view) that if you are looking to upgrade, then you should take some time to save your shekels and truly invest in a real deal upgrade. Something you can have confidence is a true upgrade and not just a more expensive speaker. There are plenty of more expensive but not really better speakers.

For me, the Salk speakers (and there's a wide spectrum of choices there) are an end game choice. That's just me talking. But, for me, they were a true upgrade and I haven't had the upgrade itch since. If I were to put together another additional system in another part of my house, I would seriously consider another Salk purchase or something from Dennis Murphy using Salk cabinetry. We havn't spent any time talking about the Salk cabinets, but holy cow that is an entire discussion area all by itself. PM @Swerd and let him give you some insight in to the Salk cabinet process. Its a journey all by itself.

Thanks, that's the sort of mindset I'd like to take into this. Basically what's my top out budget and what is end-game within that budget. I realize I'm not going to gain much with a $500 purchase in this arena from a speaker arrangement. So it lead me to wonder at what point will there be a substantial break in performance for the price where diminishing returns really sets in strong, and I'm certainly not looking to acquire exotic speakers for the sake of having Veblen goods. It seems so far that everyone is congregating around that $1k per speaker price point in general and the suggestions and information all point into that direction and I find that reasonable. In fact, I'm happy it's not $4k per speaker or something!

I have plenty of time as this is the initial stage of questions to begin even looking into what's an option that is really worth getting and has value, compared to just making "another purchase." I am definitely not interested in having several different great speakers. I've done that with headphones and I would rather have a comfy pair that I'm happy with and don't really care much to know if something better is available. I got there finally with headphones and it's been nice not thinking about new ones for years now. I'd like to get there with speakers, minus purchasing 40+ speakers to figure it out.

Very best,

 

[MalVeauX]

My own experience is not too dissimilar. I am a Salk customer and fan by default, though. My original order was through Philharmonic Audio. Jim was building the cabinets for Dennis.
At the end, the speakers were packed and scheduled to ship when I got an email saying that there was a concern about the test measurements and they were going to unpack and fix the crossovers. I offered to pay for the parts, even.
I never got that bill, but I did get the speakers. Jim's build of Dennis' Flagship the Philharmonic 3.

Thanks for that, that's very helpful. I absolutely care about what goes into a quality piece of work and really appreciate the human side of it, that's probably what also is my interest in high fidelity in general, hearing the perfect imperfections as they are made. I'll try and get my ears on a pair so I can see if it speaks to me too.

Very best,