Review of the Salk Veracity HT3 loudspeaker

[randyb]

The problem is you can't change a tweeter in a double blind pattern. The crossover would need redesign and even after a change, lobing pattern and off axis response would be different. So what you are asking is impossible.

However we are not talking funny cables, or different CD players here. Even under the best if circumstances even the best of speakers are easily discernible from one another. You have no trouble picking them out. However at this state of the art, the best speakers are sounding far more alike than they used to, so there is progress.

As far as tweeters different technologies have different signatures. It is so hard to put in words, but a soft dome tweeter and an aluminum ribbon tweeter tweeter are sonically different even if frequency response is smoothed for both. I think that is due to a host of factors.

The big issue is that for most manufacturers as you go through their range individual speakers are more often than not poles apart, and they can't all be right, and the answer usually is that none are close.

Now with good experienced designers, the difference among their creations are much smaller. Added to which they have not so much a sonic signature, but general sonic presentation of the sound stage that I have found becomes a trade mark of certain designers. Count out large manufacturers were it is design by committee and all is usually lost in those circumstances.

Producing good speakers is still a blend of science art and judgment. I think it is likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future.

I removed the post but I will say this. I think even very smart people have biases. I am not saying they don't sound different. What I am saying is your knowledge may have biased you. I don't know that it has but when I saw you list Zaph's site (and I have read the various back and forth on the distortion %)and you yourself said you had a love/hate relationship with ribbons, it makes your subjective evaluation less.... well unbiased. Overall, though, I don't really have much of a horse in this race. My conversations with Dennis in the past though have left me with the impression that he is not only well grounded in the art of speaker building, he also is well grounded in the art of the psychology of listening. I am really just making an observation on your review...take it or leave it.

 

[lsiberian]

Nice review. I'd frankly like to see more of these from you Mark. You always tell it like it is.

 

[TLS Guy]

I removed the post but I will say this. I think even very smart people have biases. I am not saying they don't sound different. What I am saying is your knowledge may have biased you. I don't know that it has but when I saw you list Zaph's site and you yourself said you had a love/hate relationship with ribbons, it makes your subjective evaluation less.... well unbiased. Overall, though, I don't really have much of a horse in this race. My conversations with Dennis in the past though have left me with the impression that he is not only well grounded in the art of speaker building, he also is well grounded in the art of the psychology of listening.

I think your point is well taken. However in my defense I listened to a set of speakers, I was not familiar with that had the grills on. I was able to correctly identify the speaker as having ribbon tweeters. And I can tell you the problem was not as expertly handled as Denis has in his speakers.

Yesterday I could not, not know, as there were no grills and the fact the tweeter was a ribbon was obvious.

 

[randyb]

I think your point is well taken. However in my defense I listened to a set of speakers, I was not familiar with that had the grills on. I was able to correctly identify the speaker as having ribbon tweeters. And I can tell you the problem was not as expertly handled as Denis has in his speakers.

Yesterday I could not, not know, as there were no grills and the fact the tweeter was a ribbon was obvious.

That's cool. I just have read so many accounts of people who liked a ribbon and then said wow, high distortion, now I don't like it or that is why I like it, and I sort of in Dennis's camp that they are judging what they heard by something that may not be audible at all. By the way, none of this is meant to be "personal" because I can tell you have tons of experience and are well versed in "speaker stuff". I also noted though that you are a critical care Doc. and I am sure you have had experience with people who think they are gravely ill because they read it on the internet

 

[highfigh]

All I will say is that I use domes in a number of my designs, and to my ears they always sound hotter, with a more concentrated ssssssssssssssssss sound on cymbals and the like than the ribbons I've use, even though both measure flat. Speakers are interesting.

But the $64 question- do they sound like real cymbals, from a similar distance? If so, are we trying to achieve speaker sound that's easy to listen to, or speakers that sound realistic?

 

[TLS Guy]

Forgive me for speaking above my pay grade on this but I would think that waterfall looks like a wet dream. That itty bitty irregularity at around 12kHz is within 1/3 octave of the peak of my ability to hear to begin with and an in room response at the listening position well over 1 meter away would provide it's own high frequency roll off if I am beginning to understand sound at all ... or am I off my rocker?

I'm convinced that I would love any and all speakers that TLS and Phil Marin deem worthy of a listen. I guess now would be a good time to say that I haven't read the whole thread. ADD ... it's a b!tch.

You have missed the point. We are talking about a small issue with what I consider to be a highly superior speaker.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

But the $64 question- do they sound like real cymbals, from a similar distance? If so, are we trying to achieve speaker sound that's easy to listen to, or speakers that sound realistic?

Excellent question. But there are two issues here. I was really addressing the argument that ribbon tweeters gain their reputation for detail from elevated frequency response and harmonic distortion. IMHO, that's not consistent with my manic A-B-C-D comparisons, which to my ears demonstrate a more relaxed, open sound from ribbons. But that doesn't address your question--which is right? For that I would like to have a live source in one room, and speakers in an isolated second room being fed by a perfect mic, preamp, and amp into the speakers. Then I could walk back and forth and form some opinion. Absent that, we're forced to listen to opinions from unreliable sources like me. For the record, I have played in orchestras on a semi-professional basis for 40 years, and I've heard many, many cymbals. And triangles. And to my aging ears, the ribbons sound more like what I'm hearing on stage. And I've listened to orchestras a bajillioin times from various seats in an auditorium. Same conclusion. But those statements are really just a crass attempt to score debating points and credibility. It's not science, and you shouldn't attach much importance to them. Speakers are interesting. And most of the issues are unsettled.

 

[Swerd]

…It is well known among HT3 owners that these speakers really need a big robust amp that is capable of at least 200 wpc. They can dip below 3 amperes impedance.

Those with sharp eyes may have noticed that I should have said, 3 ohms impedance.

One of you did notice. Thanks

 

[highfigh]

Those with sharp eyes may have noticed that I should have said, 3 ohms impedance.

One of you did notice. Thanks

We noticed, we just didn't want to give you a bad self-image.

 

[jsalk]

Just a couple of quick comments.

First, I think Frank did a very nice job with his new tube amp and coupled with the right speakers, it is a very nice amp indeed. But having heard it with our HT4 prototypes (which use a woofer similar to that used in the HT3's), I can say that it does not have quite the power or control required to properly drive the woofer section of the HT3's. Frank's Ultra 550 is a much better match and the quality of the bass is much improved with this combination.

Second, while I prefer ribbon tweeters personally, I realize that some people do not. And I generally do not recommend one type of tweeter over another.

It should be noted that ribbon tweeters are far better today than just a few short years ago. But some people simply prefer dome tweeters. I have no problem with that.

(For the record, we are rarely asked specifically for dome tweeters. Conversely, we are very often asked for ribbon tweeter versions of speakers originally designed with dome tweeters. Our SongTowers are a good example.)

The nice thing is, this is a very easy situation to address. Since we are custom builders, we can easily develop a dome tweeter version of the same speaker for those who prefer domes. That is why I love the custom approach. We can normally customize a design so that is it perfectly tailored to the likes and tastes of each individual owner.

- Jim

 

[highfigh]

Excellent question. But there are two issues here. I was really addressing the argument that ribbon tweeters gain their reputation for detail from elevated frequency response and harmonic distortion. IMHO, that's not consistent with my manic A-B-C-D comparisons, which to my ears demonstrate a more relaxed, open sound from ribbons. But that doesn't address your question--which is right? For that I would like to have a live source in one room, and speakers in an isolated second room being fed by a perfect mic, preamp, and amp into the speakers. Then I could walk back and forth and form some opinion. Absent that, we're forced to listen to opinions from unreliable sources like me. For the record, I have played in orchestras on a semi-professional basis for 40 years, and I've heard many, many cymbals. And triangles. And to my aging ears, the ribbons sound more like what I'm hearing on stage. And I've listened to orchestras a bajillioin times from various seats in an auditorium. Same conclusion. But those statements are really just a crass attempt to score debating points and credibility. It's not science, and you shouldn't attach much importance to them. Speakers are interesting. And most of the issues are unsettled.

I worked for a dealer who sold Infinity speakers and we picked up the line in the early '80s when the RS-B, RS-M and RS-IIIb were being phased out in favor of the rounded corner cabinets with strips of oak that are normally used for tambor doors. The highs did seem more relaxed but not particularly realistic. They were still fighting with the "how the heck do we keep these surrounds attached to the polypropylene cones?" issue and I'm sure the decisions for their crossover designs had a lot to do with that since they were using poly for their cone and dome mids. For some music, they were great but for a lot of it, not so much. For some, they were outstanding and that's obviously the reason we have so many opinions on what sounds "best". Peoples' preferences differ, Sean Olive's comments aside. The people he uses for testing, by his own comments, are trained to hear certain things and that's not necessarily an unbiased group if he's trying to get them to find Harmon International's speaker lines superior. People find something that fits their hearing, if they're lucky. The ones who can't or don't, become frustrated or annoyed and some get to the point of deciding that they can build a better sounding product using what sounds best, to them.

I find it interesting that we search for the most "realistic" sounding systems when the whole recording process is a series of steps aimed at making a realistic-sounding recording of the sounds that were produced in a space, often using a large number of microphones, when the listener's room can't possibly be the same except by a huge coincidence or some obsessive act.

It doesn't stop us, though. Our opinions are based on so many things that one "best speaker in the whole, wide world" may sound like absolute garbage in the majority of listening rooms. I play guitar and have been astounded by how similar the sounds on some recordings are to my guitar and amp sitting near my speakers and other than the fact that the brand and model are the same, everything else is absolutely different. On the other hand, having been close to drums and cymbals in live situations, I do find them to be fatiguing but that's usually because of the acoustics in that location. Other times, it's just the drummer/percussionist. Overall, I want a balance of realism and "easy to listen to". Nothing could be worse than the sound being totally realistic and hard to listen to for any length of time.

 

[WmAx]

This is the Waterfall plot.

Just a note: this waterfall plot has virtually no decay (dB) resolution. 25-30dB is the ideal range/depth for analyzing CSD plots, according to the audible thresholds of resonances, per the resonance studies by Toole/Olive. Stereophile's measurements section for loudspeakers almost always uses a depth of 25-30dB, also. When I provide a waterfall plot, I always produce 27 or 28 dB range (in the middle of the ideal range) for reference to Stereophile's database, and to ensure sufficient range to pick up audible issues. The waterfall plot provided in this thread (sourced from the driver manufacturer) seems to average approximately 10dB, making it's usefulness rather questionable.

-Chris

 

[tom67]

I like the ribbon tweeter actually....thought they arrived too soon years ago as they were ruthless with pops and tics on vinyl and white noise on FM and tape hiss. But with the digital age, I'm surprised we dont see more of them...

 

[gene]

But there are a lot of fine domes out there, and several from Seas are a good bit cheaper. A local EE enthusiast designed a switching preamp for me that allows instant volume-compensated comparisons with 4 pairs of speakers, and I've done a lot of tweeter comparisons with crossover optimized for each one, and I gotta say--differences between decent domes are pretty subtle once you've removed crossover problems from the equation. Of course, there is a big difference in how low you can run them.

That is one of the reasons why I love that tweeter. It plays down low enough to blend really well in a two-way design. It also has great power handling.

 

[KEW]

The problem is you can't change a tweeter in a double blind pattern. The crossover would need redesign and even after a change, lobing pattern and off axis response would be different. So what you are asking is impossible.

FWIW, I just wanted to point out that the SongTower can be had with either a Hiquphon QWII soft dome or the LCY ribbon. Both have Dennis Murphy's skilled touch on the crossovers. If you ever get the chance, these might provide a route for as good of a direct comparison as is practicable. (Just in case you ever end up in "Salk territory" again).

 

[majorloser]

I haven't found a nicer sounding tweeter than a Scan Speak 9500.

Hmmm.....I wonder why?

 

[AJinFLA]

A local EE enthusiast designed a switching preamp for me that allows instant volume-compensated comparisons with 4 pairs of speakers, and I've done a lot of tweeter comparisons with crossover optimized for each one, and I gotta say--differences between decent domes are pretty subtle once you've removed crossover problems from the equation. Of course, there is a big difference in how low you can run them.

Hi Dennis, how do you spatially position 4 pairs of speakers and rapid switch for a single listener position?

Ditto on that. I haven't found a nicer sounding tweeter than a Scan Speak 9500. I prefer it to even the Revelator.

Hi Gene, Does this include compression drivers, like BMS ring radiators, in low diffraction horns (such as oblate spheroid, etc.)?

cheers,

AJ

 

[mtrycrafts]

.... I think even very smart people have biases. ....

Yes, absolutely Hence the need for DBT. But as was stated, comparing one driver to another is rather difficult most likely.

 

[Swerd]

Dennis Murphy asked me if I would post this for him as he had trouble getting these figures to attach. His text:

I would agree that particular waterfall (published by the G2 manufacturer) doesn't tell you much. But while we're posting plots, I thought I would show what the unfiltered response of the G2 looks like in the HT3 cabinet, and then what a little crossover filtering does. (I don't have anything else to do today -- 25" inches of snow out there).

I think you can see from the unfiltered plot that the gently rising top end response is the least of your problems. That huge dip and peak at the bottom end will show up in some form with just about any tweeter, dome or ribbon. It's caused by diffraction effects from sound waves <#> hitting the sides of the baffle and then reflecting back to cancel or reinforce waves that are just emerging. The little notch at 15 kHz is probably inherent in the G2, since you can also see it in the waterfall plot. But at that frequency, it's more a concern for musically gifted Golden Retrievers.​

When comparing these two frequency response curves, please note that they have different vertical axes. The unfiltered tweeter is about 15 dB louder than the filtered response. This was intentional, to more closely match the tweeter output to that of the midrange (not shown).

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Thanks Richard. I really did have to pad the G2 down that much to get it in line with the rest of the speaker. The woofer set the maximum sensitivity. It's pretty much impossible to get bass extension down to 29Hz in that size cabinet without a massive sacrifice in sensitivity. But that's what amplifiers are for.