High end system to my living room, MOST HELP PLEASE!!!!!

[Jimz711]

I am also interested in the same 3 speakers, although the R500, and would be interested in what people have to say. Just to throw a couple more names out there, Ascend Sierra Tower and Ohm Walsh, the 2000 are exactly 1400 each so 2800 for the pair plus 50 shipping.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

At thi moment i will go with R900.
But before that, we can compare it to Salk SongTower RT or philharmonic 3 ? I thing the final competition will limeted between this three....

I haven't heard the R900, so I bring nothing to the table there. I designed both the STRT and the Phil 3, and I think it would come down
to how much you value added bass extension, and perhaps how much classical and acoustic jazz you listen to (where the Phil's open-back midrange might be attractive). On music, you should never need a subwoofer with the Phil 3, although you might with the STRT. The extra $600 for the Phil 3 gives you about 15 Hz added bass extension and an open-back midrange. It would be worth it to some people, not to others.

 

[JerryLove]

15 to 20 feets, u can say midrange volumes.

Let's assume you want 100db peaks @4m (15ft): that's 106db-112db @1m.

Dennis, can you comment here? Am I guessing high on the db (that's below THX peak)? That's 100w for 105db on the Phil 3. 111db would be 400w, yes?

He's at twice my listening distance, so I'm not sure how to sort out power handling needs.

In last question, if u mean the space of the speaker no problem i have enough space, but if u think i am tend to take a big speaker, thats not my criteria, the important thing is the sound.

I was basically asking if there were size concerns. You've said "no".

Also the low frequencies ( Bass ) r important to me because may be i will one of who's have a stereo systems.

Give the listening distance (20ft) and the lack of a sub-woofer, I might steer away from the Salk Song-Tower. There are Salks that will do the job (better than any other speakers I've heard), but I think to go as low as you want at those distances you'd be safer with the Philharmonic (as the Salks I'd think to suggest are from the more expensive Veracity line).

 

[A330-200]

Let's assume you want 100db peaks @4m (15ft): that's 106db-112db @1m.

Dennis, can you comment here? Am I guessing high on the db (that's below THX peak)? That's 100w for 105db on the Phil 3. 111db would be 400w, yes?



He's at twice my listening distance, so I'm not sure how to sort out power handling needs.



I was basically asking if there were size concerns. You've said "no".



Give the listening distance (20ft) and the lack of a sub-woofer, I might steer away from the Salk Song-Tower. There are Salks that will do the job (better than any other speakers I've heard), but I think to go as low as you want at those distances you'd be safer with the Philharmonic (as the Salks I'd think to suggest are from the more expensive Veracity line).

Theoretically, the idea that your try to reach it to me is really right. Now i will delete the Salk Song Tower Rt from my list....
The compition now between the philharmonic 3 and the KEF R900 which both costs me a 3300$ ( KEF IS USED LIKE I SAY IN THE FIRST POSTER).
And because you are talken about Salk veracity line i found these Salk Veracity HT2 TL also they used and here thier link

Salk Custom Veracity HT2-TL Floorstanding speakers in Red Gum Veneer | Full range | Carrollton, Texas 75006 | AudiogoN - The High-end Audio Community

Also here two links for the KEFs used also

KEF 900'S NEARLY NEW KEF 900'S-ROSEWOOD | Full range | Levittown, Pennsylvania 19057 | AudiogoN - The High-end Audio Community

Kef R900 Walnut | Full range | Sylvan Lake, Michigan 48320 | AudiogoN - The High-end Audio Community

Where i will stoped on ?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Let's assume you want 100db peaks @4m (15ft): that's 106db-112db @1m.

Dennis, can you comment here? Am I guessing high on the db (that's below THX peak)? That's 100w for 105db on the Phil 3. 111db would be 400w, yes?

He's at twice my listening distance, so I'm not sure how to sort out power handling needs.



I was basically asking if there were size concerns. You've said "no".



Give the listening distance (20ft) and the lack of a sub-woofer, I might steer away from the Salk Song-Tower. There are Salks that will do the job (better than any other speakers I've heard), but I think to go as low as you want at those distances you'd be safer with the Philharmonic (as the Salks I'd think to suggest are from the more expensive Veracity line).

For 4m distance, 85dB/2.83v/m sensitivity, 105dBC peak (0dB headroom), it would require 1600 watts.

Amplifier Power Required Calculator

But for the usual reference level of 85dBC, it only takes 16 watts.

90dBC = 51 watts.

95dBC = 160 watts.

 

[Adam]

Amplifier Power Required Calculator

That's an awesome calculator. It says that I need 0 W.



(Yes, yes...I know that it's only showing integer values.)

 

[JerryLove]

Theoretically, the idea that your try to reach it to me is really right. Now i will delete the Salk Song Tower Rt from my list....
The compition now between the philharmonic 3 and the KEF R900 which both costs me a 3300$ ( KEF IS USED LIKE I SAY IN THE FIRST POSTER).
And because you are talken about Salk veracity line i found these Salk Veracity HT2 TL also they used and here thier link

The Salks are my favorite line of speakers in the world. I own the SCSTs. I was drooling after the HT2-TL's, though I'm torn between those and the Veracity ST (which is smaller). I've listened to several in the line (SCST, SS8, etc) and they are the best sounding, and some of the best looking speakers I have ever played with or owned (and I've gone through many).

Philharmonics are designed and built by Dennis Murphey who did much of the crossover and design work for Salk. They come with a well-deserved reputation for sound.

I have not spent time listening extensively to the KEF speaker you are referring to. I cannot comment on them

 

[SearchofSub]

For 4m distance, 85dB/2.83v/m sensitivity, 105dBC peak (0dB headroom), it would require 1600 watts.

Amplifier Power Required Calculator

But for the usual reference level of 85dBC, it only takes 16 watts.

90dBC = 51 watts.

95dBC = 160 watts.

If the OP wants to crank the Phil 3's at 105db the Crown XLS 2000/2500 in bridge mode should do.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

If the OP wants to crank the Phil 3's at 105db the Crown XLS 2000/2500 in bridge mode should do.

I've reached 105dBC in my system will ALL speakers & ALL subs playing, but not with one speaker.

I think in 2.0 (2 speakers playing at the same time, no subs), I've never exceeded 92dBC because the midrange and treble beyond this SPL would be excruciating to me.

I think THX reference peak of 105dBC for ONE speaker and 115dBC peak for one sub is a limit that most people will never reach because their ears (and wives and relatives) would say, "Turn the damn volume down, you nitwit!."

 

[JerryLove]

If the OP wants to crank the Phil 3's at 105db the Crown XLS 2000/2500 in bridge mode should do.

I doubt the drivers will survive 1600w and (depending on frequency) the drivers would clip.

That said: Depending on how sensitivity is measured, it may not be -6db per doubling, and there may be more efficiency (because of room interactions). This is true with any speaker.

 

[fuzz092888]

There's no question in my mind the drivers wouldn't survive 1600W. I'd be highly skeptical of half that. Now to mention it would take 2 of the Crown's, if bridged, and some 20 or 30 amp lines to deliver that kind of power.

One would be more than sufficient to destroy the 3's if one chose to.

 

[SearchofSub]

I've reached 105dBC in my system will ALL speakers & ALL subs playing, but not with one speaker.

I think in 2.0 (2 speakers playing at the same time, no subs), I've never exceeded 92dBC because the midrange and treble beyond this SPL would be excruciating to me.

I think THX reference peak of 105dBC for ONE speaker and 115dBC peak for one sub is a limit that most people will never reach because their ears (and wives and relatives) would say, "Turn the damn volume down, you nitwit!."

I think its pretty insane when people say they listen at 105 db levels. I usually dont even go past 65.

 

[fuzz092888]

A and C weighting are much different.

I think its pretty insane when people say they listen at 105 db levels. I usually dont even go past 65.

 

[SearchofSub]

A and C weighting are much different.

I'm talking about A-weighting. The guy over at AVS who blew the Lore tweeters lives alone in the middle of nowehere with no neighbors. This guy was listening at 105+ db(a) and wondered why the tweeters kept blowing..

He prababaly had the speakers way up in one room and was working and walking around his house..


To the OP, its prababaly not a good idea to listen at 105+ levels, but I would recommend the Crown XLS 2000 in bridge mode for clarity and headroom.

 

[fuzz092888]

Yea, but with a sensitivity if 98db 1w/1m, 105db at the LP would require less than half of the rated power handling. If he measured the SPL from downstairs or even possibly a different room, that's a different story.

I'm talking about A-weighting. The guy over at AVS who blew the Lore tweeters lives alone in the middle of nowehere with no neighbors. This guy was listening at 105+ db(a) and wondered why the tweeters kept blowing..

He prababaly had the speakers way up in one room and was working and walking around his house..


To the OP, its prababaly not a good idea to listen at 105+ levels, but I would recommend the Crown XLS 2000 in bridge mode for clarity and headroom.

 

[shadyJ]

Get some high quality bookshelf speakers + high quality subwoofers.

For example, get some used KEF R300 or Revel M106 bookshelf speakers (or similar) + dual Rythmik LV12 subs (or similar).

None of these towers will have nearly the quality of bass as these subs.

So you get the high quality midrange and tweeter from the bookshelf speakers + high quality bass from the subs.

+1 this. All tower speaker are is bookshelf speakers stacked on subwoofers anyway. Think of subs and bookshelf speakers as a 'modular tower speaker' with extra good bass. Here's an idea: Get two Philharmonitors and set them on top of a couple of these bad boys. The dual opposed designs minimizes cabinet vibrations so your speakers are a lot less likely to fall off. The cabinet is overbuilt anyway, and the drivers are among the better ones that Dayton offers. A system like that would be roughly $2800 and be very nice.

 

[fuzz092888]

+1 this. All tower speaker are is bookshelf speakers stacked on subwoofers anyway. Think of subs and bookshelf speakers as a 'modular tower speaker' with extra good bass. Here's an idea: Get two Philharmonitors and set them on top of a couple of these bad boys. The dual opposed designs minimizes cabinet vibrations so your speakers are a lot less likely to fall off. The cabinet is overbuilt anyway, and the drivers are among the better ones that Dayton offers. A system like that would be roughly $2800 and be very nice.

In some ways better than a tower because the crossover from the mid to the woofer/subwoofer is active and tunable to the room.

Have I mentioned how much I like dual opposed?

 

[JerryLove]

+1 this. All tower speaker are is bookshelf speakers stacked on subwoofers anyway. Think of subs and bookshelf speakers as a 'modular tower speaker' with extra good bass.

Assuming they are the same number of drivers (2-way).

I've never seen a 3-way tower that crossed over to it's woofer at 60-100Hz. I've not seen a bookshelf+sub that didn't. As a result, the 2-way midrange must go lower than the 3-way, which generally also means that the tweeter must also go lower (to meet the larger bookshelf). These compromises can affect sound.

Here's an idea: Get two Philharmonitors and set them on top of a couple of these bad boys. The dual opposed designs minimizes cabinet vibrations so your speakers are a lot less likely to fall off. The cabinet is overbuilt anyway, and the drivers are among the better ones that Dayton offers. A system like that would be roughly $2800 and be very nice.

That is a good example. Ask yourself why the Philharmonitor uses a different (larger) woofer than the midrange on the Philharmonic 1/2/3 and Slim.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Assuming they are the same number of drivers (2-way).

I've never seen a 3-way tower that crossed over to it's woofer at 60-100Hz. I've not seen a bookshelf+sub that didn't. As a result, the 2-way midrange must go lower than the 3-way, which generally also means that the tweeter must also go lower (to meet the larger bookshelf). These compromises can affect sound.

That is a good example. Ask yourself why the Philharmonitor uses a different (larger) woofer than the midrange on the Philharmonic 1/2/3 and Slim.

There are various equivocal hypotheses pros and cons, but the only one that matters is how the speakers actually sound.

Here's another hypothesis. I bet if Harman conducted a DBT using completely untrained randomized audiophiles w/ towers 2.0 (lesser bass) vs monitors + subs 2.2 (better bass), most people would prefer monitors + subs because the later has better bass.

It's like guys who think every single amp sounds differently or guys who think every single tweeter sounds differently (like Salon2 vs Studio2 vs Gem2 or 800D2 vs 802D2 vs 803D2 vs 805D2, etc).

Certainly not every monitors + subs 2.2 system sounds better than every towers 2.0 system.

Every guy can see and experience for himself and be his own judge.

 

[Jimz711]

As far as measurements go, I've seen that in the KEF R series, all three towers measure better than the R300 bookshelf. Just something else to consider.