A Salk fan-boy takes action

Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
The veneers he uses and the finishes he does are the best on any furniture I've seen. And yes, they are miter-cut, no exposed MDF edges to seal.

The ropey curly cherry I ordered cost extra. He gave me a link for it on certainlywood.com. https://www.certainlywood.com/images-locator.php?item=R%20CHERRY%201406

The tracker only says Sealer Coat 1-4 and Final Topcoat. I'm only guessing he uses lacquer, because it dries faster than other coats. So I don't really know what coatings he uses.

I do know he has a dust-controlled spray booth or room, and uses dyes applied on top of 1 or 2 sealer coats instead of wood stain. He says it provides better color control.

He also uses a vacuum-press to glue on the veneer, and then glues hardwood strips (roughly 1×1") to the edges of the boards that will become the front baffle. They will be rounded over at some later time during the process.

When I imagine all this, it seems easy. If I only had those tools, I could do the same ;). Yeah, that's the ticket :rolleyes:!
Earlier this summer several of us were speculating about Jim Salk's finishing methods.

I recently saw this http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=147457.0, where Jim Salk said:

We use ICA poly sealer (FP272), spraying multiple coats until we are able to sand it flat without sand-throughs or grain showing. Sometimes this can be 12-15 coats. For our standard topcoat, we use about 5 coats of M.L. Campbell high gloss Magnamax pre-cat lacquer, sanding out dust particles between coats. We then shoot a final coat of satin Magnamax. We then take a very fine sandpaper and remove any remaining dust particles we find and shoot straight lacquer thinner with a retarder added. This re-melts the surface to remove any sanding marks left over.
That's why it took 2 months to make my speakers :D. I'm still digging them very much!
 
Last edited:
M

MrBoat

Audioholic Ninja
Earlier this summer several of us were speculating about Jim Salk's finishing methods.

I recently saw this http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=147457.0, where Jim Salk said:

We use ICA poly sealer (FP272), spraying multiple coats until we are able to sand it flat without sand-throughs or grain showing. Sometimes this can be 12-15 coats. For our standard topcoat, we use about 5 coats of M.L. Campbell high gloss Magnamax pre-cat lacquer, sanding out dust particles between coats. We then shoot a final coat of satin Magnamax. We then take a very fine sandpaper and remove any remaining dust particles we find and shoot straight lacquer thinner with a retarder added. This re-melts the surface to remove any sanding marks left over.
That's why it took 2 months to make my speakers :D. I'm still digging them very much!
That's how I have finished everything from automobiles to my homemade wood boat and that was with just covering it with paint. Just bought cherry veneer for the Tempests. I have long board (misery whip) sanders that I have made myself for finish work and enough sandpaper to last me the rest of my days. I know me. I'll end up way overdoing it and very few will know what I went thru to get it to that point.

ETA: Just looked at the photos further back in the thread. Very nice.
 
slipperybidness

slipperybidness

Audioholic Warlord
That's how I have finished everything from automobiles to my homemade wood boat and that was with just covering it with paint. Just bought cherry veneer for the Tempests. I have long board (misery whip) sanders that I have made myself for finish work and enough sandpaper to last me the rest of my days. I know me. I'll end up way overdoing it and very few will know what I went thru to get it to that point.

ETA: Just looked at the photos further back in the thread. Very nice.
Yeah, when you DIY, it's too easy to get caught up on every little detail and every little place that you could have done a better job. But, in reality, YOU are probably the only person that will even notice these little areas for improvement.

I always do bright light inspections on my work, sometimes under magnification. Sometimes I get things down to the point that a bright light inspection may show the flaw, but no way you would see it under normal room lighting conditions.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
That's how I have finished everything from automobiles to my homemade wood boat and that was with just covering it with paint. Just bought cherry veneer for the Tempests. I have long board (misery whip) sanders that I have made myself for finish work and enough sandpaper to last me the rest of my days. I know me. I'll end up way overdoing it and very few will know what I went thru to get it to that point.

ETA: Just looked at the photos further back in the thread. Very nice.
I thought DIY guys like you would be interested in how one small speaker maker company (Salk Signature Sound) finishes their cabinets.

I like DIY speaker making, but I've never liked the finishing process. Salk's finishes are better looking than any furniture I've seen. It can be fun browsing the different finishes, veneer and paint, he has done. See the Gallery http://www.salksound.com/gallery.php.

I was looking at my speakers last night (with electric light, not daylight), and the cherry veneer has already darkened some since those photos (on page 6) were taken by Jim Salk in his shop soon after the speakers were finished. That warm cherry red color is developing.
 
slipperybidness

slipperybidness

Audioholic Warlord
I thought DIY guys like you would be interested in how one small speaker maker company (Salk Signature Sound) finishes their cabinets.

I like DIY speaker making, but I've never liked the finishing process. Salk's finishes are better looking than any furniture I've seen. It can be fun browsing the different finishes, veneer and paint, he has done. See the Gallery http://www.salksound.com/gallery.php.

I was looking at my speakers last night (with electric light, not daylight), and the cherry veneer has already darkened some since those photos (on page 6) were taken by Jim Salk in his shop soon after the speakers were finished. That warm cherry red color is developing.
Makes me wonder, what would the Salk prices be if he had economy finishes and vinyl wraps?

Dang! Something like that may make Salk unbeatable on price/performance.

I have a set of the Alexis/Philharmonitors with (I think) the China cabinets. Even those cabinets are quite nice looking.
 
fuzz092888

fuzz092888

Audioholic Warlord
I thought DIY guys like you would be interested in how one small speaker maker company (Salk Signature Sound) finishes their cabinets.

I like DIY speaker making, but I've never liked the finishing process. Salk's finishes are better looking than any furniture I've seen. It can be fun browsing the different finishes, veneer and paint, he has done. See the Gallery http://www.salksound.com/gallery.php.

I was looking at my speakers last night (with electric light, not daylight), and the cherry veneer has already darkened some since those photos (on page 6) were taken by Jim Salk in his shop soon after the speakers were finished. That warm cherry red color is developing.
I'm with you. I've watched some videos where some guys did that really strenuous finishing process and every time I'm building a pair of speakers or subwoofer the finishing aspect makes me cringe. I have to say the best finishing job I've ever done was on that desk I pseudo built and not on any of the speakers :D

Makes me wonder, what would the Salk prices be if he had economy finishes and vinyl wraps?

Dang! Something like that may make Salk unbeatable on price/performance.

I have a set of the Alexis/Philharmonitors with (I think) the China cabinets. Even those cabinets are quite nice looking.
Slightly cheaper than the Del Won prices when he was making the cabs for Philharmonic I would guess.
 
M

MrBoat

Audioholic Ninja
Every hobby I have ever had involves lots of sanding. My day job manages to include it as well. When I started to look at these speaker cabinets it occurred to me how small they are compared to other projects I have done. These will actually be enjoyable to treat, comparatively. Sanding/leveling manages to be one of those Zen things.

The irony of this affair being, I will have to hook up the JBL's so I have the right music to listen to while I finish these. :)

I'm not really a fan of tall, skinny, tower (just not used to it) speakers, because seeing the amount of space that is not used for the drivers themselves perplexes me visually, with regard to the prices of a lot of them, but those Salks are sharp looking.
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
I'm not really a fan of tall, skinny, tower (just not used to it) speakers, because seeing the amount of space that is not used for the drivers themselves perplexes me visually, with regard to the prices of a lot of them, but those Salks are sharp looking.
A fat front baffle isn't necessarily a good thing. The only reason why they were produced like that back in the day was because manufacturers didn't understand baffle diffraction nearly as well. Getting rid of those fat boxes was a step forward acoustically. Note this does not quite apply to a speaker like yours where most of the front baffle is taken up by a horn and woofer/ports.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Every hobby I have ever had involves lots of sanding…
:) Take pictures as you build them. We in the peanut gallery love to criticize the efforts of others :rolleyes:.
I'm not really a fan of tall, skinny, tower (just not used to it) speakers, because seeing the amount of space that is not used for the drivers themselves perplexes me visually, with regard to the prices of a lot of them, but those Salks are sharp looking.
I hear & understand you as I used to feel that way myself. I had used (since 1973) some JBL L100s with large 12" woofers. It turns out, their bass response was not as low as I thought, were exaggerated, not exactly boomy, but it led to a muddy sound in the upper bass.

This is called 'high Q' or 'resonant' bass, and is often used in less expensive designs to produce louder but less articulate sounding bass.

The tall skinny towers with smaller diameter woofers can (but not always) have bass that sounds cleaner and sometimes deeper than older designs from the 70s and 80s. It all comes down to physics. That was worked out in the early 1970s for sealed cabinet and ported cabinet designs. Those math formulas allow one to predict the bass sound without having to do trial and error in wood. When consumers started buying speakers with smaller cabinets, especially those with smaller footprints, the woofer makers started making smaller woofers, in the 5-7" diameter range, that could produce decent bass. Of course, it comes with a price. One of the main advantages of DIY speaker building is that you can choose low Q non-resonant cabinet dimensions.

Much later, in the last 10-20 years, the physics and math was also worked out for transmission line cabinets. TL bass, is in my opinion a better sounding way to reproduce bass in home speakers. Think of that unused space inside a TL speaker cabinet the same as you would a column of vibrating air inside the pipes of a pipe organ.
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
A fat front baffle isn't necessarily a good thing. The only reason why they were produced like that back in the day was because manufacturers didn't understand baffle diffraction nearly as well. Getting rid of those fat boxes was a step forward acoustically.
All those panels on larger cabinets also tend to generate their own audible resonant vibrations, unless they are rigidly damped by internal cross braces, heavier panels, or more elaborate sandwiched structures.

Narrower cabinets, if they are tall, still need damping, such as by cross bracing, but the do tend to be quieter than larger wide cabinets.

Another advantage of using smaller woofers (smaller than 7") is their upper frequency performance is better than larger woofers. You don't see 2-way speakers with 8" or 10" woofers anymore for this reason.
 
M

MrBoat

Audioholic Ninja
A fat front baffle isn't necessarily a good thing. The only reason why they were produced like that back in the day was because manufacturers didn't understand baffle diffraction nearly as well. Getting rid of those fat boxes was a step forward acoustically. Note this does not quite apply to a speaker like yours where most of the front baffle is taken up by a horn and woofer/ports.
Skinny boxes don't bother me, really, They just look like extended bookshelf speakers to my eye. I'm just now revisiting audio after taking quite a few years off and the change during that leap is kind of a lot. I'll get used to it, or perhaps even learn to appreciate it once I discover the functionality, personally.
 
M

MrBoat

Audioholic Ninja
:) Take pictures as you build them. We in the peanut gallery love to criticize the efforts of others :rolleyes:.
I hear & understand you as I used to feel that way myself. I had used (since 1973) some JBL L100s with large 12" woofers. It turns out, their bass response was not as low as I thought, were exaggerated, not exactly boomy, but it led to a muddy sound in the upper bass.

This is called 'high Q' or 'resonant' bass, and is often used in less expensive designs to produce louder but less articulate sounding bass.

The tall skinny towers with smaller diameter woofers can (but not always) have bass that sounds cleaner and sometimes deeper than older designs from the 70s and 80s. It all comes down to physics. That was worked out in the early 1970s for sealed cabinet and ported cabinet designs. Those math formulas allow one to predict the bass sound without having to do trial and error in wood. When consumers started buying speakers with smaller cabinets, especially those with smaller footprints, the woofer makers started making smaller woofers, in the 5-7" diameter range, that could produce decent bass. Of course, it comes with a price. One of the main advantages of DIY speaker building is that you can choose low Q non-resonant cabinet dimensions.

Much later, in the last 10-20 years, the physics and math was also worked out for transmission line cabinets. TL bass, is in my opinion a better sounding way to reproduce bass in home speakers. Think of that unused space inside a TL speaker cabinet the same as you would a column of vibrating air inside the pipes of a pipe organ.
Thank you for the explanation. I also understand that speakers also serve more functions now with theater, and music. It has to be a more complicated bit to get them to cover everything.

Wasn't but in the last few years that I was kind of struck by how they could get decent sound out of computer speakers, which are smaller yet.
 
M

MrBoat

Audioholic Ninja
Thank you for the explanation. I also understand that speakers also serve more functions now with theater, and music. It has to be a more complicated bit to get them to cover everything.

Wasn't but in the last few years that I was kind of struck by how they could get decent sound out of computer speakers, which are smaller yet.
I will take photos of the build. Even though it is likely just another of what has been posted ad nauseam by now.
 
M

MrBoat

Audioholic Ninja
All those panels on larger cabinets also tend to generate their own audible resonant vibrations, unless they are rigidly damped by internal cross braces, heavier panels, or more elaborate sandwiched structures.

Narrower cabinets, if they are tall, still need damping, such as by cross bracing, but the do tend to be quieter than larger wide cabinets.

Another advantage of using smaller woofers (smaller than 7") is their upper frequency performance is better than larger woofers. You don't see 2-way speakers with 8" or 10" woofers anymore for this reason.
Understood. There has been other changes as well though. Back in the fat speaker days, the average family home, at least in this country, was about 1500 sq ft. Now it has likely doubled almost. Some people's "entertainment rooms" are as big or bigger than my whole house.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Thank you for the explanation.
Explaining it properly would be hard to do on a audio chat forum like this. It is explained well in a chapter or two in this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Speaker-Building-201-Comprehensive-Course/dp/1882580451/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1482372580&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=Speakerbuilding+201

or

https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/books/speaker-building-201-by-ray-alden/

You've asked a number of questions about bass performance, including woofer size and cabinet size. Reading two chapters in that book would go a long way towards understanding it.
 
M

MrBoat

Audioholic Ninja
Explaining it properly would be hard to do on a audio chat forum like this. It is explained well in a chapter or two in this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Speaker-Building-201-Comprehensive-Course/dp/1882580451/ref=sr_1_sc_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1482372580&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=Speakerbuilding+201

or

https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/books/speaker-building-201-by-ray-alden/

You've asked a number of questions about bass performance, including woofer size and cabinet size. Reading two chapters in that book would go a long way towards understanding it.
Some personal observations, and this with regard to my actual living space and it's limitations, if there is any.

Woofer size in my case is more of an overall presence thing, 'without' subs. These days, they use giant subwoofers in large enclosures, just removed from the towers, but they still need something to move the air and a large container for them. In my quests, it was hard to get dedicated opinions that did not include subwoofers, even with full range speaker suggestions. By this point, I have tried 6 different types of speakers here. 3 different full range, bookshelfs, and taller towers with smaller woofers. The bookshelf and the narrow towers definitely needed the sub woofer and a the one my buddy brought over, a large ported one at that.

In the case of the Tempests I built, larger woofers was the right thing to do for the presence I was after, the type of bass, and trying to do without subs as a starting point. Now all I would really need subs for is a little added 'breath' (for lack of a better explanation) to the system if at all. Now I don't need 15" subs in ported enclosures. 12's in sealed will be more than adequate and now I have room for dual subs in more of a 2 channel stereo arrangement. The mid bass from the 12" woofers in the Tempests is incredible.

I will look up those books and I will likely learn more as I go. I'm starting to warm up to the modern treatments.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
@MrBoat
I found an older post where I tried to explain some of the bass issues. Essentially, once you know the Thiele/Small parameters of a woofer (manufacturers publish them and you can measure them yourself) you can vary the system Q by varying the interior volume of the cabinet you build. Each Q from about 0.5 to greater than 1.0 has a readily heard sound quality. This sound quality, plus the frequency at which the woofer is crossed over to a mid range or tweeter, plays a very large role in just how good or bad a speaker design sounds.

See post #5 in http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/frequency-response-graphs.92881/#post-1062303
 
M

MrBoat

Audioholic Ninja
@MrBoat
I found an older post where I tried to explain some of the bass issues. Essentially, once you know the Thiele/Small parameters of a woofer (manufacturers publish them and you can measure them yourself) you can vary the system Q by varying the interior volume of the cabinet you build. Each Q from about 0.5 to greater than 1.0 has a readily heard sound quality. This sound quality, plus the frequency at which the woofer is crossed over to a mid range or tweeter, plays a very large role in just how good or bad a speaker design sounds.

See post #5 in http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/threads/frequency-response-graphs.92881/#post-1062303
Thank you, Swerd. It's going to take me a couple times reading that and some other research to understand it, at least with regard to the infinite amount of variables that happens once the sound gets 'out' of the ideal cabinets.

I think this is perhaps where the old school engineers might of had it over the new, or at least the 'by-ear' analysis vs the technical they must have had to rely on at times in spite of. I don't believe they were unaware of the different effects of narrower vs wide cabinets, large woofers vs small, just that they had to ask a lot from speakers for a lot of different people, before auto EQ, computers etc.

You have to admit, even with all that is known and stated about the technicalities of driver, crossover and cabinet design these days, many people are still having to do an awful lot of adjustment, awkward placement, and a heap of trouble shooting to go along with it. Many systems, the sheer amount of multiple components included, more often than not, seem to play more a compensatory function than one of greater, overall enhancement. This is what sort of perplexes me about expensive speakers or modern designs.

When I was building these Tempests, I got one finished and hooked it up while taking a break. I'm sitting here listening and am kind of getting carried away by the sound of it. An hr passes and I had to remind myself I was only listening to the right channel and to get off my butt and back at it.

Not being contrary here or mean to derail your thread. You certainly know a lot more about this than I do. Glad I found this thread and prompted some response in this direction, which is what I was curious about when I started reading it.
 
slipperybidness

slipperybidness

Audioholic Warlord
Thank you, Swerd. It's going to take me a couple times reading that and some other research to understand it, at least with regard to the infinite amount of variables that happens once the sound gets 'out' of the ideal cabinets.

I think this is perhaps where the old school engineers might of had it over the new, or at least the 'by-ear' analysis vs the technical they must have had to rely on at times in spite of. I don't believe they were unaware of the different effects of narrower vs wide cabinets, large woofers vs small, just that they had to ask a lot from speakers for a lot of different people, before auto EQ, computers etc.

You have to admit, even with all that is known and stated about the technicalities of driver, crossover and cabinet design these days, many people are still having to do an awful lot of adjustment, awkward placement, and a heap of trouble shooting to go along with it. Many systems, the sheer amount of multiple components included, more often than not, seem to play more a compensatory function than one of greater, overall enhancement. This is what sort of perplexes me about expensive speakers or modern designs.

When I was building these Tempests, I got one finished and hooked it up while taking a break. I'm sitting here listening and am kind of getting carried away by the sound of it. An hr passes and I had to remind myself I was only listening to the right channel and to get off my butt and back at it.

Not being contrary here or mean to derail your thread. You certainly know a lot more about this than I do. Glad I found this thread and prompted some response in this direction, which is what I was curious about when I started reading it.
You also gotta remember: today amp power is cheap and solid state amps have taken the THD down and output impedence down to very low levels.

In the past, amp power was expensive and tube amps had high output impedence that required output transformers.

So speaker designs of the past also had to consider the shortcomings of amplification of the past. But, today the amps dont have the same limitations of the past.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top