New Usher SW-520 bass pedestal for S-520 speakers....

[zippy753]

...how would it work? It looks like a cool upgrade for the S-520 so I'm curious how it would be connected and work with the bookshelf speaker.

Pictures here: http://usheraudiousa.com/gallery.php5?name=sw_520&thumbIdx=0

There are three sets of binding posts; one for the S-520's and two on the module. I can't figure out if it uses three separate connections or if there is one connection from the receiver to the bottom of the pedestal and you're supposed to jump from the top of the pedestal to the bookshelf.

Anyone have experience with this sort of thing? There isn't any information on this yet and I haven't seen other manufacturers that use this kind of design to compliment their bookshelves.

Description: Usher Audio is proud to announce the new SW-520 bass module. The SW-520 is a passive bass pedestal designed to seamlessly integrate with Usher's famous S-520 mini monitor. The SW-520 takes the S-520's performance to a new level with the addition of outstanding bass response.

 

[Adam]

Now you have me curious! I'll look into that. The description says that it's a passive module, but the speaker terminals on it make me wonder about that. I can't think of any reason for those terminals except for them to actually be powering something.

 

[Adam]

Well, from enjoythemusic.com comes the following that indicates that it is powered:

Usher Audio's new SW-520 bass module is in prototype form and, once finalized, will bring a new level of lowermost frequency production to the company's S-520. The bass module connects directly to the amplifier and bypasses the mids and highs. This arrangement greatly enhances the S-520's power handling capacity.​

So, from that description I would assume that you would connect your amp to the bottom set of terminals, and then connect the upper set of terminals to the bookshelf speakers setting on top of the pedestal.

 

[ParadigmDawg]

They look like a vending machine to me!

I would say that you have to use 3 amps per speaker.

 

[R-Carpenter]

Interesting.
A friend of mine just purchased a pair of S-520 and found them painfully bright.
Not to be off the subject but did anyone try to replace a tweeter with the better one?
Are there any known issues with the consistency of the S-520 tweeter?

 

[mazersteven]

Interesting.
A friend of mine just purchased a pair of S-520 and found them painfully bright.
Not to be off the subject but did anyone try to replace a tweeter with the better one?
Are there any known issues with the consistency of the S-520 tweeter?

The S-520's are not "Bright". Nor are they "Painful", or "Fatiguing". Why anyone would want to replace the tweeter I haven't a clue.

The S-520's have absolutely no bottom end. But that doesn't make them "Bright".

 

[zippy753]

Thanks for that link Adam…looks like that’s about as much information out there. By saying the bass module “bypasses the mids and highs” do you think it turns the S-520’s into three way speakers?

Does anyone else make something like this?

 

[mazersteven]

Does anyone else make something like this?

First speaker that comes to mind is the Wilson Watt Puppy. I don't think it's the same technology.

 

[corysmith01]

AV123 previously made something very similar to this, the ELT PBS made to couple with their ELT speakers, but they've since been retired:

ELT PBS

 

[R-Carpenter]

The S-520's are not "Bright". Nor are they "Painful", or "Fatiguing". Why anyone would want to replace the tweeter I haven't a clue.

The S-520's have absolutely no bottom end. But that doesn't make them "Bright".

I haven't heard or measured the speaker myself so I can't back up “Bright” or “Fatiguing” nor I really wish to.
My question was mostly about consistency of this model.
Why would anyone want to replace the tweeter? Because it's a nice looking cabinet and probably a $9 tweeter in there. Anyhow, my friend decided to just resell them.

 

[mazersteven]

Why would anyone want to replace the tweeter? Because it's a nice looking cabinet and probably a $9 tweeter in there.

IMO it's a pretty sweet sounding $9 tweeter.

 

[mazersteven]

http://www.loudspeakershop.eu/usher-audio-ua02510-p-1134.html?osCsid=2bf9abbd

 

[R-Carpenter]

Do you have F1,2,3,4 by any chance? FR alone doesn't tell the hole story.
Anyway, I was suspecting an odd ball issue with my friends speakers.
Thanks.
R

 

[project86]

Maybe they just meant passive as in "non-powered", ie it doesn't have a built in amp. I'd love to hear it.

 

[mazersteven]

Do you have F1,2,3,4 by any chance? FR alone doesn't tell the hole story.

I placed a call (left message), and an e-mail into Usher today. Hopefully I will hear back from them.

 

[scubabob]

It's been over a year since Mazer's GTG where the S-520s participated in a big speaker round-up. I liked their sound a lot, especially the high end. The S-520's tweeter, just like the WATT's tweeter, has the ability to be very intense and clean, even at very high volumes. I liked that. The passive module that Usher seems to be touting here I think will wind up being a dual crossover setup just like Wilson's WATT coupled to the Pup. I don't think it will be an active setup. Having a manufacturer designed bass module specifically made for the S-520 instead of having customers monkey around trying to match it with a sub themselves can only bode well for most listeners.

 

[byang]

I like the design

Actually Westlake Audio has came up with this design earlier, the Lc8.1F combined with the Lc8.1SW (Usher even named them the same way). Last time I was at Usher's store here in Taiwan about two month ago, I didn't see the product.

By the way, aren't Wilson WATT's tweeters made by Focal?

 

[scubabob]

By the way, aren't Wilson WATT's tweeters made by Focal?

Yes .

 

[svtcontour]

I agree that they are not bright. They sound really good actually...better than many lower priced small speakers. I liked them more than the B&W CM1 which was considerably more $$.

Also I disagree about the no bottom end thing. Maybe its my room helping but I have a set and it has no trouble reaching down to 40Hz quite well. It can even hit 35Hz. I've got an Audio Control SA3050 and its hitting down there It can even tickle 25Hz but just barely.

The S-520's are not "Bright". Nor are they "Painful", or "Fatiguing". Why anyone would want to replace the tweeter I haven't a clue.

The S-520's have absolutely no bottom end. But that doesn't make them "Bright".

 

[nikolio]

The S520 is excellence speaker overall, at this price,
i love the small speakers, i have the,
ATC - scm 7
Proac - responce 1
Totem Acoustic - mani 2
Usher - BE718
and the S-520...
..i have already ordered the SW-520!!!