Review of the Salk Veracity HT3 loudspeaker

[TLS Guy]

My friend Phil Marin and I headed out to Woodbury MN this morning to visit Audio by Van Alstine.

We were received warmly by Frank Van Alstine and quickly updated each other on our activities. The three of us had not met for around a quarter century.

Frank is in the amplifier business. He has an association with Salk and they share expenses at exhibitions and use each others products.

The major purpose of the visit was to hear the Salk Veracity HT 3 loudspeakers.

This is the driver complement.

The woofer is a custom 10" aluminum driver made by TC sounds. Xmax exceeds 20mm. This woofer is in a ported enclosure with two rear ports.

The mid range driver is the SEAS W 18E, in a sealed chamber. This driver I'm very familiar with, as I use four of them in my reference TLs.

The tweeter is the Aurum Cantus G2 Ribbon.

The speaker was driven by the new Van Alstine Ultimate 70 tube amp based on the Dynaco Stereo 70. Power output is 33 to 35 watts per channel.

The DAC for digital audio conversion from the CD player was by Van Alstine, and his latest model.

The first disc for evaluation was the Hyperion disc of Rameau key board suites played by Angela Hewitt on an Italian Fazoli piano. The recording is superb and the playing beyond reproach.

I have to say the Salk HT3s delighted this listener right away. The piano had a good perspective, balance was natural, with no hint of tubbiness in the bass. The bass was light and of correct weight, and there was no brittleness to the piano. This was a thoroughly accurate rendition.

Next we moved on to one of my favorite anthems, Blessed be God the Father by Samuel Wesley, from Salisbury on the Priory label.

Here the bass of the organ remained articulate, even if the speakers failed to reproduce the very deepest reach of the organ with authority. The boys voices had no sibilance, but there was a slight accentuation of the upper register of the trebles. I think some would describe it as airy, but it is not natural. However I personally did not find it unduly unpleasant. My friend Phil Marin objected to this aspect of the loudspeakers performance more than I did.

On the Fortes, the HF had a slightly strained quality. Since the amplification was tube I can not be at all certain if this was from the lower end of the ribbons or the tube amp clipping. I was at pains to keep the volume moderate. The room was not large.

The next disc was from Worcester recorded by EMI in the sixties and is one of the most technically perfect recordings I know of. The perspective of this recording is uncanny. We played Elgar's Ave Marie Stella On the Salks a good perspective was achieved, but the organ was not as nice and distant as I would have liked. On my rig you can definitely hear the right and left rows either side stretching away from you, and the organ high behind the choir, with the organ notes floating in space. I did not quite get that from the Salks, and felt that the ribbon tweeter was again the weakest link in the chain.

Next we played the final movement of the Sibelius Symphony N0. 2 in a performance by the Latte Symphony Orchestra under Osmo Vanska, on the BIS label.

The string sound was gorgeous, especially the cello passages. Woodwinds were correctly balanced, and I could distinctly discern the notes of the tympani. Trombones and horns were lusty. I thought the upper reaches of the trumpets slightly marred again by the tweeter. However the sound was good enough that I was thoroughly engaged in the music and enjoyed it.

Unfortunately I could not play this piece at concert level, due to the limitations of the tube amp.

Those of you who have followed my posts will know that I have a hard time finding a justification for using tube amps. Today's experience reinforced my opinion, that tube amps when connected to the vast majority of speakers just can't cut it. I believe members inquiring about tube amps should receive even stronger discouragement. I felt this tube amplifier was compromising this speaker evaluation for lack of power. I have a suspicion the bass would also have had more weight if these speakers had been driven by a good powerful solid state amp. I think a speaker should have a minimal sensitivity of 92db one watt one meter before even considering a tube amp. The sensitivity of the HT3s is 85 db 1 watt one meter.

The final evaluation was a new recoding of the Wanamaker Organ in the Macy's Philadelphia store. This is the largest mechanical instrument on Earth. The piece was the Jungen Organ Concerto with the Philadelphia Orchestra. This work was written for this organ, but this ended up being the first performance on this instrument about 90 years late! This is a smooth wonderful recording on the Gothic label.

Again the Salk speakers acquitted themselves well. Strings were lush, and the organ atmospheric. Again the deepest depths were not there, but I will easily forgive minor sins of omission. I really felt the limitation of tube power more in this selection than any other, and would love to hear these speakers with more competent power.

Now to return to the upper reaches of this speaker. Here we get into the only significant sin of commission of these speakers.

This is the frequency response of the ribbon tweeters.

This is the Waterfall plot.

Now there is a slight broad based peak between 6 and 16 kHz. The waterfall plot has irregularity around 12 kHz, suspicious for a resonance in the ribbon.

I suspect this is responsible for what we heard. I should state I had no knowledge of these facts before the audition, but hoped I would find an explanation for what I heard.

The finish of the speakers was outstanding. I rate these speakers as very good value for money at under 6K.

I have to say however if I did own them, I would be trying to tame the tweeter. In my view HF roll off is preferable to a rise, and this is borne out in listener studies.

So for me I think these are speakers I could live with. However for full disclosure, my good friend Phil Marin, said he could not. He said he found the HF problem irritating enough he would not recommend them. May be I'm more tolerant as I have moved snow the last few years with the Model A JD tractor!

I think these speakers would be better off with a good dome tweeter. My personal view is that the problems of high distortion, especially in the lower range of the ribbon, the tendency to rising HF response and the difficulty getting a good transition with cone drivers because of significantly different dispersion patterns, outweigh the advantages. In all honesty the few times I have selected a ribbon driver, I always somewhat regretted it and doubt I will ever select one again for one of my designs.

 

[highfigh]

The rise in the HF must account for the airiness and by itself shouldn't be a terrible thing, although it is a departure from "completely balanced" and to me, the ~3dB rise is substantial. I could see it being a bit annoying with close-mic'd trumpets, especially when there are more than one. However, I find it alarming that you seem to be operating heavy-ish power equipment with no mention of hearing protection. That's not something I would do for any length of time.

 

[Swerd]

TLS - thanks for your detailed review. I'm surprised that Frank Van Alstine chose to use that tube amp on those speakers. 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. Salk recommends 50-200 watts (tube) and 120-500 watts solid state.

Did you get to compare the HT3 to Frank's B&W 801 speakers?

Did you get to listen to Frank's SongTowers?

 

[TLS Guy]

TLS - thanks for your detailed review. I'm surprised that Frank Van Alstine chose to use that tube amp on those speakers. 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. Salk recommends 50-200 watts (tube) and 120-500 watts solid state.

Did you get to compare the HT3 to Frank's B&W 801 speakers?

Did you get to listen to Frank's SongTowers?

Frank had just finished with this tube amp and it was his new toy, and what was hooked up. He seemed reticent to hook up the song towers, and felt the bass light and rolled off too fast.

I did not see any 801s there and never asked if he has them. However Phil has the 800 Ds. so I'm familiar with them.

I likely will get a chance to explore these speakers further. However my biggest reservation is the HF, which I do not think the tube amp had a hand in. I think it is a pity Salk seem so devoted to ribbon tweeters. I have had a love hate relationship with them ever since Stan Kelly's ribbons, later the Decca Kelly ribbon. Seems the problems remain, the same. I think dome tweeters have improved tremendously over the years and the case for ribbons becomes less and less persuasive as time goes by.

 

[MidnightSensi]

Reviewing with valves is difficult, because they impart a lot of their own character on the signal. Some of the difficulties the speakers had may have been due to the amplifier. Hard to say.

Thanks much for the review.

 

[TLS Guy]

Reviewing with valves is difficult, because they impart a lot of their own character on the signal. Some of the difficulties the speakers had may have been due to the amplifier. Hard to say.

Thanks much for the review.

I agree to an extent though, but unless Frank has downgraded the performance of the Dynaco ST 70 which I seriously doubt, then tubes would have tended to mask this problem, not cause or aggravate it. Also this effect was not volume dependent. All the same I wish it had not been a tube amp in circuit.

I had a Dynaco ST70 for many years to play with. I sold it to a guy in Wisconsin who did the most fabulous rebuild of a Dynaco ST 70 I have ever seen. So it was put to good use. That amp never drove any of my designs properly so it was wrong to keep it. The problem was that the bass seems inferior to solid state, and clipping was an issue. I really don't care if clipping is soft or not, I don't like it. And quite honestly I don't think any sensible or rational can be made for the use of tube amps in this day and age.

 

[Swerd]

Frank had just finished with this tube amp and it was his new toy, and what was hooked up. He seemed reticent to hook up the song towers, and felt the bass light and rolled off too fast.

Compared to the HT3s, yes the SongTowers have much less bass. I only asked because it would be a chance for you to hear the Martin King-based mass Loaded TL or quarter wave resonator design.

I did not see any 801s there and never asked if he has them. However Phil has the 800 Ds. so I'm familiar with them.

I believe Frank still has a pair of those, although I'm not sure if it was the 800 or 801.

I likely will get a chance to explore these speakers further. However my biggest reservation is the HF, which I do not think the tube amp had a hand in. I think it is a pity Salk seem so devoted to ribbon tweeters. I have had a love hate relationship with them ever since Stan Kelly's ribbons, later the Decca Kelly ribbon. Seems the problems remain, the same. I think dome tweeters have improved tremendously over the years and the case for ribbons becomes less and less persuasive as time goes by.

Some of the Salk models, including Frank's SongTowers, use a different ribbon tweeter, the LCY-110. Dennis Murphy, the crossover designer, says it and the G2 ribbon tweeter sound very similar, but the LCY is physically smaller, allowing better spacing between drivers in an MTM layout.

 

[TLS Guy]

Compared to the HT3s, yes the SongTowers have much less bass. I only asked because it would be a chance for you to hear the Martin King-based mass Loaded TL or quarter wave resonator design.

I believe Frank still has a pair of those, although I'm not sure if it was the 800 or 801.

Some of the Salk models, including Frank's SongTowers, use a different ribbon tweeter, the LCY-110. Dennis Murphy, the crossover designer, says it and the G2 ribbon tweeter sound very similar, but the LCY is physically smaller, allowing better spacing between drivers in an MTM layout.

Hopefully I can get a chance to revisit. Frank is keen to spend a week at Benedict at some future date. I guess Frank says the bass of the Song Towers rolls off like a falling stone, but I will have to make my mind up. My TLs do not roll off fast at all, and the type of design I favor properly damped would not. However to be fair I would like to evaluate a mass loaded design with slightly larger higher end drivers, to be fair to the design concept.

Franks Song Towers did have the LCY ribbons by the way. I'm not surprised they sound similar as they appear to be tarred with the same brush.

By the look if the acoustic data I don't think you could mate the LCY to the SEAS Excel W 18 EX. You must roll the SEAS unit off at least by 2.5 kHz.

 

[MidnightSensi]

Is it possible to tame those highs with a crossover at all? Like, have it roll off on a really shallow slope at the top to get the curve to flatten out.

That looks like a pretty harsh curve!

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Is it possible to tame those highs with a crossover at all? Like, have it roll off on a really shallow slope at the top to get the curve to flatten out.

That looks like a pretty harsh curve!

I won't take any issue with the reviewer's subjective evaluation of the G2 ribbon. He's reporting what he heard, and there' not much more to say. I personally dont hear it that way. But I will take issue with posting a raw response curve of the G2 and claiming that the rising response is responsible for what he heard, and, by implication, is something that's just inherent in the beast. Virtually all ribbons have that kind of response profile when just played with a direct signal. I've trield just about all of them. But it's a trivial matter to flatten the response with the crossover, and my HT3 measures ruler flat. (All woofers will show a dramatic 6 dB rise between 400 hz and 1 kHz due to the baffle step--but not after a correctly designed crossover is applied.) Stored energy is another matter. I don't think the posted waterfall plot shows much of an issue--most domes aren't any cleaner up there. A real stored energy problem will create a much more dramatic decay profile. But again, this doesn't go to the reviewer's subjective impression. And I haven't measured Frank's HT3's. But I don't believe ribbons have the inherent deficiencies that are cited, or I wouldn't recommend using them so much.

 

[TLS Guy]

Is it possible to tame those highs with a crossover at all? Like, have it roll off on a really shallow slope at the top to get the curve to flatten out.

That looks like a pretty harsh curve!

I would not go so far as to call that a pretty harsh curve. Remember it is not the mid range, where a slope like that would be harsh.

The acoustic footprint of that LCY driver is very typical of aluminum ribbon drivers. A lot of people like it. You get much the same curve from most high end moving coil pick up cartridges and people also rave about the "air" of those.

So I think a manufacturer is in a bind when his speakers sports ribbons, as people look for that effect. The thing that amuses me though, is that a lot of the same people go out and purchase tube amps, whose response is pretty much the inverse of the ribbon signature!

Now of the two, the LCY response would be the easiest one to deal with, as it could be controlled by a shunt capacitor.

The Aurum Cantus is more problematic, as there is really a broad based peak, which would require a broad based high Q filter. May be the units have these.

 

[TLS Guy]

I won't take any issue with the reviewer's subjective evaluation of the G2 ribbon. He's reporting what he heard, and there' not much more to say. I personally dont hear it that way. But I will take issue with posting a raw response curve of the G2 and claiming that the rising response is responsible for what he heard, and, by implication, is something that's just inherent in the beast. Virtually all ribbons have that kind of response profile when just played with a direct signal. I've trield just about all of them. But it's a trivial matter to flatten the response with the crossover, and my HT3 measures ruler flat. (All woofers will show a dramatic 6 dB rise between 400 hz and 1 kHz due to the baffle step--but not after a correctly designed crossover is applied.) Stored energy is another matter. I don't think the posted waterfall plot shows much of an issue--most domes aren't any cleaner up there. A real stored energy problem will create a much more dramatic decay profile. But again, this doesn't go to the reviewer's subjective impression. And I haven't measured Frank's HT3's. But I don't believe ribbons have the inherent deficiencies that are cited, or I wouldn't recommend using them so much.

Dennis good to hear from you. First of all let me congratulate you on a fine speaker. Personally I liked them and could live with them. The vast majority of speakers around at any price are far worse than those.

I guess I have developed a gradually increasing resistance to ribbons. I think this is an issue that comes down to personal taste. I know John Krutke of Zaph Audio, has pasted similar comments to mine about ribbon tweeters.

However I would have to state that from what I heard the ribbon signature was not entirely removed from the speakers I auditioned under the conditions I stated. My friend who has a good ear noted the same characteristic.

However in my view the problem in no way put this speaker in a marginal category, in fact I regard it as a superior speaker.

 

[randyb]

I won't take any issue with the reviewer's subjective evaluation of the G2 ribbon. He's reporting what he heard, and there' not much more to say. I personally dont hear it that way. But I will take issue with posting a raw response curve of the G2 and claiming that the rising response is responsible for what he heard, and, by implication, is something that's just inherent in the beast. Virtually all ribbons have that kind of response profile when just played with a direct signal. I've trield just about all of them. But it's a trivial matter to flatten the response with the crossover, and my HT3 measures ruler flat. (All woofers will show a dramatic 6 dB rise between 400 hz and 1 kHz due to the baffle step--but not after a correctly designed crossover is applied.) Stored energy is another matter. I don't think the posted waterfall plot shows much of an issue--most domes aren't any cleaner up there. A real stored energy problem will create a much more dramatic decay profile. But again, this doesn't go to the reviewer's subjective impression. And I haven't measured Frank's HT3's. But I don't believe ribbons have the inherent deficiencies that are cited, or I wouldn't recommend using them so much.

I also don't want to take an issue with what the reviewer heard, but i will say that I also don't hear the rising response. One of the problems in listening to any speaker when you know what the drivers are is expectation bias. I am not saying it is at play here, but we all have to understand that sometimes we hear what we expect to hear. Some of those concerned with distortion artifacts in ribbon should read some of Geddes work on what distortion really is audible. Just my two cents. I will say that I do own HT-3's but also Songtowers, NHTxd, Aerials and many others.

Personally, I am less concerned about ribbons, domes etc. and more concerned at how they are implemented. FWIW, the ST seem a little brighter to me than the HT-3's which seem a little smoother in the treble. Then again, I am 63 years old so my hearing while good is not as good as it used to be, I 'm sure.

 

[MidnightSensi]

I would not go so far as to call that a pretty harsh curve. Remember it is not the mid range, where a slope like that would be harsh.

The acoustic footprint of that LCY driver is very typical of aluminum ribbon drivers. A lot of people like it. You get much the same curve from most high end moving coil pick up cartridges and people also rave about the "air" of those.

So I think a manufacturer is in a bind when his speakers sports ribbons, as people look for that effect. The thing that amuses me though, is that a lot of the same people go out and purchase tube amps, whose response is pretty much the inverse of the ribbon signature!

Now of the two, the LCY response would be the easiest one to deal with, as it could be controlled by a shunt capacitor.

The Aurum Cantus is more problematic, as there is really a broad based peak, which would require a broad based high Q filter. May be the units have these.

Haha, yeah, that's what I mean. The valves warm everything up, and then this tweeter looks like it counteracts that. That curve looks pretty harsh to me. I'm not an expert, but 6dB is like double. And peaky tweeters sound good for a demo sometimes, but to own them, and listen for hours, is bloody painful. Again, maybe the tubes counteract this.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Dennis good to hear from you. First of all let me congratulate you on a fine speaker. Personally I liked them and could live with them. The vast majority of speakers around at any price are far worse than those.

I guess I have developed a gradually increasing resistance to ribbons. I think this is an issue that comes down to personal taste. I know John Krutke of Zaph Audio, has pasted similar comments to mine about ribbon tweeters.

However I would have to state that from what I heard the ribbon signature was not entirely removed from the speakers I auditioned under the conditions I stated. My friend who has a good ear noted the same characteristic.

However in my view the problem in no way put this speaker in a marginal category, in fact I regard it as a superior speaker.

Hi Thanks for the favorable comment. Again, I want to stick by the forum rules and not get into a discussion of the overall value of the speaker you heard. Although I don't have any financial conflict of interest, I do reputation-wise. And, in any event, I wouldn't want to say anything without measuring Frank's speakers. Ribbons are extremely sensitive to tension tolerances. I just wanted to focus on what I think is the irrelevance of the raw profile. Those super light elements are more effective at higher frequencies, and there is a natural tendency for output to increase with frequency. But that's what crossover components are for, and the G2 was exceptionally easy to work with. I woud be very happy to send you the raw response of the G2 I used in the HT3 cabinet, and then the filtered response. As for John K ("Zaph"), he didn't object to the response profile in his baffle. He took issue with the higher harmonic distortion figures for ribbons as a class. This is a very controversial subject which I won't attempt to resolve. 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.

 

[TLS Guy]

Hi Thanks for the favorable comment. Again, I want to stick by the forum rules and not get into a discussion of the overall value of the speaker you heard. Although I don't have any financial conflict of interest, I do reputation-wise. And, in any event, I wouldn't want to say anything without measuring Frank's speakers. Ribbons are extremely sensitive to tension tolerances. I just wanted to focus on what I think is the irrelevance of the raw profile. Those super light elements are more effective at higher frequencies, and there is a natural tendency for output to increase with frequency. But that's what crossover components are for, and the G2 was exceptionally easy to work with. I woud be very happy to send you the raw response of the G2 I used in the HT3 cabinet, and then the filtered response. As for John K ("Zaph"), he didn't object to the response profile in his baffle. He took issue with the higher harmonic distortion figures for ribbons as a class. This is a very controversial subject which I won't attempt to resolve. 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.

I fully understand your position, and think it entirely appropriate you take the high road and commend you for it.

I should state I heard no sibilance at all in your speakers, so what I heard was above that range. I can't abide sibilance.

I think we all go round and round over tweeters and we have the pain of such choice. Would that it were so for mid range drivers!

I think I have developed a preference for good soft dome units on the whole.
Though I got some good results with MB Titanium domes on a design.

Frankly I did not notice anything amiss with Angela Hewitt at her piano. I noticed it on the first cathedral boys choir selection. I usually include this in speaker evaluation. I do this because I was once a boy treble, and like this repertory. It just happens to be really good for revealing tweeter problems.

When I was listening to those CDs, I said to myself that is not quite the way boy trebles sound. On the other selections I doubt I would have noticed a problem if the choral CDs, had not drawn my attention to it.

I'm in Eagan this week away from my rig at Benedict.

So I'm listening on these. They were the last speakers I used for location monitors, when I was doing outside broadcasts for public radio as a public service.

They use these Scanspeak tweeters which are among my favorites.

The drivers you see are in there own sealed enclosures, the bass is a self contained isobarik second order coupled cavity system. So those speakers are from an era when that was in vogue.

I have played the disc from Salisbury Cathedral on those speakers and I have to say the high descant is smoother and more realistic, but then I would because I'm the designer. There is a section in particular where the boys sing at the top of their lungs "hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." Christ is on a note way up in the stratosphere. At that point it was where I was most uncomfortable yesterday. I'm not getting that effect on these speakers here. I'm driving the speakers with an old pair of Quad 303s by the way, so power is comparable to yesterday, and similar sensitivity of the speakers.

As you say speakers are interesting, and people are variable in tolerance of differing imperfections. That is why a roll my own so I can choose the compromises that irritate the least, and have no one else to blame. Then I can extend and revise as I see fit.

 

[gene]

They use these Scanspeak tweeters which are among my favorites.

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

 

[Dennis Murphy]

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

It's certainly a nice unit. I used it as an alternative tweeter in one of my large 2-way designs. http://murphyblaster.com/content.php?f=New_Vifa_Tower.html

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.

 

[randyb]

It's certainly a nice unit. I used it as an alternative tweeter in one of my large 2-way designs. http://murphyblaster.com/content.php?f=New_Vifa_Tower.html

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.

So can I appeal to anyone that has an interest in this kind of switch to contact me so we can get him to rmfg a batch for sale?!

I do like this quote from the site (you won't sue me will you Dennis?)

"I think that’s because it looks bright and shiny, and people hear what they see."

 

[TLS Guy]

Gene, let me ask you a question. You are a smart guy and I recall an email to me that said you generally didn't like ribbon tweeters (it was a long time ago). Do you think you could review a speaker with a ribbon tweeter without bias? How would you know if you removed it (bias)?

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.