Salk HT2 TL

[English210]

I've read a lot about the Salk and Phil's, and would like to hear them, but I have listened to what's available locally: B&W, Thiel, Vandys, Focals, PSB's, SF, and maybe a couple of others. I have found possitives/negatives about almost any of them, with none 'unlistenable'. I am surprised by the negativity B&W generates, here and elsewhere. I've heard some of their speakers that are ho-hum, but some I liked very much. BWguy and I have talked on another thread about the new CM10's, which are way ahead of the 9's to my ears, and would be worth a careful side-by-side with the 804D's IMHO. I have heard other brands, and while there's obviously room for differing opinions, B&W seems to generate the most hostile responses. I find it curious. The PM1's are another speaker I found very listenable, and 'belong' in the price category they're in.

I am not knowledgeable enough or experienced enough to fully grasp all the concepts behind the various designs, but I'm open to the ideas. As I get closer to pulling the trigger on my new main pair, I'll work harder to hear more of the available options, including ways to audition some of the ID offerings, and given what I read on forums, the Salks and Philarmonics represent a philosophy I should investigate further, but my curiosity has been aroused by the vehemence of some of the anti-B&W feeling. I can see them not being everyone's cup-o-tea, but what causes the strength of negativity?

 

[fuzz092888]

I've read a lot about the Salk and Phil's, and would like to hear them, but I have listened to what's available locally: B&W, Thiel, Vandys, Focals, PSB's, SF, and maybe a couple of others. I have found possitives/negatives about almost any of them, with none 'unlistenable'. I am surprised by the negativity B&W generates, here and elsewhere. I've heard some of their speakers that are ho-hum, but some I liked very much. BWguy and I have talked on another thread about the new CM10's, which are way ahead of the 9's to my ears, and would be worth a careful side-by-side with the 804D's IMHO. I have heard other brands, and while there's obviously room for differing opinions, B&W seems to generate the most hostile responses. I find it curious. The PM1's are another speaker I found very listenable, and 'belong' in the price category they're in.

I am not knowledgeable enough or experienced enough to fully grasp all the concepts behind the various designs, but I'm open to the ideas. As I get closer to pulling the trigger on my new main pair, I'll work harder to hear more of the available options, including ways to audition some of the ID offerings, and given what I read on forums, the Salks and Philarmonics represent a philosophy I should investigate further, but my curiosity has been aroused by the vehemence of some of the anti-B&W feeling. I can see them not being everyone's cup-o-tea, but what causes the strength of negativity?

I believe some of the hostile feelings towards B&W have to do with the poor to mediocre objective measurements in relation to their high price tags. In the majority of cases you can get objectively better speakers for pennies on the dollar compared to B&W. At least that's the thought, and the styling isn't for everyone. I heard a pair of 80 something or other D's last time I visited a nice audiophile store connected to all Mcintosh gear. They were in an extremely open and large space, so the bass response was lacking, but everything else wasn't too bad. For the price, I'd be approaching Salk SS10 or SS12 range so they would never be anywhere in my radar personally, plus they didn't sound better to me than my Phil 3s, which were less than half the cost.

 

[Steve81]

I believe some of the hostile feelings towards B&W have to do with the poor to mediocre objective measurements in relation to their high price tags.

More or less.

A recent showing of their Diamond 804's:
Bowers & Wilkins 804 Diamond loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com

versus the KEF 201/2
KEF Reference 201/2 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com

The on and off axis FR comparisons aren't flattering for the B&W.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The NHT Absolute Zero (recently on sale for $175 each shipped/ 30-day free return) measures +/-0.9dB from 100Hz-10kHz on HTM.

It makes me wonder why $25K-$200K speakers don't measure as well. Is it because they don't feel like doing so? They feel like voicing their speakers to sound "good" in spite of the measurements?

Most speakers will not measure as well as the 201/2 for sure. Not the 207/2, Salon2, 800D2, and a thousand other speakers. Heck, I think the KEF LS50 measures better than a thousand other speakers.

The Klipsch KL650 measures +/-1dB on Audioholics & HTM. How come I don't see people raving about them?

 

[English210]

Hmm...ok. I confess that those graphs and numbers mean little to me, but reading the 'commentary', he says having visited B&W's facility, he believes they can design a speaker with any 'measurements' they could want, leaving the impression that the measured responses aren't necessarily accidental, and almost certainly 'avoidable'.

I'm going to start another thread to keep asking questions....sorry to hijack, BWguy...

 

[Swerd]

… and given what I read on forums, the Salks and Philarmonics represent a philosophy I should investigate further, but my curiosity has been aroused by the vehemence of some of the anti-B&W feeling. I can see them not being everyone's cup-o-tea, but what causes the strength of negativity?

Here's my take on the negative comments about B&W. B&W makes a wide variety of speakers in widely different price ranges. Speakers in the 800 series are excellent, but very expensive. The other less expensive series speakers such as the CM series, 600 series, 700 series (no longer made) have a much more spotty record and reputation.

One of the major problems with lower series B&W speakers is that B&W insists on using its proprietary kevlar midrange or mid woofer drivers (those bright yellow drivers) at frequencies much too high, crossing them over to the tweeter at 3,500 or 4,000 Hz depending on the model. These kevlar drivers have an ugly sounding resonance that can be heard as bright harsh noise in the mid treble range. Many people mistakenly attribute this sound to the tweeters, but it really comes from the mid woofers because of inadequate filtering by the crossover. It is the primary cause of "listener's fatigue" that leads many B&W owners to eventually abandon their speakers.

It is clearly possible to make speakers with these kevlar drivers that avoid the problem, but apparently only the B&W 800 series speakers do that. It's almost like there are two different B&W companies. The 800 series speakers are made as a good speaker designer would want them. And the other series seem to have major compromises in them that give me the impression that marketing people overruled the designers. For the prices of the CM series, I believe there are much better choices available.

I strongly encourage you to find Salk or Philharmonic owners near you and listen. Where are you located? Jim Salk's Salk Signature Sound is in Pontiac, MI not far from Detroit, and Dennis Murphy's Philharmonic Audio is in Bethesda, MD. I've owned SongTowers since 2007 and some Dennis Murphy DIY speakers for longer. I may be dismissed as a cheer leading fan boy, but I am convinced that the voicing choices Dennis Murphy makes when he designs speakers is superior sounding. There are other very good sounding speakers available, but usually at much higher prices.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I've read a lot about the Salk and Phil's, and would like to hear them, but I have listened to what's available locally: B&W, Thiel, Vandys, Focals, PSB's, SF, and maybe a couple of others. I have found possitives/negatives about almost any of them, with none 'unlistenable'. I am surprised by the negativity B&W generates, here and elsewhere. I've heard some of their speakers that are ho-hum, but some I liked very much. BWguy and I have talked on another thread about the new CM10's, which are way ahead of the 9's to my ears, and would be worth a careful side-by-side with the 804D's IMHO. I have heard other brands, and while there's obviously room for differing opinions, B&W seems to generate the most hostile responses. I find it curious. The PM1's are another speaker I found very listenable, and 'belong' in the price category they're in.

I am not knowledgeable enough or experienced enough to fully grasp all the concepts behind the various designs, but I'm open to the ideas. As I get closer to pulling the trigger on my new main pair, I'll work harder to hear more of the available options, including ways to audition some of the ID offerings, and given what I read on forums, the Salks and Philarmonics represent a philosophy I should investigate further, but my curiosity has been aroused by the vehemence of some of the anti-B&W feeling. I can see them not being everyone's cup-o-tea, but what causes the strength of negativity?

I think it all started when Harman did their DBT w/ Infinity P360 vs. B&W and other speakers and concluded that speakers that measured accurately and smoothly on-axis and off-axis were preferred over other speakers like B&W, Martin Logan, etc.

Then people saw that the on-axis and off-axis of the $300 Infinity P360/362 looked 100% better than the $25K B&W 800D.

And then people audition at dealers and stores and base their comparisons purely by memory of those auditions at stores, shops, dealers, which is NOT the same thing as a side-by-side comparison in YOUR OWN home and setup.

In a DBT, I bet everyone would prefer a pair of NHT Absolute Zero + dual Rythmik LV12 over the $25K 800D2.

 

[Swerd]

Hmm...ok. I confess that those graphs and numbers mean little to me, but reading the 'commentary', he says having visited B&W's facility, he believes they can design a speaker with any 'measurements' they could want, leaving the impression that the measured responses aren't necessarily accidental, and almost certainly 'avoidable'.

I often need a lawyer to help me interpret John Atkinson's comments. This time he was unusually clear .

I think that is consistent with my earlier comments about two different B&W companies.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Hmm...ok. I confess that those graphs and numbers mean little to me, but reading the 'commentary', he says having visited B&W's facility, he believes they can design a speaker with any 'measurements' they could want, leaving the impression that the measured responses aren't necessarily accidental, and almost certainly 'avoidable'.

I'm going to start another thread to keep asking questions....sorry to hijack, BWguy...

What will you call the thread so I can post?

"Why the hell do B&W speakers measure like utter crap, except for the spectral decay/ cabinet resonance measurement which measures perfectly?"

 

[Irvrobinson]

In a DBT, I bet everyone would prefer a pair of NHT Absolute Zero + dual Rythmik LV12 over the $25K 800D2.

Too bad it is unlikely that I could ever take you up on that bet, because I'm reasonably sure the NHT + subs would lose on well-recorded solo piano, and you know I'm not a huge fan of the 800Ds. I've heard the NHTs, and they are weak the upper bass, which means you need to put the low-pass filter rather high up, like about 100Hz. That's a dangerous place to make a subwoofer transition with solo grand piano. If you don't use a high-pass filter on the NHTs I suspect that the difference in sub-70Hz distortion compared to the sub would be audible.

 

[BWguy]

No problem English 210. I would like to know the name of the thread so I can follow it. I also am amazed at the amount of negative comments regarding B W speakers. I will agree that the CM 9 might be over priced, but after listening to the new CM 10, I think it is a much better speaker. I would be interested in hearing opinions from people that have actually heard it.
On another note, I finally found a local person that will demo the Salk HT3's. I am looking forward to listening to these.

 

[Swerd]

On another note, I finally found a local person that will demo the Salk HT3's. I am looking forward to listening to these.

It's good that you'll be able to see and hear the HT3s. You will get to see the excellent build and finish quality. It's a more expensive 3-way speaker that uses the same Seas W18 magnesium coned driver as a mid-range that are used as mid-woofers in the 2-way MTM HT2-TL. Except for the bass, you will get a good idea of how the HT2-TL sounds because the mid-to-tweeter crossover of the HT3 sounds very similar to the 2-way HT2-TL.

The ribbon tweeter in the HT3 is probably different than the RAAL ribbon now in Salk speakers, but that difference is much less prominent than the similarities due to the common use of the W18 driver.

On another note, I was reminded of an older post that discussed in some detail the "listener's fatigue" of another B&W speaker, the 602. It may be different from the CM10 you are interested in, but I linked it because its a good explanation of the problems encountered in some B&Ws.

See posts 15, 24, and 26 which are mine .

looking for less fatigue? *warning: rant ahead*

 

[Tomorrow]

No problem English 210. I would like to know the name of the thread so I can follow it. I also am amazed at the amount of negative comments regarding B W speakers. I will agree that the CM 9 might be over priced, but after listening to the new CM 10, I think it is a much better speaker. I would be interested in hearing opinions from people that have actually heard it.
On another note, I finally found a local person that will demo the Salk HT3's. I am looking forward to listening to these.

Quite honestly guys, I don't think you're reading "negative comments" about B&W loudspeakers. What you are seeing is that there is a strong preference for other speakers out here in audio land. Be it presentation, design compromises, price, aesthetics, whatever, others are preferred over B&W. They (B&W) are fine speakers. But keep in mind, besides all your philosophical and even empirical questions of "why" and "what", there are literally thousands of speaker models on the market. Everything has its place in the public eye (or ear in this case). B&W has its place. If you like it and can afford it...buy it.

But what you are seeing is that numerous people feel that you just might do better with other choices.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Too bad it is unlikely that I could ever take you up on that bet, because I'm reasonably sure the NHT + subs would lose on well-recorded solo piano, and you know I'm not a huge fan of the 800Ds. I've heard the NHTs, and they are weak the upper bass, which means you need to put the low-pass filter rather high up, like about 100Hz. That's a dangerous place to make a subwoofer transition with solo grand piano. If you don't use a high-pass filter on the NHTs I suspect that the difference in sub-70Hz distortion compared to the sub would be audible.

When I owned the NHT SuperZero for over 10 years, I always set the XO to 100Hz, and I never once heard any issues with solo piano or any instruments.

I've set my XO @ 100Hz for some time now in my current system. I've never heard any issues with solo piano pieces or any pieces of music.

Nathan Funk has also recommended using higher XO points with the Funk subs.

Plenty of people with superb subs set their XO high on purpose with great success.

 

[JerryLove]

I've had the opportunity to hear HT2-TL's, Songtowers, Soundscape 12's and Phil 2's in the same room with the same electronics and same music. While the Phil's and Songtowers sounded similar, I preferred the Songtowers. They had slightly better clarity and imaging. The HT2's had the same sonic signature as the Songtowers but with greater bass impact. The Soundscapes were just on another level. If you haven't actually heard the RAAL tweeter, you need to audition. The RAAL is not for everyone. I liked the detail and sense of space it produces, but it can also sound dry/brittle with some recordings. Some will likely flame me for the last comment, but that was my perception.

I've heard the SS8 and SCST in the same room (level matched) for hours. I found them very similar, with an obvious bass advantage to the SS8 (midrange was strikingly similar considering the difference in drivers).

I now own the SCST and Phil 2's, and would generally agree with your comparison.

I've yet to find the RAAL on either speaker dry/brittle though.

 

[English210]

What will you call the thread so I can post?

"Why the hell do B&W speakers measure like utter crap, except for the spectral decay/ cabinet resonance measurement which measures perfectly?"

I went with something more brand-neutral, but you found it anyway

 

[oppman99]

I've heard the SS8 and SCST in the same room (level matched) for hours. I found them very similar, with an obvious bass advantage to the SS8 (midrange was strikingly similar considering the difference in drivers).

I now own the SCST and Phil 2's, and would generally agree with your comparison.

I've yet to find the RAAL on either speaker dry/brittle though.

I should have been more specific in my description. It was a few vocals I thought sounded a bit dry at high volumes. Could have been the recordings as well. It was the one area I preferred the Be tweeter on my Paradigms for the same tracks.

I need to apologize to Dennis as well. It was the WI gathering where I heard the speakers listed in my previous post and he is correct it was not a fair comparison. There were issues with the Phil's and SS 12's. I was running short on time and haven't had a chance to get back here before today. I can definitely say I would be happy to own any of the Salk or Philharmonic line.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I should have been more specific in my description. It was a few vocals I thought sounded a bit dry at high volumes. Could have been the recordings as well. It was the one area I preferred the Be tweeter on my Paradigms for the same tracks.

I need to apologize to Dennis as well. It was the WI gathering where I heard the speakers listed in my previous post and he is correct it was not a fair comparison. There were issues with the Phil's and SS 12's. I was running short on time and haven't had a chance to get back here before today. I can definitely say I would be happy to own any of the Salk or Philharmonic line.

No need to apologize. The WI GTG apparently was something of a mystery--was one channel of the amp clipping on less sensitive speakers? Did the Phil 2 have a disconnected midrange? Was the playback volume so loud that nobody could tell much anyhow? But whatever was going down up there, it's true that the 2's will sound a little different than the HT2's or ST's. That's just a function of their open midrange, which will present a deeper and more realistic sound stage on music recorded in a natural venue, but may have a little less presence on some smaller scale studio recordings where everyone is in a different sound booth and the engineer does the final mix.