Salk SoundScape M7

[its phillip]

Really sucks about that damage. Beautiful speakers though. That display looks so small compared to the speakers

 

[GranteedEV]

Warp; I think your sub and speakers are more attractive than your furniture ;P

Paul: I did want to state that Salk doesn't 'always' opt for inefficient low f3 speakers. The Salk Pharos uses a 12" JBL woofer, and 6.5" PHL mid, with around 95db sensitivity.

 

[templemaners]

How do they compare to your S8's?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yes, I would also like to know how these SoundScape monitor speakers compare to your Paradigm Reference Signature 8 towers?

Price difference?

Sound Quality difference?

 

[randyb]

The problem is that this is not a pure engineering discussion, as Marketing will want to talk about product size, and sex appeal. If you have a three way box, and you STILL need a sub, it begs the question why are you using this small of a driver to begin with? From a purely engineering problem standpoint, it makes little sense to me as a solution. Why not use a 8 or 10 inch driver instead? (You could side mount it if baffle size is an issue).

!

I certainly don't understand everything you are saying, but the above quote sounds like you are damning all bookkshelfs without an 8" or bigger driver (three way vs. two way...what's the difference if well integrated)? I would also just add that Dennis Esrkine (CEDIA Board of Directors), who is no slouch in putting together very nice sounding home theaters does not believe in full range speakers even for music. Had quite a long discussion (debate thread) because of statements made by Dr. David Rich in Sensible Sound on the sub/sat vs. full range views several years ago. Debate being should one use sats and subs or full range speakers for music.....integration vs. best place for subs etc. Long story short is that MANY in the industry believe for best results you should always use sub(s) even if you have wasted your money (probably too strong a term) on full range speakers. I recently upgraded my theater using his and Shawn Byrnes CAD drawings and suggested speakers. Or then again, maybe I am missing the point here which is easy because I certainly don't have the technical knowledge.

P.S. Then there is Dr Earl Geddes point of view that your mains should also be a source of bass WITH multiple subs. I can tell you from being there, his home theater sounds awesome. The other truely awesome home theater (music room) was one of Erskine's designs near my home. Does not use full range mains but does use 5 subs (all hidden).

P.P.S. I guess my real question is if Warpdrive uses a sub (or I would recomment multiple subs) and crosses them over at 80-100 Hz willl this speaker still be deficient in your view and further if the speaker had a 10" driver, would you NOT recommend using it with subs. If you do recommend a sub what would be your recommended crossover point all other things being equal.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

MANY in the industry believe for best results you should always use sub(s) even if you have wasted your money on full range speakers.

I agree.

I use dual subs when listening to music on my Revel Salon2s and Linkwitz Orions.

 

[Warpdrv]

I agree with you randy.... No question - external subs even though I wasted my money on those Sig S8 towers, the XLERATORS are far more capable then the bass in any main - same goes with my choice for buying these SS M7's.

Well guys I spent a really good amount of time after getting them set up last night - in a word INCREDIBLE.... Jim and Dennis you guys worked magic and they are certainly worthy of the SoundScape label...

Oh and BTW, they can crank pretty darn well despite the efficiency rating, more then I will need in a room that size... As far as comparing to the Sig S8's, its too early, seriously I just got these last night... Both are great speakers, but SQ wise - IMO these will beat out the Sigs. But in terms of output wise for my HUGE HT room, these just couldn't push the SPL's like the Sigs can - and the S8's sound awesome doing it....

Cheers

 

[Nuance AH]

I agree with you randy.... No question - external subs even though I wasted my money on those Sig S8 towers, the XLERATORS are far more capable then the bass in any main - same goes with my choice for buying these SS M7's.

Well guys I spent a really good amount of time after getting them set up last night - in a word INCREDIBLE.... Jim and Dennis you guys worked magic and they are certainly worthy of the SoundScape label...

Oh and BTW, they can crank pretty darn well despite the efficiency rating, more then I will need in a room that size... As far as comparing to the Sig S8's, its too early, seriously I just got these last night... Both are great speakers, but SQ wise - IMO these will beat out the Sigs. But in terms of output wise for my HUGE HT room, these just couldn't push the SPL's like the Sigs can - and the S8's sound awesome doing it....

Cheers

Congrats on your new speakers, Warpdrv! I'll be coming over this week to give them a listen...RIGHT?

Warp listens louder than anyone I've ever met (sorry bro, it's true, hehe), and if he says these speakers are "more then I will need in a room that size," then I'd say you're claims that they aren't efficient enough are moot. Perhaps these won't play super loud in a large room, but they weren't meant to, and knocking them because of this is like saying a Lamborghini Gallardo is a crappy handling car because it doesn't have great traction on an icy lake.

Again, congrats Patrick!

 

[STRONGBADF1]

I agree with you randy.... No question - external subs even though I wasted my money on those Sig S8 towers, the XLERATORS are far more capable then the bass in any main - same goes with my choice for buying these SS M7's.

Well guys I spent a really good amount of time after getting them set up last night - in a word INCREDIBLE.... Jim and Dennis you guys worked magic and they are certainly worthy of the SoundScape label...

Oh and BTW, they can crank pretty darn well despite the efficiency rating, more then I will need in a room that size... As far as comparing to the Sig S8's, its too early, seriously I just got these last night... Both are great speakers, but SQ wise - IMO these will beat out the Sigs. But in terms of output wise for my HUGE HT room, these just couldn't push the SPL's like the Sigs can - and the S8's sound awesome doing it....

Cheers

Who's money? I thought you had a sugar mamma?

 

[Warpdrv]

Thanks Partner....

Yup.... listening sessions are expected....

 

[GranteedEV]

I certainly don't understand everything you are saying, but the above quote sounds like you are damning all bookkshelfs without an 8" or bigger driver (three way vs. two way...what's the difference if well integrated)?

A larger driver isn't just about deep extension. It's about more effortless output. If your mains are running out of gas where your sub is still going strong, you end up needing a higher crossover point or something like that. The Seaton Catalysts for example, are sealed and only extend down to 50hz or so, but do so with a pair of 12" AE drivers so blending to a sub at any SPL, is easier than the 6.5" driver will be, even if the acoustic response is identical at low levels. It's all about room size though. Big speakers, does not equal full range speakers. ;P

Well guys I spent a really good amount of time after getting them set up last night - in a word INCREDIBLE.... Jim and Dennis you guys worked magic and they are certainly worthy of the SoundScape label...

Congrats man. *thumbs up*

 

[randyb]

A larger driver isn't just about deep extension. It's about more effortless output. If your mains are running out of gas where your sub is still going strong, you end up needing a higher crossover point or something like that. The Seaton Catalysts for example, are sealed and only extend down to 50hz or so, but do so with a pair of 12" AE drivers so blending to a sub at any SPL, is easier than the 6.5" driver will be, even if the acoustic response is identical at low levels. It's all about room size though. Big speakers, does not equal full range speakers. ;P
*

I realize that but I don't get the "requirement" that a speaker such as the Soundscape in discussion has to have an 8-10" driver instead of a 7" driver. I am not even saying that the Soundscape might be easier to crossover at a lower point with an 8 or 10" diriver. I am not saying a Bose cube can paly loud and mate well with a sub. What I am saying is that some speakers are not meant to play full range and should be used with a subs and some floor standers are meant to be played full range and still should be used with subs (mutliple is better). I know about high output smaller speakers. I have Procella 8's (as do the 6's that are used as surrounds) and they play plenty loud as does my Gedlee Abbey's. I just got the impression from Paul's posts that he was looking at this as a "full range" speaker meant to play without subs and that it wouldn't play very loud. Warpdrive seems to have dispelled that view.

P.S. I get the higher/lower crossover point and output, and the rest of it. My point was only addressing Paul's critique. (Procella's crossed over at 80 HZ. You probably know Earl's feeling on crossing over his speakers)

 

[Mark Seaton]

Hi This whole thing has probably gotten a little out of hand. My frustration stems from the comments that seemed to be reading something sinister or weird into the natural characteristics of MLS measurements.

For those not familiar with the term or technique, here is a brief summary grabbed from some site or other:

"Using MLS techniques, it is possible to perform quasi-anechoic measurements of a loudspeaker without having to place it inside an anechoic chamber (a room free from echoes and reverberations). The impulse response can be easily windowed in the time domain, in order to analyze the signal and reject the reflections from the walls of the room."

So yes, there's windowing going on, though a little bit longer than 5 microseconds. That's how the system works. And a 5 dB demarcaton is perfectly adequate for designers and potential buyers. The issue of how to represent the bass performance below 200 Hz is an area where reasonably reasonable people can disagree. I prefer to see what Praxis tells me in its room mode, because I can better adjust the degree of baffle step compensation to match actual bass prominence in a typical room. But Praxis isn't acccurate enough in that mode to reveal a true F3. A nearfield measurement will give you the inherent F3 of the woofer in the box, but not in the room. And then there's the matter of harmonic distortion--how happy you'll be with the bass performance of a speaker depends on the clarity of its presentation as the quantity. I'm not really advocating anything strongly about bass graphs. That's not my territory. I just don't want people to think there's anything weird or useless about a typical Praxis graph above 200 Hz. OK--it's official--I'm as bored with this as everyone else. Bye.

Hi Dennis,

I applaud your even keeled responses to the unwarranted insinuations. I can certainly understand enthusiasts having questions of what they might be looking at in some of the graphs, but the techniques by which those were generated are widely accepted and understood by the vast majority of professionals in the audio industry. I probably would agree that a small bit of smoothing would get rid of some hair on the curve to make some feel better in looking over what would be effectively the same relevant information. I guess it wasn't obvious that the posted curve was there to show that effort was put into insuring a smooth integration of the drive units through the crossover range.

Best of luck with your "retirement project"

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Hi Dennis,

I applaud your even keeled responses to the unwarranted insinuations. I can certainly understand enthusiasts having questions of what they might be looking at in some of the graphs, but the techniques by which those were generated are widely accepted and understood by the vast majority of professionals in the audio industry. I probably would agree that a small bit of smoothing would get rid of some hair on the curve to make some feel better in looking over what would be effectively the same relevant information. I guess it wasn't obvious that the posted curve was there to show that effort was put into insuring a smooth integration of the drive units through the crossover range.

Best of luck with your "retirement project"

Thanks Mark I appreciate that very much. And best of luck right back at you. Cheers, Dennis

 

[Nuance AH]

Wow - two posts in a row by two of the most talented and classy guys on this forum. We are fortunate to have these guys in this industry. Thanks to both of you, and keep up the good work. God bless guys!

 

[Docks]

Did we establish if the salks have the raal 70-10 or 70-20? Crossing a 5 inch accuton with the 70-10 at 2.8k could enable some excess energy from the accuton (79) at this frequency.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Did we establish if the salks have the raal 70-10 or 70-20? Crossing a 5 inch accuton with the 70-10 at 2.8k could enable some excess energy from the accuton (79) at this frequency.

All the Salk speakers use the 70-20, and it's crossed just below 2 kHz. FWIW, the "5" Accuton is more like 3.5", and the problem wouldn't be excess energy at 2.8 kHz. It would be too little off-axis response, although it would be a very minor problem.

 

[Docks]

Thanks for the update Dennis just to make sure we are talking about the same driver, its the C90-6-079 used with the 70-20?