Standmounts $2K, $4K, $6K: Home Audition WaveTouch, Salk Silk, B&W CM5, Totem Element Fire

Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Totem is clearly allowing the driver to be its own lowpass filter. Whether this has been done differently than the way Vance did it or with significant advantages we will probably never know. It hardly sounds like the next big thing in speaker design, but I only know what they told me. FWIW, I think Aura's NRT is the next big thing in loudspeaker design. JBL's Differential Drive Tech and Acoustic Elegance's motor design are both very cool as well.

If you care enough, you can read about Aura's NRT here, JBL Differental Tech here, and the Acoustic Elegance Motor here.
Loudspeaker technology is essentially 100-year-old technology. There have been numerous improvements to the original design, but the concept behind the electro-magnetic acoustic transducer is unchanged. We would all welcome a really new idea, but in reality we only have a long series of small incremental improvements.

I think we'll see the internal combustion engine (that other 100-year-old technology) replaced before we ever see a truly new kind of loudspeaker.
 
jbltmp

jbltmp

Audioholic
I have heard the Totem Wind. I heard it back in 2012, so I can't really comment other than to say I wasn't impressed. In the same showroom I heard the TAD CR1 and the Dynaudio Confidence C2, both of which I liked.

I'm not too fond of Totem, personally. None of the Totem speakers that I have heard have really done much for me.
What have you not liked about the sound of the Totems?
 
monkish54

monkish54

Audioholic General
What have you not liked about the sound of the Totems?
It's been too long, I don't recall. I've heard well over 200 hundred different pairs of speakers (probably mid 300s after CAS), it's hard to keep track of specifics. :)
 
Last edited:
jbltmp

jbltmp

Audioholic
Salk Silk: "Smooth as..., and much more.

James Salk describes the origin of the Silk on the Salk Sound website in the following way:

“James (customer) lives in a small NYC apartment and had no room for floor-standing speakers. But he didn’t want to sacrifice sound quality. So he asked us to develop a no-holds-barred high-end bookshelf speaker. We started with the same custom RAAL tweeter we use in our flagship SoundScape speakers. We paired it with the Scan-Speak Illuminator. The results surprised even us!"

Also, on the following Youtube video Jim Salk comments on the Silk before he actually came up with the name: Salk Sound at the 2012 Audioholics Get Together - YouTube

Prior to joining this forum I had little experience with Salk speakers, or internet direct dealers in general. But based on many recommendations from forum members I decided to connect with Mr. Salk. We discussed my needs and he recommended I try out the Silk.

He had the prototype on hand to send me. It’s kind of cool to see a picture of a speaker on a manufacturer’s website, and then have that actual speaker in your home. I felt sort of privileged, as I had with the WaveTouch Mt. Rainier, to be able to get first hand impressions of both prototypes.

The fit and finish of the Silk is first rate (pictures below). In addition to a RAAL ribbon tweeter there is a 5.5” Scan-Speak woofer, the “Illuminator” model, which is a step up from the “Revelator” used in the WaveTouch Mt. Rainier. The speaker is a hefty 26 pounds and measures 14”h x 8”w x 11”d, with a single pair of heavy duty binding posts. At a sensitivity of 84dB SPL you’ll want to have a good sized amp paired up with it. Anyone who has any doubts about construction quality of internet direct speakers, at least Salk specifically in this case, would lose them quickly after handling the Silk. The build quality is as good as any speaker I’ve auditioned in the Silk price range, $3495/pr in standard finishes which include curly maple, curly cherry, curly walnut, oak, straight mahogany and satin black. It also can be ordered in a variety of custom finishes at additional cost.

So on to listening. My first impression of the speaker was: “Salk Silks…subs need not apply.”
As mentioned in my initial post wherein I describe my listening perspective coming into these auditions, I was very skeptical about standmounts being able to meet my needs for satisfying bass. This skepticism was heightened by my experience with the WaveTouch Mt. Rainier, which although a uniquely good speaker in many ways, was lacking in bass performance.

All I can say is from the opening measures of Macklemore’s “Thrift Shop”, my concerns about bass response allayed with the Silks. It’s quite amazing how much bass comes out of this smallish cabinet with a 5.5” woofer! I’m sure transmission line design comes into play here but somehow I don’t think this is just your ordinary TL design. It may be taking the bass advantages of the TL approach to new heights…but I’ve not had much experience with TL before.

The bass was not only strong, but it was palpable, with a dimension and punch to it. Although no match to the 13” woofer in my references, the Silk had better bass than what I was thinking I could get in a standmount. No diving to turn up bass tone controls here (if I had them), but home theater enthusiasts may want subs for the lowest octaves needed to produce wall-shaking effects.

Not that the Silk is all about bass. Just as Alex Yoon’s description of his Mt. Rainier as a “different” sounding speaker is quite fitting, naming this Salk design “Silk” is very apt as well. Indeed smooth as silk in just about every way.

What struck me most about this speaker is its total neutrality. Although I might have made it seem bass heavy in my comments above, it is not that at all. Nothing stuck out that I would say “characterizes” this speaker. It just seems to produce a fully balanced, very satisfying sound. I’ve heard this many times before about good speakers, but I’ll say it here also. The speaker disappears, and all that is there is music. In this respect, this is a standmount that can “stand” on its own or do better than many others I auditioned…standmount or floor standing.

As you might expect from the above, listener fatigue never entered my mind. Snares and cymbals were tonally natural and pleasing. On Carly Simon’s “Best of” CD there is a triangle in the last few bars of “Anticipation” which, although it was present on my references, I never actually “heard” before listening through the Silks. It was not pronounced or unnatural. It was just more distinct. Vocals were also revealing. In “Haven’t Got Time for the Pain“ I could sense a vulnerability in Carly Simon’s voice that my references did not present. Males voices, which I think generally are really challenging to reproduce, rang true also. Adam Levine’s sparsely orchestrated solo cover of Marvin Gay’s “Let’s Stay Together” on Maroon 5’s “Overexposed” produced that “being there” quality which is characteristic of a great speaker.

Having had these positive impressions and feeling confident in the bass response listening through my CD player, I then turned to my mixing board to work some trial mixes with dance MP3’s. Here I do have tone controls and I thought the Silks took equalization very well. Again, the effect was smooth and musical and I was able to work several hours without my ears tiring out.

The Silks may not be everything to all people. When I began on the mixing board my first thought was “studio monitor-like”. But after listening I decided not. The Silks do not have the edge that many top flight monitors with which I’ve worked have, even without giving up smoothness. As mentioned earlier, despite its exemplary bass as a standmount it still may not be enough for home theater. Efficiency is somewhat of an issue, but I imagine most people considering this speaker would have adequate amplifier capability. And in contrast to the WaveTouch Mt. Rainiers, it didn’t have quite the same low level energy. My listening also doubles as a study for late night writing and quiet listening, and I found the WaveTouch more enticing in this context. I would describe it as, although the veil is lifted immensely with the Silks, it’s perhaps not lifted at high as with the Mt. Rainiers. On the plus side of broad appeal, I think the Silks would match well with a greater variety of electronics than the Mt. Rainiers.

So in conclusion, my opinion is that in the Silk you have a very neutral speaker, one that you don’t have to work hard at all to like it. It sets a high bar, not only for standmounts but for speakers in this price range overall. However, the perfectionist in me kept thinking, wow, if you had the bass and smoothness of the Salk Silks combined with the energy and articulation of the WaveTouch Mt. Rainiers, then you’d really have something. But proving out what I’ve found to be a truism when searching for HiFi…you can’t have it all.

Now on to the B&W CM5. Follow my impressions real time at @audioamici if you have an interest.

Salk Silk Specifications:
- Two-way transmission line design
- RAAL tweeter
- Scan-Speak 5.5” “Illuminator” woofer
- 8 ohms, 84dB SPL
- Frequency response 42-60kHz
- 14” h x 8” w x 11” d
- $3495/pr in standard finishes, variety of custom finishes available at additional cost

salk silk fronts.jpg

salk silk front and back.jpg
 
Last edited:
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
That was a very enjoyable read this holiday afternoon. Nicely written!

It seems like your experience with Jim Salk is very much like what others, including myself, have had.

The fit & finish, surprising palpable bass, total neutrality, detail, lack of any ear fatigue, your sentence "The speaker disappears, and all that is there is music.", none of this comes as a great surprise to me. That's the impression of Salk speakers I've known and loved. I'm still quite happy to hear how much you like them :D. When I recommend a speaker to someone over the internet, I never know just what that person's preferences really are.

What did surprise me was hearing that the Silks have a TL bass cabinet design. I didn't know that could be done in a small cabinet like that. Is that what Jim Salk told you?

It’s quite amazing how much bass comes out of this smallish cabinet with a 5.5” woofer! I’m sure transmission line design comes into play here but somehow I don’t think this is just your ordinary TL design. It may be taking the bass advantages of the TL approach to new heights…but I’ve not had much experience with TL before.
Now, I may be jumping the gun here ;), but any thoughts about what veneer you fancy?
 
D

Dennis Murphy

Audioholic General
Now on to the B&W CM5. Follow my impressions real time at @audioamici if you have an interest.

Salk Silk Specifications:
- Two-way transmission line design
- RAAL tweeter
- Scan-Speak 5.5” “Illuminator” woofer
- 8 ohms, 84dB SPL
- Frequency response 42-60kHz
- 14” h x 8” w x 11” d
- $3495/pr in standard finishes, variety of custom finishes available at additional cost


[/QUOTE]

Hi. Thanks very much for the informative and very well written review. Neutrality and balance is my first priority in crossover design, and I'm happy to hear you thought that goal was achieved. As Swerd hinted at, the Silk doesn't use a TL cabinet. That would require a full tower design, or a very deep box with a folded line. The box tuning is just bass reflex, albeit very carefully executed bass. Scan woofers are famous for their surprising bass reach, and the Illuminator is probably the best of the bunch. You pay for it in reduce sensitivity, but as you indicate, that's probably not much of an issue for people in this segment of the market.
 
jbltmp

jbltmp

Audioholic
That was a very enjoyable read this holiday afternoon. Nicely written!

It seems like your experience with Jim Salk is very much like what others, including myself, have had.

I'm still quite happy to hear how much you like them :D. When I recommend a speaker to someone over the internet, I never know just what that person's preferences really are.

What did surprise me was hearing that the Silks have a TL bass cabinet design. I didn't know that could be done in a small cabinet like that. Is that what Jim Salk told you?
Now, I may be jumping the gun here, but any thoughts about what veneer you fancy?
I appreciated the recommendation. It opened up a whole new avenue of attaining great sound, although it's making my decision a lot tougher! Calling this a transmission line design is my mistake (as Dennis points out in a following reply). I should just stick with my impressions rather than hypothesizing about technolgy responsible for them that I know nothing about. ;)

You are jumping the gun a bit on finish at this point, though I have thought about it .:) I kind of like the "Wenge" finsh that was shown in a picture of theHT-3 on the Salk site (although that seems to have disapperad)

I still haven't heard the Totems at home (that will be this weekend).
 
jbltmp

jbltmp

Audioholic
Thanks Dennis. As I said in my reply to Swerd, I should stick to listening and leave the technology to the experts! :)
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
You are jumping the gun a bit on finish at this point, though I have thought about it .:) I kind of like the "Wenge" finsh that was shown in a picture of the HT-3 on the Salk site (although that seems to have disapperad)
In that website, the HT3 Galleries go on for 4 pages: light, medium, dark, and specialty finishes. Wenge is on the dark page:

 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
It's been too long, I don't recall. I've heard well over 200 hundred different pairs of speakers (probably mid 300s after CAS), it's hard to keep track of specifics. :)
At least it wasn't over 2,000 speakers like some people. :D
 
jbltmp

jbltmp

Audioholic
Bowers & Wilkens CM5: “Something to Think About”

I included the B&W CM5 in my evaluations for the following reasons:

  • My first choice in the $2K price range after in-dealer auditions was the Revel Performa3 M-106, but I couldn’t find a dealer in my area from whom I could home audition them, so that pretty much eliminates any speaker as an option for me
  • The CM5 is very accessible from Best Buy/Magnolia. Their 15 day return policy allows for an extensive home audition
  • Matching, bolt-to speaker stands ($400) are available for the CM5’s, which I think is a plus for any standmount
  • They come in a finish which complements my listening room well
  • I had listened to several other B&W speakers - the CM9, 804D, 805D and PM1, but not the CM5
  • B&W is perhaps a little more recognized than others as a brand, with the CM5 being a well known, popular speaker and thereby represens a good reference point for evaluation and feedback from Forum members

For those of you unfamiliar with it, the CM5 is B&W’s most expensive bookshelf in their CM line, a line which is a notch below the top of the line 800D (Diamond) series (specs and pictures of CM5 are below).

The speakers come well packaged, two to a box which is of a size and weight that is pretty manageable by one person. The fit and finish is reasonably good, though not outstanding in any particular way and they make for a nice appearance grills off, showing just enough “high tech silver” surrounding the drivers, with a yellowish beige woofer set off by the silver plate, and then wood veneer. The speaker has a basic, two-way, rear-ported design, with a 1” aluminum dome tweeter and 6.5” Kevlar woofer. I did not audition these with the matching stands, but rather used a Sanus Steel Foundations 30” stand. Mine came in a “wenge” finish, which has a light walnut-like color. I think the piano black looks a bit more expensive.

Listening Impressions
For those of you wanting to understand my listening perspective coming into these evaluations, it’s described in my opening post of this thread. Also, I should state that I realize I’m considering speakers in very different price ranges, so it’s not apples to apples on paper. But besides seeking the right sound for me I’m trying to judge the value of each in its price range versus the other. For example, is the value of the WaveTouch Mt. Rainier at $4k a pair in any way comparable to the B&W CM5 at $1500 a pair? Also, I’m looking for characteristics in a speaker that may stand out and would justify spending more, or less for that speaker.

My first impressions upon firing up the CM5 was relative to its bass response. A good amount of bottom end was present, lending a nice overall balance to the speaker, albeit a bit loose and of a one-note character.

Coming into listening to the CM5 I was also very sensitive to the treble response. This was because in listening to the B&W PM1, 805D and 804D I found the treble to be overbearing. With each of those speakers I found myself listening to the tweeter rather than the music itself. I was pleasantly surprised to not have this happening with the CM5. Although it does share a tube-loaded tweeter design with the others, it just seemed to have a more balanced upper frequency presentation.

Midrange was uneventful. Nothing very objectionable, but nothing noteworthy either.
Vocals, both male and female were produced reasonably well. Neither rich or bland, and I could not detent any traces of sibilance. What bothered me most about the CM5 was the muddied bass and an unfocused presentation overall.

The speaker is of reasonable efficiency and could play well beyond my sustained listening tolerance so I believe these would work well with even modestly powered electronics. I did not find it very sensitive to placement, with the dispersion being more than adequate for my relatively small listening space and the image remaining fairly stable. I would guess there wouldn’t be a lot of sensitivity to character of electronics used with this speaker either. It just doesn’t have the resolution or precision needed to reflect that. Listener fatigue did not come into play.

The CM5 was a versatile performer, and handled all varieties of music well. Joe Sample’s “Spellbound” rang true and clear. I also inserted it into my home theater setup, replacing my Infinity L/R in-wall mains, and there was a vast improvement in overall system sound (sub still needed). But that’s not saying a lot because I’ve never liked those in-walls that were installed in the house when we bought it!

But going back to vocals I thought those were the best tool in the CM5 arsenal, especially male vocals. Billy Joel’s near acappella “Longest Time” was realistic and “unspeaker-like.” Dance/club was passable, though again, bass was flabby and monotone for the most part, so I didn’t spend a lot of time on the mixing board with these.

Comparison to Other Speakers
In comparison to the $4K Wavetouch Mt. Rainier the CM5 had a fuller, but not necessarily richer sound. It was significantly muddier overall, but even the Silk took a back seat to the Mt. Rainier in terms of articulation, attack, detail and air.

The Mt. Rainier fared better with recordings strong in bass by enabling it to demonstrate its ability to transmit dimension and palpability. I found the CM5 more advantageous with recordings light in the low end. If a recording’s bass was weak it seemed as if the CM5 made up (perhaps literally) for it, and therefore was more satisfying overall, with the caveat of the bass lacking tightness and control.

Instruments were more natural on the Mount Rainier, and it shined on better quality recordings. But on lesser quality recordings the CM5’s “personality” often resulted in a better listening experience, perhaps hiding flaws that the more accurate and precise Mount Rainier revealed.

I did not do an extensive comparison to the Salk Silk because I didn’t think it was warranted. The Silk is different and I think better in many respects, most of which having to do with either its extended and tighter bass response and/or its neutrality. Also, I think the typical buyer segment for the B&W would be different than that for the Silk. (Although that could be said for the Mt. Rainier also, and perhaps even more so).

Conclusion
First off, I think in general B&W has a great line-up, at least on paper, and I think the buyers for Best Buy/Magnolia are smart to feature it as much as they do. A prestigious, audiophile caliber name, a wide range of pricing and products with a good amount of technology common throughout the line, and excellent marketing. As a former HiFi salesman I would have loved to sell B&W. I could show a customer everything from small bookshelves up to the 802D conversation piece and build up a customer’s expectations using all of the aforementioned such that a CM5 would sell without the customer even hearing it! (I sold a lot of Bose tiny cubes that way)

But none of those factors have to do with sound. I think if you get right down to it, the B&W CM5’s have significant coloration to them. Sometimes that works, sometime is doesn’t. So it’s the usual “to each his own”, but the power of the B&W formula is such that it can potentially shape “his own” exceedingly well, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

I had a lot of mixed feelings about the CM5. It actually auditioned better than I expected, even coming off the Silks. In my evaluation I found myself thinking more about what it’s not, than what it is. Maybe that’s a good thing - I don’t know, but at $1.5K I’d rate it as a better than average all-around performer for beginning HiFi.

To me their coloration is of a “balanced” nature that was pleasing overall. It’s hard to explain, but there is a good fit, feel and confidence to this speaker. And when I inserted it into my home theater, it really turned me on, although as I mentioned this is not a hard test to surpass.

It may not be audiophile caliber (whatever that means), but it seems a good value in its segment , which is a very competitive one. Other great choices are out there in KEF, Revel, Focal, Epos, or the Internet Directs.

Full sound from a small, attractive cabinet, showroom-apparent good bass (but not really), efficiency, versatility in placement and electronics, matching stands, reasonable price, prestige and pride of ownership. Bottom line…all things that in a mass appeal way can make the more casual customer feel good about buying it. B&W sells, but still not sure I would own it, although I am thinking about keeping it in my home theater setup.

My last thought about B&W was that if my brother who lives in New York and is certainly not a discriminating audiophile or a nut like me who’ll spend a couple of months researching and auditioning speakers, wanted my recommendation on a good pair of bookshelves, I’d say go drive a couple of miles down to Best Buy, get a pair of CM5’s and be done with it. For me, I’d have more thinking to do.

Next up is the $6K Totem Element Fire. I’ll be posting impressions real time at @audioamici if you have an interest.

Specifications
- Two-way 1” aluminum dome tweeter, 6.5” Kevlar woofer
- Frequency response 52-22kHz
- 8 ohms, 88dB SPL
- Recommended power 30-120 watts
- 13.4” h x 7.9” w x 11.9” d
- 19.6 lbs
- $1500/pr, stands $400/pr

100_1689.jpg

100_1690.jpg
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
You need to get some $200 NHT AbsoluteZero and audition.
 
charmerci

charmerci

Audioholic
Geez, that's the first time I've seen the CM5. Being familiar with many B&W speakers, I had much higher expectations. It looks completely ordinary. Bleah! :(

All these are completely out of my price range - nonetheless, it all makes for very interesting reading. Thanks.
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
I think you nailed the B&W sound in your description of how the 705 sounds. At first it seemed well balanced; midrange was uneventful, nothing very objectionable, but nothing noteworthy either. And then you got to the muddied bass. Once I noticed that in B&Ws I've heard, I could never ignore it. To be fair, the 800 series B&Ws don't seem to suffer nearly as much with muddy bass as do the CM or 600 series.

I'm having fun reading these. Personally, I think you can't consider your search adequate until you try out at least a dozen more speakers ;).
 
slipperybidness

slipperybidness

Audioholic Warlord
It is cool that you can find some lower price speakers - that tend to be
clean and neutral - such as the likes of NHT and the Boston E60.
It seems that we are in the golden age for good performance speakers at reasonable prices.

Amp power is fairly cheap now too....good times:D
 
newsletter

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