Ultima Salon2........How Much?????????

[speakerman39]

I was just checking out my most recent copy of Stereophile (June 08) and came across the review of the Revel Ultima Salon2 towers. These speakers cost $22,000 a set and weigh in at 178 lbs. each.........WOW!!!!! I have to admit the Salon2 is an amazing looking speaker BUT how does it really sound??? Has anybody here had the chance to give these a listen??? I am curious as to how the Salon2 compares to much more affordable speakers. More specifically, do the Salon2's sound that much better than to more affordable, but still expensive speakers?? For example, I am very impressed with the Axiom M80's and would love to own a set but even these are out of my budget. Moreoever, how would the M80's compare to the Salon2's?? What would the extra $20,000 plus offer me that the M80's doesn't???? Please chime in if you are familiar with both of these two. If you have heard the Salon2 what were your intial impressions????

 

[codexp3]

They're not in the same league. The Beryllium tweeter on the Salon2s is among the best I've heard. I don't think they're worth the 22k price tag. My dealer was willing to let them go at 16k. Unless you've got a huge room, the Salon2s are probably going to be impractical. I honestly didn’t think they sounded any better than my Signature S8 v2s in the mids or highs. The bass response was better, but not worth the extra 8k. I could have tacked on a JL Gotham for the price difference.

 

[speakerman39]

They're not in the same league. The Beryllium tweeter on the Salon2s is among the best I've heard. I don't think they're worth the 22k price tag. My dealer was willing to let them go at 16k. Unless you've got a huge room, the Salon2s are probably going to be impractical. I honestly didn’t think they sounded any better than my Signature S8 v2s in the mids or highs. The bass response was better, but not worth the extra 8k. I could have tacked on a JL Gotham for the price difference.

Well, I would never be able to afford such high end speakers. Just wanted to get an idea of just how good the Salon2's are. I have never heard any of the Paradigm Signature Series speakers. The best speakers I have heard to date are the Tyler Acoustics Linbrook Signature Monitors. The look, the feel, the build quality will blow you away. But, the sound is jaw dropping. I have heard the Axiom M80's and was quite impressed. Will just have to make due with my Polk RTi6's.

 

[codexp3]

Well, I would never be able to afford such high end speakers. Just wanted to get an idea of just how good the Salon2's are. I have never heard any of the Paradigm Signature Series speakers. The best speakers I have heard to date are the Tyler Acoustics Linbrook Signature Monitors. The look, the feel, the build quality will blow you away. But, the sound is jaw dropping. I have heard the Axiom M80's and was quite impressed. Will just have to make due with my Polk RTi6's.

The Salon2s sound very good. I did not find a single fault with them. In that price range I also like the Wilson Sophia 2s (great with 2 channel). I’m in the boat where I can afford the Salons, but it’d hurt. Price to performance, they were not worth the money to me. If money wasn’t a concern then I’d own the pair. I personal think the point of diminishing returns started Dynaudio Focus line, for 3K a pair the set delivered everything I could ask. After that I had to double my budget for even a small gain in performance. You most certainly do not have to spend 22k for a great pair of speakers, you can easily spend 1/4 of that and get 90% of the performance. I wouldn't want to move the Revels, at close to 200lbs that's a nightmare.

 

[speakerman39]

The Salon2s sound very good. I did not find a single fault with them. In that price range I also like the Wilson Sophia 2s (great with 2 channel). I’m in the boat where I can afford the Salons, but it’d hurt. Price to performance, they were not worth the money to me. If money wasn’t a concern then I’d own the pair. I personal think the point of diminishing returns started Dynaudio Focus line, for 3K a pair the set delivered everything I could ask. After that I had to double my budget for even a small gain in performance. You most certainly do not have to spend 22k for a great pair of speakers, you can easily spend 1/4 of that and get 90% of the performance. I wouldn't want to move the Revels, at close to 200lbs that's a nightmare.

All points well taken. I was very happy with my Paradigm Studio 20 v.3's myself. Currently, I am happy with my Polk RTi6's. So, what makes the Salon2's so darn expensive?? I mean, the cost of the drivers or the components used in the X-over? Perhaps, the cabinets add to the cost??? My guess is that the actual dealer costs of the speakers to be somewhere near $10,000??? Do you agree?

 

[Tomorrow]

I apologize in advance, as I haven't heard either of the speakers you want to talk about. But there are some principles that seem to apply to all super-expensive vs. less expensive speakers.

Here is my take, Speakerman. Speaker upgrading is a trap. Whether one can find $20,000 worth of material and labor in a pair of Salons or Watt Puppies or whatever is problematic. The answer is probably not in terms of value per quality of output. Compounding the question of value is the very subjective nature of the loudspeaker - hearing interface.

I own a pair of Aerial Acoustics 7B's that retail for $6,000. In my house I have A/B'ed them with a pair of $1,000 JBL S312's, and similarly inexpensive Pinnacle Platinum Performance 6.3's. Is there a 6X improvement to my ears (or the ears of every other person hearing them here)? Unequivocally no! Is there a 1/6th improvement? To my ears, yes, maybe. I've come to discover that diminishing returns is a pretty significant factor in audio...especially speakers.

It all boils down to what your ears care to hear...how carefully you want to listen...how you are going to use them (2-channel...and what kind of music, or HT...HT requiring less fidelity for a good experience), how important the cabinet aesthetics are to you, and last but not least, how important it is to have bragging rights to an expensive set of speakers.

 

[WmAx]

Not impressed. The measured cabinet resonance, frankly, is unacceptable on such a high priced speaker system. In addition, off axis response really was not anything special.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

I own a pair of Aerial Acoustics 7B's that retail for $6,000. In my house I have A/B'ed them with a pair of $1,000 JBL S312's, and similarly inexpensive Pinnacle Platinum Performance 6.3's. Is there a 6X improvement to my ears (or the ears of every other person hearing them here)? Unequivocally no! Is there a 1/6th improvement? To my ears, yes, maybe. I've come to discover that diminishing returns is a pretty significant factor in audio...especially speakers.

I think not one of those speakers is anything special(though the Aerial is likely somewhat measurably better than the other two) in terms of sound quality as dictated by credible perceptual research.

A/B with a very high quality omnipolar(with non-resonant cabinet system) set up in proper acoustic environment and you would likely find the speakers listed above(as well as 99 percent of all so-called hi-fi speakers) sound like rubbish in comparison.

-Chris

 

[mike c]

I've come to discover that diminishing returns is a pretty significant factor in audio...especially speakers.

yes, i've renewed my membership as well

 

[InTheIndustry]

My guess is that the actual dealer costs of the speakers to be somewhere near $10,000??? Do you agree?

VERY CLOSE!!!!

$11K is the answer you are looking for.

And let me add that while I sometimes disagree with WmAx, I certainly agree with him whole heartedly on the point of the Revel Salon's (and, in my opinion, the entire line) being wayyyyyy over rated. I find much of the entire Revel line to be dubious & lacking uniqueness in it's nature to begin with. Many (nearly all but Salon) pieces are Infinity based products with very few (& sometimes only cosmetic) changes or upgrades.

It used to be that large A/V brands would tend to "trickle down" technology. Meaning: The Revel line would individually get top-end design & new products, which would then be re-tooled cheaper for Infinity once the model cycled through Revel. Sony used to do this with their TV lines. XBR would get the best of the best then, when the new XBR was developed, the old XBR became the new model down & so on & so forth.

Speaker brands, however, seem to be taking a completely different approach. Brands like Revel/Snell for example are bought by larger corporations (Harman/D&M Holdings) and the "trickle up" manufacturing model is implemented with Infinity feeding Revel & now I am seeing Boston Acoustics models beginning to get shoved into the Snell line. The Onkyo & Integra relationship is nearly the same. At least with those two brands, Integra gets some multi channel separates, a media center (sourced from someone else) and a few extra features here and there. Look, some shared manufacturing and product rebadging is to be expected. I GET THAT. But, to base nearly an entire line off of another is silly to me from an ethical dealer's perspective. Our clients trust my company to help them spend their money wisely, not waste it.

Bringing up the point again of diminishing returns with the question being: How much does it really "cost", for example, to make a guitar sound like a guitar when being played out of a loudspeaker? This is a question with a GREAT MANY number of variables. Another post pointed out that room size, aesthetic appeal, listening habits, room acoustics, type of music listened to, and on and on will dictate in EVERY way which speaker is truly "needed" vs. the perceived wanted. And, believe me, there is a monstrous difference between the two.

 

[fredk]

This is a question with a GREAT MANY number of variables.

And it is amazing how seldom this is mentioned when someone talks about their experiences with a particular speaker.

I think that it is worth noting that, for the most part, the bigger a company gets, the more decisions are made on a profit basis. Big companies have the resources available to apply metrics that push them in this direction, and really, thats what companies are in business for: making money.

In industries dominated by a few large players, innovation and excellence come from the small players, who if successful, are inevitably bought out by the big guys.

Fred

 

[InTheIndustry]

I think that it is worth noting that, for the most part, the bigger a company gets, the more decisions are made on a profit basis. Big companies have the resources available to apply metrics that push them in this direction, and really, thats what companies are in business for: making money.

A very fair point, FredK.

One of my favorite sayings in business is: The 800 lbs. Gorilla has got to eat!

D&M Holdings is an excellent example of this. Denon & Marantz merged, bought several companies: Snell, Boston Acoustics*, McIntosh*, & others. And are now struggling, from what I've experienced, seen, & heard to make it all synergize and work together from a corporate stand point.

I could go on and on about this, but I will not elaborate for three reasons: 1 - Not sure anyone really cares; 2 - I don't want to worry about breaking forum rules by "outing" a manufacturer's business; 3 - Seth=L (and I'm sure many others) would not like being forced to read another one of my long posts!

*Note: I am not, nor ever have been a Boston Acoustics or McIntosh dealer... but I am InTheIndustry & an extremely satisfied Marantz dealer who's had regular dealings with the different D&M brands over the years.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Not impressed. The measured cabinet resonance, frankly, is unacceptable on such a high priced speaker system. In addition, off axis response really was not anything special.

-Chris

So you don't think the Salon2s' on-axis F.R. of 29 Hz - 20 kHz +/- 0.5dB is accurate?

Do you think I could have gotten away with saying that my BP7000SCs sounded just as good as the Salon2? Maybe?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

A/B with a very high quality omnipolar(with non-resonant cabinet system) set up in proper acoustic environment and you would likely find the speakers listed above(as well as 99 percent of all so-called hi-fi speakers) sound like rubbish in comparison.

-Chris

Okay, Chris.

Please tell me what my DREAM SPEAKERS Should be???

What is the perfect example of a high quality omnipolar speaker with non-resonant cabinet?

 

[WmAx]

So you don't think the Salon2s' on-axis F.R. of 29 Hz - 20 kHz +/- 0.5dB is accurate?

Do you think I could have gotten away with saying that my BP7000SCs sounded just as good as the Salon2? Maybe?

On axis FR +/- 0.5dB? I don't remember that being true. It was very very good on axis - but 0.5dB?

On axis response hardly tells you much of the story. Take for example, Ascend CBM-170. Extraordinary flat response, compared to even speakers that typically cost 20-30x as much. But it does not have the sound quality of a speaker in that high price range. Why is that? Well, quick measurement of the cabinet provides a very likely answer: it has substantial cabinet radiation/output/resonance. The cabinet is acting like a series of drivers, with erratic frequency response and extended decay times on top of that, adding to the actual driver output. It causes a significant reduction in sound quality. If you put the drivers/crossover from the Ascend CBM-170 into a non-resonant cabinet - it would be a whole new speaker in so far as fidelity - despite having the same FR measurements.

-Chris

 

[WmAx]

Okay, Chris.

Please tell me what my DREAM SPEAKERS Should be???

What is the perfect example of a high quality omnipolar speaker with non-resonant cabinet?

Well, assuming you want the most realistic playback of acoustic non-amplified events, and assuming you were willing to set up a room around the speakers(omnipolars are very difficult to use ideally unless you do this), then the MBL 111B is your solution. Pair it with a proper DSP controller; that's a must.

-Chris

 

[speakerman39]

On axis FR +/- 0.5dB? I don't remember that being true. It was very very good on axis - but 0.5dB?

On axis response hardly tells you much of the story. Take for example, Ascend CBM-170. Extraordinary flat response, compared to even speakers that typically cost 20-30x as much. But it does not have the sound quality of a speaker in that high price range. Why is that? Well, quick measurement of the cabinet provides a very likely answer: it has substantial cabinet radiation/output/resonance. The cabinet is acting like a series of drivers, with erratic frequency response and extended decay times on top of that, adding to the actual driver output. It causes a significant reduction in sound quality. If you put the drivers/crossover from the Ascend CBM-170 into a non-resonant cabinet - it would be a whole new speaker in so far as fidelity - despite having the same FR measurements.

-Chris

This may be true, BUT remember if you make the cabinet more inert then there would also have to be some adjustments made in the X-over design. At least, this is how a very well regarded speaker designer explained it to me. In other words, if you take a less expensive speaker and replace the X-over with much more expensive components, then you will also have to make adjustments for the X-over to work effectively with less expensive drivers. No pun intended as I know you are more knowledgeable than I regarding this. Just wanted to mention it.

 

[WmAx]

This may be true, BUT remember if you make the cabinet more inert then there would also have to be some adjustments made in the X-over design.

This statement would assume the person that voiced the speaker perhaps reduced the baffle step compensation in the xover to account for the audible cabinet resonance/cabinet talk adding 'warmth', a.k.a. coloration. It is possible. You can also compensate back, by simply moving the speaker a little closer to the rear wall after making it inert, or by using a simple shelving filter at line level in a DSP control, or by way of passive control built with a cheap potentiometer and a couple of capacitors to re-adjust the BSC back to ideal levels. In fact, this is always a good idea - as the ideal BSC built into a passive crossover is only going to compensate properly in the room/position in which it was originally voiced. You need to adjust/fine tune it to ideal balance in any different environment. An often overlooked issue.

In other words, if you take a less expensive speaker and replace the X-over with much more expensive components, then you will also have to make adjustments for the X-over to work effectively with less expensive drivers.

The price of xover components has nothing to do with the sound. The measured parameters of the components dictates how they affect the response in the circuit. So, if you for example replace the standard low price copper round wire wound inductors with high priced flat wire inductors, and the DCR was similar, and inductance value nearly exact, then they would sound the same. Now, if either of those values drifted enough from the original values, of course some response difference could occur that may become audible. But it has nothing to do with cost; it has to do with matching measured parameters of the parts.

-Chris

 

[speakerman39]

This statement would assume the person that voiced the speaker perhaps reduced the baffle step compensation in the xover to account for the audible cabinet resonance/cabinet talk adding 'warmth', a.k.a. coloration. It is possible. You can also compensate back, by simply moving the speaker a little closer to the rear wall after making it inert, or by using a simple shelving filter at line level in a DSP control, or by way of passive control built with a cheap potentiometer and a couple of capacitors to re-adjust the BSC back to ideal levels. In fact, this is always a good idea - as the ideal BSC built into a passive crossover is only going to compensate properly in the room/position in which it was originally voiced. You need to adjust/fine tune it to ideal balance in any different environment. An often overlooked issue.





The price of xover components has nothing to do with the sound. The measured parameters of the components dictates how they affect the response in the circuit. So, if you for example replace the standard low price copper round wire wound inductors with high priced flat wire inductors, and the DCR was similar, and inductance value nearly exact, then they would sound the same. Now, if either of those values drifted enough from the original values, of course some response difference could occur that may become audible. But it has nothing to do with cost; it has to do with matching measured parameters of the parts.

-Chris

Chris, if I understood Ed correctly, using high end components in the crossover will result in poor sensitivity using the same value rated components. High end components such as high grade capacitors/inductors have much tighter tolerances and therefore must be figured in when setting optimal X-overs points. At least, this is how it was explained to me. I could have misunderstood Ed as it would NOT be the first time.........LOL!!!!!

 

[Tomorrow]

I think not one of those speakers is anything special(though the Aerial is likely somewhat measurably better than the other two) in terms of sound quality as dictated by credible perceptual research.

A/B with a very high quality omnipolar(with non-resonant cabinet system) set up in proper acoustic environment and you would likely find the speakers listed above(as well as 99 percent of all so-called hi-fi speakers) sound like rubbish in comparison.

-Chris

Chris,

I have only auditioned DefTechs 7000 Series bipolars (if that qualifies as omni...) . My ears were way less than impressed. But I take it that you mean something custom made, or do you have a brand recommendation in mind?

Regarding the Aerials, they measure razor flat and cabinet resonances are particularly well dealt with via 2" MDF cab sides, non-parallel isolated, wool-filled driver chambers, constrained layer dampening blocks, extensive cabinet bracing, etc. Aerial pays particular attention to that issue. Have you auditioned them?