The Salk SS 6M has a nice flat FR with a dip around 1.5 Khz and another smaller dip about 3 Khz Interesting to see your impression of them.
Speaker shootout update; aggressive treble eliminating some (fairly?)
I've been trying out speakers in a complicated shoot out, both bookshelves and towers — all in my home with my gear. I'm looking for speakers obtainable up to about $4k but could go up (or down) a bit if the right thing came along.
Basic facts: All speakers were run in at least 100 hours. Room is 27 x 14 x 6.5 ceilings. Powering with all QS tubes, 60w, NOS, tube R2R dac, and decent cables. No terrible reflection points; room not overly live or dampened. REL R 328 sub available but I did most listening without it.
Recent auditions, type:
Klipsch RP 600-M (budget singleton of the group)
Fritz Rev Carbon 7 mk II (bookshelf, 2 way, soft dome)
Focal 936 (tower, 3 way, inverted metal)
Martin Logan Motion 60s XTi (tower, 3 way, AMT)
Coming soon:
Salk SS 6M (bookshelf, 2 way, beryllium)
Dynaudio Evoke 30's (tower, 3 way, soft dome)
Let me speak just to the problems, rather than what was good about the speakers. So far, I've found the Klipsch, Focal, and especially the Martin Logans were all too bright — forward, aggressive, "turn it down" treble.
The ML's were the most impossible to tame and hardest to listen to on more tracks. (I did a lot of hanging of towels and other dampeners and other soft things to try to see if I could bring them to heel. I varied the recordings used. Changed cables/wires. No luck.)
The Focals were occasionally too bright; their bigger problem was a bit too much energy in my small listening space. They were better when I plugged their ports with socks.
I'm looking forward to how the next two speakers sound. The Dynaudio towers, I notice, are 10 inches shorter and half the weight of the other towers; not sure what that might mean, but it could just be right size for my space. I'm looking forward to seeing if the Salks bring more detail to the treble without also being too rolled off or harsh.
Hearing is very personal for physiological and taste reasons. However, if anyone has any thoughts about why I might be experiencing some of the phenomena I am (harsh treble, especially) based on my room or gear, etc., that might help me understand factors I'm not fully appreciating. Thanks.
Basic facts: All speakers were run in at least 100 hours. Room is 27 x 14 x 6.5 ceilings. Powering with all QS tubes, 60w, NOS, tube R2R dac, and decent cables. No terrible reflection points; room not overly live or dampened. REL R 328 sub available but I did most listening without it.
Recent auditions, type:
Klipsch RP 600-M (budget singleton of the group)
Fritz Rev Carbon 7 mk II (bookshelf, 2 way, soft dome)
Focal 936 (tower, 3 way, inverted metal)
Martin Logan Motion 60s XTi (tower, 3 way, AMT)
Coming soon:
Salk SS 6M (bookshelf, 2 way, beryllium)
Dynaudio Evoke 30's (tower, 3 way, soft dome)
Let me speak just to the problems, rather than what was good about the speakers. So far, I've found the Klipsch, Focal, and especially the Martin Logans were all too bright — forward, aggressive, "turn it down" treble.
The ML's were the most impossible to tame and hardest to listen to on more tracks. (I did a lot of hanging of towels and other dampeners and other soft things to try to see if I could bring them to heel. I varied the recordings used. Changed cables/wires. No luck.)
The Focals were occasionally too bright; their bigger problem was a bit too much energy in my small listening space. They were better when I plugged their ports with socks.
I'm looking forward to how the next two speakers sound. The Dynaudio towers, I notice, are 10 inches shorter and half the weight of the other towers; not sure what that might mean, but it could just be right size for my space. I'm looking forward to seeing if the Salks bring more detail to the treble without also being too rolled off or harsh.
Hearing is very personal for physiological and taste reasons. However, if anyone has any thoughts about why I might be experiencing some of the phenomena I am (harsh treble, especially) based on my room or gear, etc., that might help me understand factors I'm not fully appreciating. Thanks.
Showing 9 responses by djones51
If you can't do a lot of room treatments like most of us you might consider something like a minidsp and use some room correction software. It can help for less money than room treatments depending on the model. With that low a ceiling it might be your best investment. Then again Those Salks with a nice flat FR might be the ticket or try Revel speakers. |
The easiest way to eliminate the room is headphones. If that's not a consideration then it's compromises. With a 6.5ft ceiling it will be a challenge. If you can you might try British speakers, Harbeth or similar. Adjust height, listening distance, toe in, etc.. If the room isn't dedicated for music where you can cover the ceiling in egg crate, diffusion panels, absorption panels, bass traps, basically whatever you need wherever you need to place it, the simplest way is with room correction like Dirac. |
Be interesting to read impressions of the Salk. ASR did measurements of the WoW1 and they were nothing like what is posted on the Salk site. https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/salk-wow1-bookshelf-speaker-review.14842/ |
I noticed in the ASR review of the WoW1 if used with DSP it corrected very good. I suspect in your room no matter the speaker DSP would make an improvement. I use ARC and it works very well, so does Dirac I've used it too. The main thing it does for me is attenuate the low frequencies, sounds like you need to tame the higher frequencies. REW is excellent from everything I've read about it but it's harder to use and you would need to load the filters in something if you decide you want to use them. |