Compare: Salk Sound, Silverline, Tyler, Zu


Reading this forum, I have noticed that speakers from Salk Sound, Silverline, Tyler, and Zu have quite a following. Many audiophiles regard one of these as much better than better-known or advertised brands.

Surprisingly, then, I don't see many attempts to compare them among themselves.

So I would like to invite such an effort: Please compare Salk Sound, Silverline, Tyler, and Zu among themselves (and, for those who have the spirit, also with the British classics now exemplified by ATC, Harbeth, Proac).

I would be interested not only in your listening experience, but also "theoretical thoughts" about design, drivers used, etc.

[I do not want this thread to focus on my system, but if you wish to additionally comment about what may be suitable for me, here it is: Room size 15'x20'. Music: Classical, from solo voice to piano to large orchestral. Listening levels: daytime normal, nights low (city apartment). Clearance from rear wall: about 12-18 inches. Amp 60 w/ch ss. Don't want to to be glued to one sweet spot. WAF is liberal, most speakers with a wood veneer would be accetable.]
aktchi
Macrojack: "nothing which has a crossover in the vocal range will compare".

What frequencies qualify as vocal range? Do Salk, Tyler, Silverline etc. have a problem there?

Which speakers have you compared Zu's against and which one was superior outside vocals?

I must say Zu's look a little less attractive. But if a speaker has the best sound, we can get over its looks.
In one of my systems, Zu Druids replaced Silverline speakers, and I had heard the entire Silverline range before making that change. The Silverline speakers each are voiced and hence while there is a family semblance in sound up and down the line, the model-to-model variations are considerable and deliberate. Until I bought my Zu Druids and then also Zu Definitions, I considered Silverline exceptional dynamic driver speakers, with excellent transient consistency, natural tone with good continuity between the drivers, and capable of focused, coherent presentation.

After hearing Zu, all that changed and I couldn't possibly go back to them or any other conventional multi-way speaker with crossovers in the meat of the music.

It's hard to appreciate until you hear the difference, but getting a full-range driver with a signal not passing through a crossover, in a design that avoids the shout and frequency anomalies of prior FRD high efficiency designs, lays bare how much a crossover mangles sound. Also how poorly even well-matched quality drivers mate in terms of tone and uniformity of transient behavior. Zu puts no crossover in the path of the signal from 38 Hz - 12kHz, and of course the main driver is dynamically uniform in its transient behavior through that range. In the Druid, the FRD rolls off naturally and the supertweeter rolls in on a high-pass filter. On the Defintion, the FRDs roll off naturally on the bottom and the active sub-bass array is rolled in on a low pass filter, while the supertweeter rolls in on a simpler network than the Druid. Now, by comparison, even excellent Silverline speakers sound choked, dynamically disjointed, faux-fidelity, untonal and spatially incorrect by comparison.

Every other conventional multi-way speaker suffers the same comparison. It's a one-way street. Once you make the transition to Zu and assimilate the holistic delivery of a music signal through a tonally natural FRD, you cannot go back. You can only move forward when you find something that retains the phase-coherent, frequency accurate, high sensitivity, sparky aliveness of Zu and makes it more accurate and natural still. I haven't heard that from anyone else yet.

So, I can't say about Salk and Tyler. But if they have crossovers in the midrange, where Zu has none, I'd have little hope. On the other hand, if you never hear Zu, the right Silverline will seem to make beautiful music in energetic fashion.

Phil
Salk has an owner's forum at audiocircle.com. It may be a good place to get help. Maybe someone lives near you with a pair. They have a list of owner's that will allow you to audition them in a sticky I believe.

I've never heard them but people who's opinion's I respect own them and speak very highly of them. To replace the VMPS RM 40's they owned and I do own with the Salk's is quite a compliment I can assure you.
In looking at the Salk site, I couldn't find any specs, i.e. sensitivity ratings, etc. However, in the attached thread from the Audiocircle, the owner is recommending at least 80 watts (ss) for his monitor model (or 40 tube watts). Given your amp, this may not be the best choice for your situation.

http://www.audiocircle.com/circles/viewtopic.php?t=21160

I own the Tyler monitors in a room the same size as yours and power them with a 40 watt tube amp. I currently have mine placed about 15 inches from the back wall, 18 inches from the site wall, and toed in about 10 degrees. For critical listening I slide my chair to the sweetspot, but off axis listening still presents a decent soundstage. The combo works fine - excellent in fact - but I would not want any less power. It is not uncommon for me to have to set the volume control at the 11-12 o'clock position, which tells me I could use a little more power. At 60 ss watts, you would probably be OK.

The Silverlines are generally more efficient and would be a good choice, as would the Zu's. Of course, the Salk's are GORGEOUS speakers and may be worth upgrading the amp if you have to! :)
I'm with Phil. I don't have his depth of experience and I haven't heard any of the speakers you mention. I only comment, as the XO/multidriver problems I hear in every other speaker of that type exhibits the same maladies Phil describes. As the other choices are all of that ilk, I'd be surprised if they somehow escape the problems that really seem to be guaranteed.