I have driven the Carrera's with both the 30 wpc EL-84 based Music Reference RM-10 and the 40 wpc EL-34 based Mystere PA-11 with no problem with frequencies at either end of the spectrum. Both amps were fronted by the Supratek Chardonnay so a similar compliment as hilde45's setup with a less power. The speakers were set up in a 15' x19'x10' room 32" from the sidewalls and the front baffle 44" from the rear walls using a short wall setup. So my point is the speakers are capable of balanced frequency reproduction Though the Carbon 7 Mk II will not quite match the Carrera note for note on either end it will be a well balanced speaker up to the capabilities of those specific drivers. So 4 or 5 hz on the bottom end and less detail on the top end.
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.
- ...
- 299 posts total
@hilde45 Positive thoughts for chapter-2. Your next speaker coming in shown here generating a nice flat frequency response after 10khz up. https://www.salksound.com/gallery/SS%206M/fr.jpg Same Be tweeter in a larger 3-way version at the Capital Audiofest show with 1/2 the tube amp power and mono block transformer grunt you have now. https://www.audionirvana.org/forum/title-to-be-added/audio-shows/capital-audio-fest-2018/101442-day-... With low-height stands for that low ceiling room, you’ll be moving from component thoughts closer to music on this next go-around, I believe. |
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/ |
@djones That's quite a damning review from ASR and the measured sensitivity (below 80db), if true, would probably put this speaker out of the range of most people looking to spend modestly on amplification. Back in January, I went for this speaker based on forum comments and reviews from elsewhere but after learning more, I changed my order toward the higher sensitivity and more expensive SS 6M because I didn't want to have to drive such a difficult load. I noticed that Jim Salk recently changed his sensitivity of the SS 6M from 90 to 87 db because an error in his graph was discovered. I suppose one can always make the argument that measurements don't matter and that any piece of equipment has to be experienced to be tested, but even so, the fact I knew I would have tube amplification influenced me to narrow down options by looking for somewhat easier speakers to drive. So, numbers have some role to play. It helps if procedures for arriving at the numbers is standard and if the reported numbers (whatever the method) are accurate. I have no idea where the truth lies with the Wow1. |
- 299 posts total