[greenhouseman]

Last fall i spoke to Jim about downsizing my man cave speakers. i previously had STRT"s w/TC Sounds 10" custom sub. The room is small 11X12 and it was time for a change when upon playing around i switched my HT2's into the room and was astounded how differently they sounded. To me, simply put, much fuller and more spacious. Well they are even larger so they were not an option especially how i enjoy them in their setup. Jim informed me that a new pair of bookshelves, yet unnamed were very interesting. The price was a little more than i originally anticipated, ( around $4000 with great veneer finish ) but the "what the Hell" attitude once again prevailed and i already had extra subs so i ordered. Well its been 3 months and i am ready to talk. I believe this model is now formally referred to as Silk. They have been paired with the previous mentioned TC sub and now my 15" Turbo version of the failed MFW version. For dimensions, speaker breakdowns and other technical info Jim is the source. First of all my review of sorts is based on an older man (60) with compromised hearing and a love of late 60's and 70's rock played loud. I know what i like and i know how the material for the most part was supposed to and did in many formats sound. I'm not going to tell you how "silky" smooth they sound but rather how they seem to provide the most dynamic soundstage i have heard to this point. Increase the gain, widen the smile. Close your eyes and tell me their not performing in the same room. Any adjective you choose will fit someones impressions. This is one serious speaker that with a proper sub ( my turbo is seamless with them) is a game changer in small room options. I have heard almost if not all the current Salk models and this one is serious in attempting to deliver the cleanest, most spatial environment that is instant grin, as in the where have you been grin. I am not good with explaining technical lingo but i know music and these speakers flat out deliver big time. Ask anyone who heard them in Chicago. Simply put its Jim being Jim, bravo.
W4S ST500
W4S STP SE

[Tone Depth]

What were the approximate dimensions of the Axpona room? I'm curious on the upper limits of room size for the Silks.

[resonance]

Are the Silks 4 ohm or 8 ohm nominal rated and what is the recommended tube or solid state amp wattage for adequate power? I don't think the website addresses these questions.

Thanks Jim,
David

[pslate]

They were my favorite Salk speaker at Axpona irregardless of price  But that is just one man's personal opinion in one room on a given day. Bottom line Axpona Chicago was a blast.

[DMurphy]

Are the Silks 4 ohm or 8 ohm nominal rated and what is the recommended tube or solid state amp wattage for adequate power? I don't think the website addresses these questions.

Thanks Jim,
David

The Silks are 8 ohms over most of their range, but the impedance goes down to 4 ohms or a smidge lower in the 3 kHz area.   That's no issue for a solid state amp or a robust tube (like a Van Alstine), but it might be for something more delicate.  These are low-sensitivity speakers (you pay for your bass), and they should be driven by solid state amps with some horse power or a tube known for its guts and flexibility. 

[Tone Depth]

Dennis:  What do you figure is the minimum solid state amp power requirement per channel @ 4 ohms for great sound?

The Silks are 8 ohms over most of their range, but the impedance goes down to 4 ohms or a smidge lower in the 3 kHz area.   That's no issue for a solid state amp or a robust tube (like a Van Alstine), but it might be for something more delicate.  These are low-sensitivity speakers (you pay for your bass), and they should be driven by solid state amps with some horse power or a tube known for its guts and flexibility.

[rick240]

Simply put its Jim being Jim, bravo.

They sure look amazing 

Knowing how great my WOW1s sound, I can only imagine what these are like 

These are low-sensitivity speakers (you pay for your bass), and they should be driven by solid state amps with some horse power or a tube known for its guts and flexibility.

Is the low sensitivity purely due to drivers, or is some of it due to crossover efforts to extend the bass? I.E. if the design goal had allowed for a higher f3, relying more on a sub for a 2.1, could the sensitivity have been higher?

This is more a general question about speaker design then Silk specific, but here seemed like a good place to ask 

[srb]

Is the low sensitivity purely due to drivers, or is some of it due to crossover efforts to extend the bass? I.E. if the design goal had allowed for a higher f3, relying more on a sub for a 2.1, could the sensitivity have been higher?

This is more a general question about speaker design then Silk specific, but here seemed like a good place to ask 

The experts (Jim and Dennis) can elaborate, but the Scanspeak Illuminator 5" 8 ohm midwoofer has a sensitivity spec of 83.4dB (the 4 ohm version is slightly higher @ 85.9dB).  Other factors may affect the total speaker impedance, but I would guess the majority of it is due to the driver.

Both the Scanspeak Illuminator and Revelator woofers have rather low sensitivity, but they both produce sweet tuneful bass!

Steve

[Nuance]

The Silk's are a phenomenal speaker!  For those with plenty of power and multiple subs already in-house they are the perfect alternative to a tower speaker and will give you much of what you're hear with a SoundScape speaker.  They are small in size, but the sound is not.   At their current introductory price it's almost like stealing from Jim!  Congrats, greenhouseman!

[jsalk]

Are the Silks 4 ohm or 8 ohm nominal rated and what is the recommended tube or solid state amp wattage for adequate power? I don't think the website addresses these questions.

Thanks Jim,
David

David -

These are an 8 ohm design and are not all that sensitive.  So they can benefit from a little power.  While you could certainly use a tube amp with them, I think you would be better served by mating them with a SS amp, especially in terms of bass performance.  100 watts would be a minimum, but more would be better.

- Jim

[jsalk]

Is the low sensitivity purely due to drivers, or is some of it due to crossover efforts to extend the bass? I.E. if the design goal had allowed for a higher f3, relying more on a sub for a 2.1, could the sensitivity have been higher?

This is more a general question about speaker design then Silk specific, but here seemed like a good place to ask 

It's the drivers.  If you want a driver that plays deep in a small cabinet, you will have a low sensitivity speaker.  It's the laws of physics at play.  For example, these play deeper than a 12" JBL high sensitivity woofer plays in a large cabinet.  But provided enough power, the sound quality is quite amazing for a driver of this size.

- Jim

[front242]

I've just ordered a pair of Silks from Jim. 

Stepped up to Mundorf Silver/Oil capacitors in a concerted effort to head off upgrade-itis in 18 months or so.  I think of my Mac gear and VPI Classic 3 as "lifer" equipment.  I look forward to owning speakers that give me the same sense of well-being.

[front242]

I bought a pair of Silks that Jim modded for me to include Mundorf Silver/Oil capacitors.  Jim had to stretch the speaker's height dimension by an inch to make room for those bad boys.  So, mine are 15 inches tall.  They sit on 26 inch four post Sound Anchor stands (which I heartily recommend).

I run a VPI Classic 3 with a Lyra Delos cartridge, a McIntosh C50 preamp, and a McIntosh MC275 Mk VI amp.  To go easy on my tubes, I broke the Silks in with a solid state Rotel amp that I bought on Audiogon for less than $300 (should be able to sell it for the same price, really nice little amp).  I also used a CD player and played as many long CDs as I could over a period of a week and a half to assist in breaking in the speakers.

I've read where people say it takes as many as 300 hours for those Mundorf caps to break in.  I am about 100 hours in.  Here's my report.  When the source material is up to it, the Silks are as smooth, neutral and accurate as anything I have ever heard at my house, or at a show.  On top of those attributes, there are three significant bonuses: (1) razor sharp, rock solid imaging (both in terms of left to right positioning and depth); (2) uncanny bass for a speaker this small; (3) an organic nature to the sound that lets your recordings' dynamic range be expressed to the fullest. Of course, when the source material is a little bright (like my late 70's pressing of Highway 61 Revisited), the speakers reveal that, too. 

ASIDE: My McIntosh MC275 Mark VI seems totally up to the task, but I have not heard the Silks with big-watt solid state amplification, as Jim has suggested would make such a good match.  The MC275 pumps out 90 watts and I am using the 8 ohm taps.  (The MC275 is one of those amps that plays way above its pay grade, and people who sell them always seem regret it and go looking for another one).
 
If you want/need a stand mount configuration in your listening space, you would be hard-pressed to top these.  I will call them Pulsar-killers, not so much because their performance exceeds the Pulsars' performance (both are extremely good speakers and I have never heard them side-by-side), but because they cost SO MUCH LESS.

I'm delighted.

[Miney]

Dredging this one up to gain a bit o’clarity.

Are both the Silk monitors and towers 8 ohm?  I’d thought my gorgeous and musical towers were 4 ohm.

Also, for posterity… what’s the model # of the ScanSpeak Illuminators used for the towers?

TIA!

Paul

[Rshorb]

The towers are 4 ohm. The same woofer is used in both designs. It is a Scanspeak 15W/8741T00

[Miney]

Thank you.  Thinking it’s this one: https://www.scan-speak.dk/product/15wu-8741t00/

[Rshorb]

That looks like the one.

[jsalk]

Scanspeak Illuminator 15WU/8741T-00 5.5" Woofer, 8 ohm

- Jim