An Afternoon with Dennis (HT4 + HT1-TL + SongTower + Good company!)

newzooreview · « **on:** 12 Oct 2009, 09:49 pm »

I have the good fortune to live nearby Dennis Murphy (who designs the crossovers for Salk speakers) and the equal good fortune that he is such a terrific fellow to have me over to his house today to listen to some of the speakers that he's worked on with Jim Salk.

He had on hand the prototypes for the HT1-TL, the HT4, and the SongTowers (not RT). Being prototypes, the crossovers were outboard in a couple of cases , only the SongTowers were veneered, and the HT4's and HT1-TL were not exactly the same on the left and right (more on that below). He has a Van Alstine amp and pre-amp, and a hand-made A-B-C-D switch that can also adjust volume to account for the varying speaker sensitivies. He was using what looked like a 12 gauge (maybe 10?) stranded speaker wire with bare wire running into the speaker terminals.

We started out comparing the SongTowers to the HT1-TL. Initially we listened with the curtains open along his picture window behind the speakers, but he had the good notion to close the curtains after we played a couple of tracks and this cut down on the acoustic reflections from the glass and got rid of the slight brightness in the highs. I should note that both speakers are voiced as closely to each other as one could manage. The differences heard are most likely coming from the drivers and issues of geometry (MTM vs. two way); Dennis would probably have more to add on that point. And there were times when one or the other of us switched between speakers with his remote and it took a bit of listening to catch the switch. In most cases, however, the differences noted below were consistently and observably there--something that anyone would hear without straining to detect.

We listened to a number of CDs that I brought: Cowboy Junkies (The Trinity Session); an XLO Sampler from Reference Recordings (Dennis really liked the Janacek, and I did too!); Jimmy Smith (Back at the Chicken Shack); Johnny Adams (One Foot in the Blues); Bebe (Pafuera Telaranas); and Garcia/Grisman (Shady Grove). So we had a good mix of classical with strong dynamics, male and female vocals, acoustic stringed instruments, funky jazz, blues, and atmospheric country (or however you would describe that Cowboy Junkies album).

If I took delivery of a pair of SongTowers tomorrow and they were my speakers for the next ten years, I would be happy. With that said, I had the opportunity to A-B compare them to the HT1-TL's, and there are differences. Of course the highs are more articulate with the HT1-TL's since it has the ribbon tweeter and the SongTowers did not. This is audible in the natural shimmer of tinkling bells, stringed instruments, and cymbals (to pick a few examples). Having said that, without the A-B comparison the SongTowers are still satisfying and engaging in their high end presentation.

Another area that consistently differentiated the SongTower from the HT1-TL's was depth of soundstage. The obvious conundrum is that without the SongTower RT around, it wasn't possible to determine whether this was primarily due to the more accurate ribbon tweeter on the HT1-TL giving better spatial clues, or whether something else was going on as well. Regardless, the HT1-TL (in Dennis's room and in the recordings we listened to) opened things up in depth.

The other area where I heard consistent differences was in the ability of the HT1-TL to unravel complicated orchestral pieces. This was particularly evident in the Janacek on the XLO/Reference Recordings disc. This is a highly dynamic piece (performed beautifully by the Czech State Philharmonic), and the SongTower did a good job with it, but the HT1-TL did better in my opinion. I think Dennis agreed also. The delineation of the instruments and the handling of the dynamics was more precise (to choose a word; could have said "better" or "controlled").

However, there was one peculiarity that struck us after listening to a few tracks. In the Grisman/Garcia recording, Jerry Garcia's voice sounded a bit more nasal (Dennis thought of it as "recessed") in the HT1-TL, and we heard something similar (or I did at least) on the female vocals (especially Bebe). After hearing it on a couple of different CDs, Dennis remembered that the HT1-TL's were not a matching pair. The right-hand speaker was an early prototype, and sure enough when we isolated the left and right channels the "nasal" or "recessed" quality was coming from that early draft version.

So, we finished up the SongTower and HT1-TL comparison in single channel listening. On the Johnny Adams album (a terrific R+B singer from my home town, New Orleans), the HT1-TL left speaker sounded fuller and more even top to bottom than the SongTower left speaker. It's quite an interesting way to compare speakers since it pares down the number of things that you're listening for. I'm not sure if I would do it this way on all occasions, but at a minimum it made it clear that the recessed vocals were an artifact of the early prototype right channel HT1-TL.

Unfortunately I wasn't able to compare a SongTower RT with the HT1-TL, so I don't know how much (if any) more I would prefer the HT1-TL. However I've decided to take the safe bet and upgrade my order for the SongTower RT to an HT1-TL since a) I have a 500 watt per channel amplifier (ridiculous, I know) that won't care about the lower efficiency in the HT1-TL and b) I can sell my HSU subwoofer (locally, I hope!) and c) I've heard the HT1-TL and I know I like it (a lot). Not all of those things will apply to everybody.

Finally, we did switch in the HT4. The left was an HT4 12" and the right was an HT4 10". Together they rattled the windows with Dennis's 28 Hz test tone. I told him it reminded me of living through the Loma Prieta earthquake in California in '89. Aside from the obvious addition of bass extension (high-quality bass extension), the HT4's also had a different midrange presentation that was very nice, and they seemed to refine the depth of the soundstage that the HT1-TL had (maybe it was more refinement of space between the instruments?). To be honest we only listened to a couple of tracks, and knowing that I could never afford the HT4's I didn't focus too hard on the differences. I focused just enough to hear that I could live with what I was missing for the price.

A big thanks to Dennis for having me over and to Jim Salk and the other folks who make these speakers. I am going to be one happy member of the Salk owners' family.

DMurphy · « **Reply #1 on:** 12 Oct 2009, 10:23 pm »

Wow--you're one articulate dude. I don't expect final drafts on this board. I've got to get a pair of ST RT's up and running. As it was, we didn't have enough equations to solve for all of the unknowns. My two HT1 TL's aren't actually different versions, other than the difference in transmission line designs. But one had older drivers that don't measure quite like the current ones, and that resulted in less low-treble response for the one that sounded a little recessed. It was a very informative afternoon, thanks to Charlie's great and varied source material. And the magic A-B switcher. Thanks for coming over, and you know where I live if you don't like your HT1's.

Nuance · « **Reply #2 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 12:01 am »

Charlie,

That was a great write-up - thank you! You definitely made the right choice: ie, going with what you know you like. It doesn't get better than that.

I assume you'll be one of the first (or the first) HT1 TL owner?

So what veneer choice are you leaning towards?

Welcome to the Salk family!

floresjc · « **Reply #3 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 12:28 am »

Great write up! Did you get any chance to hear the HT2 (non-TL) Dennis used to have? Either out of the Oregon GTG or Charlies visit, other than sensitivity is the HT1-TL the same sound as an HT2-TL?

newzooreview · « **Reply #4 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 02:19 am »

@Nuance

I'm getting the standard curly cherry dyed to a darker hue to approximate a reddish brown mahogany. Nothing too fancy since something pretty but not showy would best fit in my living room. I do like to see the more lively finishes that other folks have gotten, though, like the burls and richly striped rosewoods. Jim Salk does beautiful work.

@floresjc

I think Dennis had taken some drivers out of the HT2 to work on with the HT1-TL, but in any case the HT2's weren't setup in the listening room.

Actually I didn't mention the tour of the "mad scientist's chamber" downstairs where the corpses of gutted speakers sit ghoulishly in corners and stacked on top of each other like coffins in a crumbling mausoleum. I was saving that bit for closer to Halloween.

DMurphy · « **Reply #5 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 02:32 am »

Quote from: newzooreview on 13 Oct 2009, 02:19 am

@Nuance

I'm getting the standard curly cherry dyed to a darker hue to approximate a reddish brown mahogany. Nothing too fancy since something pretty but not showy would best fit in my living room. I do like to see the more lively finishes that other folks have gotten, though, like the burls and richly striped rosewoods. Jim Salk does beautiful work.

@floresjc

I think Dennis had taken some drivers out of the HT2 to work on with the HT1-TL, but in any case the HT2's weren't setup in the listening room.

Actually I didn't mention the tour of the "mad scientist's chamber" downstairs where the corpses of gutted speakers sit ghoulishly in corners and stacked on top of each other like coffins in a crumbling mausoleum. I was saving that bit for closer to Halloween.

Halloween is very dangerous around here. The children come, but they don't all leave. You are quite right about the HT2's. I had to harvest the W18 in my HT2 to build a pair of HT1 TL's. But to my ears the comparison between the HT1 and ST was very similar to the HT2 and ST. The HT series sounded a little "rounder" and fuller in the lower treble, and the midbass was slightly less accentuated. You hear stuff like that with the magic A-B box. But whether you would pass a blind test just walking into the room, I dunno.

Art_Chicago · « **Reply #6 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 02:44 am »

well, seems like Jim and Dennis were going to build the best speaker under $3K and they did -- HT1-TL. Now how I convince my WAF that WE need an upgrade

Art_Chicago · « **Reply #7 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 03:43 am »

Quote from: DMurphy on 13 Oct 2009, 02:32 am

Halloween is very dangerous around here. The children come, but they don't all leave. You are quite right about the HT2's. I had to harvest the W18 in my HT2 to build a pair of HT1 TL's. But to my ears the comparison between the HT1 and ST was very similar to the HT2 and ST. The HT series sounded a little "rounder" and fuller in the lower treble, and the midbass was slightly less accentuated. You hear stuff like that with the magic A-B box. But whether you would pass a blind test just walking into the room, I dunno.

Dennis, do you agree with the OP on the depth of the sound stage? That should be easy to hear, I'd think. On some CD's my ST's with dome tweeters do not show great depth, just good, though it does depend on the recording.
I am not too concerned about it, as I think it is a secondary quality for music reproduction. Basically, if you hear that the orchestra is only 10 feet deep instead of 15, it is still gonna play the same music, even if the distance between the instruments is shorter.
What about low bass? How do ST vs HT1-Tl vs HT2-TL compare? Thank you.
Art

newzooreview · « **Reply #8 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 03:57 am »

@Art_Chicago

Dennis makes a good point about the magic A-B box. Even with the A-B box, there were a couple of times when Dennis was doing the switching and the difference was not discernible. If I had walked into the room and not known which speakers were in use it would have been pretty tough to be certain. It's not as if you hear the SongTowers and think "gee, that's a shallow soundstage". It's not, in fact. But when you can switch over to the HT1-TL you do hear the relative opening/deepening on a couple of the tracks we tried. Same with disentangling complex passages. The SoundTowers are not at all congested or muddy with complex music. Far from it. It's just that side by side the HT1-TL's disentangled a bit more.

I heard these things, and I like the HT1-TL because of it, but if I had the SongTowers at home and simply heard the HT1-TL at someone's house without the A-B, then I probably would have come away liking the HT1-TL's but not with a huge itch to dump my SongTowers. And someone else may have listened to the A-B comparison and decided that the discernible differences weren't to his taste or weren't sufficient to motivate spending more for the HT1-TL's. Maybe you should just save up for the HT4's instead?

P.S. You posted while I was writing the above and asked about bass in the SongTower vs. HT1-TL, and I don't recall a track that would have highlighted the extra extension of the HT1-TL. It wasn't an area that jumped out at me, at least, as the most apparent difference in what we were listening to. I did think I might have heard a bit better bass definition a couple of times with the HT1-TL, but I would have to go back and focus on it to be sure.

P.P.S. It sounds like you may in fact feel that independent of an A-B comparison you're hearing a slightly less deep soundstage with the SongTower. My comment above was meant to lend perspective rather than say there aren't differences to my ears. I thought that Dennis was hearing the same thing in that regard, but I wouldn't want to speak for him.

clipped · « **Reply #9 on:** 14 Oct 2009, 05:23 pm »

Great write up!

Have you ever compared these speakers in mono side by side?

I believe that is the easiest way to hear differences between the two.
I have done this extensively with the Songtowers and the HT3's just for fun, I know get a life

Thoughts?

randybessinger · « **Reply #10 on:** 14 Oct 2009, 10:00 pm »

Quote from: clipped on 14 Oct 2009, 05:23 pm

Great write up!

Have you ever compared these speakers in mono side by side?

I believe that is the easiest way to hear differences between the two.
I have done this extensively with the Songtowers and the HT3's just for fun, I know get a life
Thoughts?

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on your comparo as I have both those speakers. FWIW, Sean Olvie and Tom Nousaine (among others) say it is better to compare one speaker against another mono e mono so to speak.

Wayner · « **Reply #11 on:** 14 Oct 2009, 10:05 pm »

I think listening to speakers in a mono/mono technique is not really a great idea. I like to hear the sound stage, not just the frequency response or the tembre of the speaker. It needs to be heard in a real world setting with real world music. IMHO, It's all about all of those things, plus soundstage depth and width. This is the true test.

Wayner

DMurphy · « **Reply #12 on:** 15 Oct 2009, 12:09 am »

I'm with Wayner on this one, even though I frequently can't compare speakers in stereo because I only have one of each. In particular, it would be hard to compare the HT4 and anything else in mono, due to the rear radiation factor. You can only hear what practical impact that has on soundstaging by listening in stereo. However, we did compare the HT1 TL and ST in mono because one of my HT1's was a little out of spec. That's the test the convinced Charlie to get the HT1 TL's. He knew they created a deeper soundstage in stereo, and the in-spec sample also seemed a little more rounded in mono.

clipped · « **Reply #13 on:** 15 Oct 2009, 12:28 am »

Point well taken, I wouldn't recommend only one method.
A a mono/mono and a stereo shoot out in combination is best.Mono-mono side by side is the way I prefer. This method might not fit every speaker design / style but if you are trying to decide what the differences are between designs, aside from soundstage and off axis listening, then this is the way to go, I think

Additionally, if you are trying to compare electronics the mono/mono can be very helpful.
All said, it's all about the music and what your preferences are, all a personal taste / choice so lets sit back and listen

newzooreview · « **Reply #14 on:** 15 Oct 2009, 01:49 am »

@clipped

Necessity was the mother of invention in this case. In retrospect, both approaches were helpful to me. The full stereo listening is needed to really determine the overall (and real world listening) differences. But switching to the single channel comparison isolated some aspects of the speaker performance that helped confirm (for me) what I thought I was hearing in two channel. However, I don't know that I could have extrapolated much that was meaningful going the other direction: would a speaker that sounded more balanced top to bottom (or well rounded) in single channel really be the best in full two channel? I'm not so sure.

In any case I could have sat back and enjoyed either of them for hours!

randybessinger · « **Reply #15 on:** 15 Oct 2009, 03:56 pm »

Hopefully, Sean Olive won't mind me quoting him here....<< Are these tests in stereo or mono?? Toole and I have found listeners are more discriminating of loudspeakers in mono versus stereo>> I suppose that does not mean that you are limited to one speaker vs. one speaker but could still compare pairs of speakers using a mono source. Anyway, just food for thought.

Nousaine told me that he could tell alot about speaker imaging by listening to one speaker only (I assume because of dispersion characteristics).

For those that don't know I am contemplating doing a blind tests of several bookshelf speakers I have on hand, but getting good protocols in place is daunting so it will be awhile.

clipped · « **Reply #16 on:** 15 Oct 2009, 07:23 pm »

Randy,

After listening for about an hour with another audio-addict our thoughts were as follows:
If you had under 2k to spend then Songtowers are the way to go, as you probably know the sound quality is just ridiculously great. We found ourselves amazed at the overall sound.
The Ht3's just are great, top to bottom. Price ignored then that's the way to go.

More specifically, I think the Towers are more forward / brighter/ for a lack of a better term harsher? In the upper end, perhaps a little ear fatigue sets in after a long listening session. The bass extension is remarkable but not as deep or wall shaking as the HT3's for obvious reasons.
The Ht3's are easier to listen to and the sound is more real/accurate giving the feeling of being there , I think

Perhaps a better balance top to bottom.

After reading what I have typed here, I can't be sure if any of this helps.

randybessinger · « **Reply #17 on:** 15 Oct 2009, 07:55 pm »

That kind of mirrors my thoughts as well. I just find the HT'3 to be a little smoother and more natural.

newzooreview · « **Reply #18 on:** 15 Oct 2009, 08:51 pm »

@clipped
@randybessinger

Would you bundle the HT1-TL into that HT3 vs. SongTower conclusion? I didn't get to compare the HT1-TL to an HT3, although my budget wouldn't accomodate an HT3 at this point.

It is interesting, though, that one thing that underscored for me some of the things that I didn't like about my previous speakers was listening to the new Beatles mono remasters.

Jeff B. · « **Reply #19 on:** 15 Oct 2009, 09:13 pm »

Quote from: randybessinger on 15 Oct 2009, 03:56 pm

Nousaine told me that he could tell alot about speaker imaging by listening to one speaker only (I assume because of dispersion characteristics).

Nousaine said that? Discerning imaging with one speaker source, would be like discerning depth perception with one eye. It sure seems like an odd statement of something that shouldn't work.....