Any interest in a more sensitive Salk model?

hilde45 · « **on:** 24 Nov 2021, 04:35 pm »

Hi all,

I wrote recently to Jim about more sensitive Salk monitors to play even better with lower watt tube gear and he is thinking about the question. There are issues involving accuracy, he told me, and of course will only put his name on speakers that will meet the high standards he's established.

I have 60 watt monos and they work well on my 87 db 8 ohm SS 6Ms. Still, you should hear the lovely headroom I get when I put my Klipsch RP 600M's on them. They are not in the league of my Salks, don't get me wrong, but they make me think.

A lot of people are now pretty high on Devore speakers, and I know Devore has put effort into making his speakers pretty. Still, I think Salk speaker are more beautiful and, given the cost of building things in Brooklyn (where Devore is) I know that Salk could make a better looking sensitive speaker — if they met his standards.

What do you think? Interested in a 93 or 96db sensitivity Salk speaker?

opnly bafld · « **Reply #1 on:** 24 Nov 2021, 04:50 pm »

hilde45 · « **Reply #2 on:** 24 Nov 2021, 05:37 pm »

I'm sure there's room for niggling about numbers, but Klipsch reports 96db, 9db more than my SS6M's. They certainly play louder and move quicker with the particular amp setup I'm using now. Again, overall, they don't sound better, but they're nimbler as set up.

Official spec sheet: https://d2um2qdswy1tb0.cloudfront.net/product-specsheets/RP-600M_Spec-Sheet_v01.pdf

whopnyc · « **Reply #3 on:** 24 Nov 2021, 06:47 pm »

I would buy them in a second. I'm selling my Salks right now (in Trading Post) after having bought Devore O/96 due to wanting to try low powered tube amps. Stereophile tested the Devores at 91 or 91.5 dB/W/M sensitivity but they're still way more easy to drive than my Salks. At the same position on the volume dial they play slightly louder than the Fleetwood Devilles which claim 94 dB/W/M so take that as you will. My son much prefers the Salks to the Devores on my Ayre equipment and I do too on some music.

opnly bafld · « **Reply #4 on:** 24 Nov 2021, 06:55 pm »

hilde45 · « **Reply #5 on:** 24 Nov 2021, 07:31 pm »

I think I used the term incorrectly. I'm not sure what the best technical word is for the description I provided, so any terminological help would be appreciated! Thanks for thinking out loud with me about this.

opnly bafld · « **Reply #6 on:** 24 Nov 2021, 08:01 pm »

avahifi · « **Reply #7 on:** 24 Nov 2021, 09:16 pm »

Note that if one speaker design is 3dB less sensitive then another speaker design, the lower sensitive speaker will require double the amplifier power. Each 3dB difference in power either doubles or reduces the amp power needs by 3dB per step.

For example, assume that an 85dB sensitive speaker requires 200W per channel. Change that to 88dB and the power requirement drops to 100W per channel. Go up to 91dB and the power needed drops to 50W per channel. At 94dB the power required is only 25W per channel. At 97dB you are in the power range of a vacuum tube SET amplifier, 12.5W channel.

I would like Jim to build a full range speaker that our SET 120 60W channel could drive just as loud as you would ever want. Something in the 88-90 dB range. This 60W per channel amplifier drives Jim's Songtower II speakers at rational listening levels, but you can't break windows with it.

Frank

Saturn94 · « **Reply #8 on:** 24 Nov 2021, 11:28 pm »

Quote from: avahifi on 24 Nov 2021, 09:16 pm

…
I would like Jim to build a full range speaker that our SET 120 60W channel could drive just as loud as you would ever want. Something in the 88-90 dB range. This 60W per channel amplifier drives Jim's Songtower II speakers at rational listening levels, but you can't break windows with it.

Frank

I’m a little confused about this thread. The Exotica models (92db rated efficiency) have been around quite some time. Doesn’t the existing Exotica design satisfy this request?

Edit: I see the OP mentioned wanting 93-96db efficiency.

Tone Depth · « **Reply #9 on:** 25 Nov 2021, 12:13 am »

Salk made some higher efficiency speakers some years ago, but didn't seem to sell very many of them. I don't think they are still included on the website.

hilde45 · « **Reply #10 on:** 25 Nov 2021, 12:41 am »

Saturn,

Jim himself saw the validity of my question. Just not sure if it could be done to his satisfaction.

Confusion might be allayed if you
(a) forgive the 93-96db metric I listed and consider even higher sensitivity-- e.g. Zu, Omega, AudioNote speakers. These would allow a wider range of tube amplifiers to do a good job with dynamics, etc.
And,
(b) consider that the 92 db Salk speakers you mention are $14995 per pair. My OP is thinking about both of these factors combining toward a Salk-levels of beauty and tonality with price that competes with Zu, Tekton, and Omega (if not Devore and AudioNote).

decooney · « **Reply #11 on:** 25 Nov 2021, 01:28 am »

With Jim's reputation for building nice cabinets, maybe design some nice 2-way wide front baffle units, 96db, slightly resonating cabinets, with three different choice wood colors. Might be fun to try on some little triode monos for something else to do

Saturn94 · « **Reply #12 on:** 25 Nov 2021, 04:15 am »

Quote from: hilde45 on 25 Nov 2021, 12:41 am

Saturn,

Jim himself saw the validity of my question. Just not sure if it could be done to his satisfaction.

Confusion might be allayed if you
(a) forgive the 93-96db metric I listed and consider even higher sensitivity-- e.g. Zu, Omega, AudioNote speakers. These would allow a wider range of tube amplifiers to do a good job with dynamics, etc.
And,
(b) consider that the 92 db Salk speakers you mention are $14995 per pair. My OP is thinking about both of these factors combining toward a Salk-levels of beauty and tonality with price that competes with Zu, Tekton, and Omega (if not Devore and AudioNote).

Thanks for the clarification. 😀

I saw in your OP that you contacted Jim Salk, so I figured I must be missing something.

Randy · « **Reply #13 on:** 25 Nov 2021, 05:09 am »

Quote from: avahifi on 24 Nov 2021, 09:16 pm

Note that if one speaker design is 3dB less sensitive then another speaker design, the lower sensitive speaker will require double the amplifier power. Each 3dB difference in power either doubles or reduces the amp power needs by 3dB per step.

For example, assume that an 85dB sensitive speaker requires 200W per channel. Change that to 88dB and the power requirement drops to 100W per channel. Go up to 91dB and the power needed drops to 50W per channel. At 94dB the power required is only 25W per channel. At 97dB you are in the power range of a vacuum tube SET amplifier, 12.5W channel.

I would like Jim to build a full range speaker that our SET 120 60W channel could drive just as loud as you would ever want. Something in the 88-90 dB range. This 60W per channel amplifier drives Jim's Songtower II speakers at rational listening levels, but you can't break windows with it.

Frank

Frank, how do you like those Song Tower IIs? How about a little review of them?

JLM · « **Reply #14 on:** 25 Nov 2021, 11:24 am »

Try a smaller room or sitting closer.

In order to calculate the efficiency needed you need to start with the room size/listening distance. Then find out the maximum loudness you want (peaks for live classical/jazz concerts is 105 dB, rock is 110 dB).

In my 8ft x 13ft x 21ft room with loudspeakers 6ft away (considered midfield) I lose about 6 dB, so would need 111-116 dB of output to reach live levels.

Manufacturers often optimistically lie about their loudspeaker efficiency. This can be attributed to how the efficiency is measured (another topic) and makes calculation very difficult.

Assuming accurate efficiency ratings I'd need 1000 wpc (30 dB of gain) to power 86 dB/w/m loudspeakers to reach live rock concert levels or 300 wpc to reach classical/jazz live peaks. As Frank mentioned above the wattage needed is cut in half for every 3 dB of efficiency gained.

There is a practical limit to loudspeaker efficiency and it has to do with system self-noise. Vinyl and tubes are noisier than digital and solid state.

JDoyle · « **Reply #15 on:** 25 Nov 2021, 12:08 pm »

Jim does make a 92db Exotica monitor that’s less than half that $14k price…

hilde45 · « **Reply #16 on:** 25 Nov 2021, 01:29 pm »

Ah, thanks for that. Interesting. I initially got my SS6M's because they were reported to be 90 dB on the website but an error was detected and Jim updated the website to list their correct 87db sensitivity. (I didn't have the budget for a $6k speaker at the time.) I stuck with the purchase and love them -- but still wonder how a much more sensitive Salk might sound with my 60w tube amps.

The question I posed may still be of interest to Jim for the reasons of reaching another level of sensitivity at perhaps the $6k or even lower price point. This thread was just started merely to gauge interest in such.

Phil A · « **Reply #17 on:** 25 Nov 2021, 01:39 pm »

Quote from: Tone Depth on 25 Nov 2021, 12:13 am

Salk made some higher efficiency speakers some years ago, but didn't seem to sell very many of them. I don't think they are still included on the website.

No they are not but one can still access some of the old models - e.g. https://web.archive.org/web/20160702153246/http://www.salksound.com/ht.php

Phil A · « **Reply #18 on:** 25 Nov 2021, 02:00 pm »

Here's another page from the internet archive - https://web.archive.org/web/20110902070244/http://www.salksound.com/pharos%20high-efficiency%20-%20home.htm

hilde45 · « **Reply #19 on:** 25 Nov 2021, 02:30 pm »

You are quite the sleuth. So, at one point Jim made a 95db speaker. He stopped making it. Not sure why, though I can imagine many reasons. Tube amps are surging, it seems, with a bunch of less expensive options from China pushing that along, and a bunch of innovative companies in America, too. This is the reason I'm sniffing the air on this question.