would this make any sense?

ratso · « **on:** 11 Aug 2010, 05:02 pm »

i have more and more been kicking around the idea of getting a pair of salk's to replace my current speakers (emerald physics CS 2.3's). i am fairly happy with the EP's. however it would be nice to have a less complex speaker, less amps, less cables, etc. and really i think i am just falling in love with salks (i mean jeez, look at them!). no matter what i get it will be paired with dual subs. i know some have very strong feelings about pairing speakers and subs and i don't want to start that argument. so please lets just go into this with the idea that subs will be included. so the question is this - minus the soundscape, what should i get? i was kicking around the archos, but lately have been leaning to the HT-3. my reasoning is it seems to be overall the best speaker they make (minus the big boys). however, if you include subs with say, an HT1 or HT2 would they be close enough that it wouldn't really make sense to upgrade to an HT3?

Big Red Machine · « **Reply #1 on:** 11 Aug 2010, 05:30 pm »

With a pair of subs, even the non-TL HT2's would be perfect. If, however, you part with those subs then the HT2TL's would be missed.

FYI I have owned HT3, V3, ST, Archos, and HT2TL.

ratso · « **Reply #2 on:** 11 Aug 2010, 06:41 pm »

Quote from: Big Red Machine on 11 Aug 2010, 05:30 pm

FYI I have owned HT3, V3, ST, Archos, and HT2TL.

i know you have BRM - i hoped you would reply. thanx for the info, mucho appreciato.

ctouhey · « **Reply #3 on:** 11 Aug 2010, 08:31 pm »

I have HT3s, and they are easily the best speakers I've owned.

I have a pair of subs, primarily for LFE in movies. They are crossed at 60 Hz. (I initially had the crossover set lower, but - at my room size and listening levels - the HT3s were pushing the 300 watts/channel of my McIntosh MC303 a bit hard. Raising the crossover solved that problem, and it was cheaper than three 500 watt monoblocks or bi-amping.)

For the most part, I am not aware of the subs when listening to two channel music as they are pretty well integrated into and balanced with our environment. On rare occasions I run into some source material where I would prefer to kill the subs and lower the crossover and let the HT3s handle everything.

Chris

Nuance · « **Reply #4 on:** 11 Aug 2010, 09:34 pm »

I am with BRM - the HT2 or HT2-TL's paired with a subwoofer or two would be amazing. Jim, Dennis and crew really outdid themselves when they created the TL version!

zybar · « **Reply #5 on:** 11 Aug 2010, 09:43 pm »

Quote from: ratso on 11 Aug 2010, 05:02 pm

i have more and more been kicking around the idea of getting a pair of salk's to replace my current speakers (emerald physics CS 2.3's). i am fairly happy with the EP's. however it would be nice to have a less complex speaker, less amps, less cables, etc. and really i think i am just falling in love with salks (i mean jeez, look at them!). no matter what i get it will be paired with dual subs. i know some have very strong feelings about pairing speakers and subs and i don't want to start that argument. so please lets just go into this with the idea that subs will be included. so the question is this - minus the soundscape, what should i get? i was kicking around the archos, but lately have been leaning to the HT-3. my reasoning is it seems to be overall the best speaker they make (minus the big boys). however, if you include subs with say, an HT1 or HT2 would they be close enough that it wouldn't really make sense to upgrade to an HT3?

Besides trying to reduce complexity, what would you like to improve or change from a sonics perspective?

I have owned and greatly enjoyed HTS3's and CS2's. I wouldn't say either is better than the other, but they
definitely have a different "sound" across the frequency spectrum.

George

Stercom · « **Reply #6 on:** 11 Aug 2010, 11:41 pm »

The Emerald Physics are open baffle, right? You may want to try the Archos, especially if you use tube electronics.

ratso · « **Reply #7 on:** 12 Aug 2010, 12:02 am »

i forgot to mention that in my original post that although this speaker would pull double duty, HT will ALWAYS take a far backseat to 2 channel in my house. well, as far as sonics go i like a speaker with a flat frequency response (which all salks have), and a speaker based on a good midrange. i want full range, but the subs would take care of that. i find most speakers to be a touch on the bright side, so the RAAL tweeter has me intrigued. i have found from my time with martin logans that i am a big fan of speakers that image well over a mile wide soundstage (which is a strength of open baffles, hence i am starting to think of a speaker that pinpoints well over another open baffle). and i am much more than vain enough to admit that i am a huge fan of looks as well. and being that i have all hardwood floors, solid oak trim in my house and am a lover of mission furniture, I LOVE WOOD and it's getting worse the older i get. i have already spent hours looking at the web sites of the veneer suppliers that jim gave in the salk newsletter. mmmmm brazilian rosewood....

ratso · « **Reply #8 on:** 12 Aug 2010, 12:07 am »

and p.s. yes i do use tubes. i currently run a new squeezebox touch as pretty much my only source, an oddysey khartago SS amp, lyngdorf room correction (which will also control the subs for 2 channel use) and a supratek chardonnay preamp. i hope to eventually trade up the khartago for a pass 150.5. an entry level TT will also probably enter the mix soon too.

Rocket · « **Reply #9 on:** 12 Aug 2010, 01:59 am »

Hi Ratso,

Can you afford to 'pony up' to salk sound soundscapes? I've done a lot of soundwards movement with my system and sometimes I think it would be better to just save up and get the exact speaker that I REALLY want to purchase.

I imported a pair of salk sound ht2's in 2008 into Australia and it was a great leap of faith. Previously, I had a pair of nuforce s9's (still have them and just use them for HT) and I was greatly underwhelmed by their performance. The HT2's were a good improvement and I find it hard to justify spending more.

Anyway good luck with your decision.

Regards

Rod

ratso · « **Reply #10 on:** 12 Aug 2010, 03:12 pm »

soundscapes are out of my range i'm afraid. good to hear you like your salks, though. it seems to be a story repeated over and over - someone buys salks without really hearing them, gets them, and winds up glad they got them. good stuff.

ratso · « **Reply #11 on:** 12 Aug 2010, 06:22 pm »

what the hell, you only live once, right? put the emeralds up for sale

mchuckp · « **Reply #12 on:** 12 Aug 2010, 07:22 pm »

I've had the opportunity to hear most of the Salk line up at shows and own a pair of STs with RTs. I think you'd probably be thrilled with pretty much anything Jim makes. Maybe you really should just think about how much you are willing to spend and the aesthetic properties of the speaker. If you really like the Archos, go for it. I personally think the HT2-TL is the sexiest speaker alive. I too LOVE woodgrains. Sounds like you should splurge on making them as beautiful as you can as that sounds like that is what you want.

One question off topic. Can I assume you are using a DAC with the SB Touch? It would surprise me that you'd have such high caliber gear and use a stock Touch via analog outs.

ratso · « **Reply #13 on:** 12 Aug 2010, 07:49 pm »

a lot of people on the squeezebox forums were saying that they dumped their dac's (including some very well known/respected ones) when they heard the new touch because they didn't hear any improvement. i found the same, and sold my dacmagic. i know some will disagree, but that's okay with me. 24/96 sounds really good through it to my ears. and yes, trust me, the new speakers will be pretty eye popping if i have any say in it (and i do!).

ctviggen · « **Reply #14 on:** 12 Aug 2010, 07:54 pm »

Are you using the supplied power supply with the Touch? I'd be interested to hear the Touch versus my modified SB2 (with Boulder power supply).

ratso · « **Reply #15 on:** 12 Aug 2010, 08:18 pm »

it's stock. in the past i have owned a modified SB3 and a stock transporter. i (obviously) haven't A/B'd any of them, but i am perfectly happy with my touch the way it is. and the price is nice.

ctviggen · « **Reply #16 on:** 12 Aug 2010, 08:21 pm »

When my system is finally up and running again, I'll have to test out a Touch.

catastrofe · « **Reply #17 on:** 12 Aug 2010, 09:45 pm »

Quote from: ratso on 11 Aug 2010, 05:02 pm

i have more and more been kicking around the idea of getting a pair of salk's to replace my current speakers (emerald physics CS 2.3's). i am fairly happy with the EP's. however it would be nice to have a less complex speaker, less amps, less cables, etc.

That's what I did. . .sold my Emerald Physics/Wyred4Sound and moved to tubes with SoundScape 10s. Just waiting on the speakers right now. . .

fsimms · « **Reply #18 on:** 12 Aug 2010, 11:10 pm »

Quote

That's what I did. . .sold my Emerald Physics/Wyred4Sound and moved to tubes with SoundScape 10s. Just waiting on the speakers right now. . .

Make sure you let us know how well they work with tubes. I am interested it someday going to tubes with my SoundScapes too.

Bob

Nuance · « **Reply #19 on:** 13 Aug 2010, 01:10 am »

Quote from: catastrofe on 12 Aug 2010, 09:45 pm

That's what I did. . .sold my Emerald Physics/Wyred4Sound and moved to tubes with SoundScape 10s. Just waiting on the speakers right now. . .

You're a smart man. I look forward to your impressions.