AudioCircle
Industry Circles => Salk Signature Sound => Topic started by: Woolz on 18 Jun 2009, 05:10 pm
-
I have been asked to compare the HT2 to the Archos. I owned the HT2s for over a year and a half and I have now had the Archos for a little over a month so here goes. They present the music differently. The Archos present it more behind the plane of the speakers in a deeper wider soundfield. The HT2s are more upfront and immediate sounding. That doesn't mean they are more live sounding just less spacious.
The highs of both speakers are excellent and quite similar to me from a quality standpoint. The Archos midrange will handle more power more gracefully and this is the biggest difference between the speakers. Through the bass and midrange the Archos will really expand with the music when necessary in a way the HT2s cannot match. Simply put, the Archos play louder with greater dynamics than the HT2s.
The bass needs some discussion. I was looking for more extension from the Archos but I don't think that is the case. The HT2s actually seem to go deeper and will give you a better balanced presentation with bass shy recordings like a lot of older rock music. The HT2s are easier to place in the room, or rather are more normal. The Archos are 18" closer to the back wall in my large (33x34) room with the speakers firing across the diagonal. The backs of the speakers are still 32" out from the back wall allowing the open back midrange to provide its benefit without interference.
All that said, I much prefer the bass of the Archos. When you crank things up the Lambda woofers deliver and the speaker has a much better, if not ideal balance. It took me a little while to appreciate this, but the quality of the bass from the Archos is really outstanding. I'm still not sure of Jim's in room -3db response in the low 30hz range, but it is beautiful bass however low it goes. I may, however, explore one of the Rythmik sub-woofers.
I am using a Mccormack DNA-500 amp with a tube preamp. I tried the Red Wine Sig 30.2 amp but it simply couldn't do justice to the capabilities of the Archos in the bass. It played remarkably loud and grain-free with really beautiful vocals, but just couldn't provide the jump factor of the Mccormack beast. I don't know if that much power is required for the Archos. When I have the opportunity I will find out. I had thought it would be a no-brainer I would get a smaller amp and save a little money, but the Mccormack sounds awfully good.
Would I want my HT2s back? They are excellent speakers, but I like big band jazz and frankly judge speakers ultimately by how Duke Ellington, Count Basie and Buddy Rich sound. The Archos give me more goosebumps. They are more dynamic and better able to present the sound with clarity and authority. Definitely keepers for me.
-
Thanks for the report, interesting. 8)
-
it is very interesting. I'd like to hear more about Archos! Do they have any disadvantages at all? So far they look like a "poor man" HT4's to me. :D
-
There are disadvantages. Placement, looks for some folks, bass for some folks, but as far as comparison with the HT4 you would have to ask someone familiar with both and I think you know who that might be.
-
Thanks for the comparison Woolz. BTW, I am certainly enjoying your "old" HT2s!
-
Which tweeter, ribbon or cone?
-
Thanks for the info, Woolz. You've got a great system there, especially the speakers and amp. Enjoy!
-
Ribbon tweeter.
-
I have been asked to compare the HT2 to the Archos. I owned the HT2s for over a year and a half and I have now had the Archos for a little over a month so here goes. They present the music differently. The Archos present it more behind the plane of the speakers in a deeper wider soundfield. The HT2s are more upfront and immediate sounding. That doesn't mean they are more live sounding just less spacious.
The highs of both speakers are excellent and quite similar to me from a quality standpoint. The Archos midrange will handle more power more gracefully and this is the biggest difference between the speakers. Through the bass and midrange the Archos will really expand with the music when necessary in a way the HT2s cannot match. Simply put, the Archos play louder with greater dynamics than the HT2s.
The bass needs some discussion. I was looking for more extension from the Archos but I don't think that is the case. The HT2s actually seem to go deeper and will give you a better balanced presentation with bass shy recordings like a lot of older rock music. The HT2s are easier to place in the room, or rather are more normal. The Archos are 18" closer to the back wall in my large (33x34) room with the speakers firing across the diagonal. The backs of the speakers are still 32" out from the back wall allowing the open back midrange to provide its benefit without interference.
All that said, I much prefer the bass of the Archos. When you crank things up the Lambda woofers deliver and the speaker has a much better, if not ideal balance. It took me a little while to appreciate this, but the quality of the bass from the Archos is really outstanding. I'm still not sure of Jim's in room -3db response in the low 30hz range, but it is beautiful bass however low it goes. I may, however, explore one of the Rythmik sub-woofers.
I am using a Mccormack DNA-500 amp with a tube preamp. I tried the Red Wine Sig 30.2 amp but it simply couldn't do justice to the capabilities of the Archos in the bass. It played remarkably loud and grain-free with really beautiful vocals, but just couldn't provide the jump factor of the Mccormack beast. I don't know if that much power is required for the Archos. When I have the opportunity I will find out. I had thought it would be a no-brainer I would get a smaller amp and save a little money, but the Mccormack sounds awfully good.
Would I want my HT2s back? They are excellent speakers, but I like big band jazz and frankly judge speakers ultimately by how Duke Ellington, Count Basie and Buddy Rich sound. The Archos give me more goosebumps. They are more dynamic and better able to present the sound with clarity and authority. Definitely keepers for me.
As a designer, we are always pleased when people are happy with our designs. Thank you very much for your comments. I am glad the speakers are working well for you. :D
I understand perfectly that placement and room acoustics play a bigger role with the Archos than with most other speakers simply because only part of the spectrum is dipolar and its balance will be subject to the room. However, when set up properly this speaker can sound very balanced and, as you have found, is very dynamic. A neat thing about the Lambda woofer and PHL mid is that they can deliver that jump-factor :o that many lower efficiency speakers just can't touch. The PHL, especially, can make horns sound very realistic. It can be quite seductive. I think you probably agree. I hope you have many years of enjoyment. For what it's worth; this speaker originated as a speaker I built for my personal use and Jim checked them out when visiting me one day on another project. The rest is history. They have evolved quite a bit since then though.
About the bass extension: The speaker really should reach into the low 30's in-room. The port tuning is set to 36Hz and that is the -3dB point near-field. I am sure that if you check you will find quite a bit of output from the port. Nearly all rooms provide gain below 40Hz, so the in-room response should easily reach into the low 30 Hz range. Rooms are funny though - there are a lot of low frequency nodes and finding placement that provides the best bass extension isn't always easy, or possible depending on your arrangement. I do admit though, it doesn't have bass into the 20's, so if you are used to that then it would sound a little shy of deep bass. I will say, I listened to the first pair in a large room and I was very pleased with the fullness of the bass response, which I felt was very dynamic and accurate without any bloat.
Enjoy!
Jeff B.
-
Ribbon tweeter.
Thanks woolz.
-
Thanks for the report, Woolz. Very good reading.
-
Thanks for taking the time Woolz, good info.
-
targa02, wonderful, I am glad they have an appreciative home. I always liked to think the maple made them sound special.
Jeff B. thanks for the reply and thanks for the speakers. It is great to be able to give strangers pleasure. You are right on about the jump factor the speakers have. It is one of the reasons I decided to try them and they haven't let me down. It is one of the great advantages of sensitive speakers and it is great to have it in a speaker that sounds tonally authentic which if I didn't mention it the Archos does. But then I knew that would be the case coming from Jim Salk.
-
Hi Jeff,
I know that phl midrange driver very well and it is very good quality for the price. Some people think that it is as good as an accuton midrange driver.
Woolz, Glad you like the speaker but I'm not selling my ht2's :icon_lol:. I had them shipped to Australia last year and they will have to be in my system for a long time.
Regards
Rod
-
Rod, I did not mean to say that the PHL is a better midrange driver than the Seas in the HT2. I think it is a combination of being in a three-way and its higher efficiency which allows it to perform as it does in the Archos in my large room. The HT2 is a wonderful speaker and in a smaller room the advantage of the Archos might well disappear. Tonal balance is the most important thing for me in a speaker and the HT2s have marvelous tonal accuracy.
-
Hi Woolz,
Prior to my receiving the ht2 I had never heard a seas mid/bass driver. I remember reading about their new drivers years ago but hadn't had the opportunity of hearing one. I've been exposed to focal quite a bit (I have to say I do like their drivers), phl, cabasse and accuton. Accuton drivers are very good quality imo.
The phl midrange driver is very good, it is very transparent and it can really pick up a lot of inner nuances in a background.
I really like my ht2 speakers and I won't be replacing them any time soon. I use a small to medium size room and they seem to sound pretty good. When I ordered a pair I only just had enough money to buy them and ship them to Australia.
Thanks you very much for your review.
Regards
Rod
-
Thanks Woolz for the review! After hearing the Archo's briefly, I was eager to hear a full review of them. Interesting that you said that they had the jump factor. I thought that the HT's had more excitement. The sound of the sax and piano did blow me away with the Archo's.
Bob
EDIT: It could have been that I heard the Archo's on tubes. You said that took away some of their jump. I listen to my HT1's with my McCormack 225.
-
Fsimms, I haven't heard the Archos with tubes. I tried the Red Wine 30.2 amp which is a 30 wpc battery-powered unit. The speakers still exhibited the jump with it, just not to the same levels as the Mccormack. Actually when I ordered the Archos I was using a CJ Premier 140 with the HT2s and was planning to use it with the Archos, but as the Archos wait grew into over 6 mos. and the economy and my financial situation went in the toilet, I decided to back off the Archos and instead sold the CJ and bought the Mccormack thinking it would bring up the performance of the HT2s. It is indeed a better amp for the HT2s. But as the Archos finally became available when Jim abandoned the wait for the AE midrange I felt a little better about things so I went ahead with the Archos.
Now I think the CJ might indeed be an excellent amp for the Archos, but I have not heard them together, yet. The bass of the Archos seems to be very controlled and a good candidate for a potent tube amp. In a smaller room maybe even something like one of the Dehavilland SETs. It would however, be difficult to beat what I have now although it seems like such over-kill. Almost over-indulgence.
-
You can never have too many watts. I'm not comfortable with anything less than 250 or 300 wpc. When I step on the gas I expect high G forces!
-
targa02, wonderful, I am glad they have an appreciative home. I always liked to think the maple made them sound special.
Hi Woolz, I am not sure whether the maple makes them sound special, but they are certainly a big step up from the Rocket 1000s they replaced! I am driving them with a Wyred ST 250 (125watts/8) currently, but am going to upgrade to the Wyred ST 500 later this month. Rick Cullen is great to work with BTW.
-
targa02, wonderful, I am glad they have an appreciative home. I always liked to think the maple made them sound special.
Hi Woolz, I am not sure whether the maple makes them sound special, but they are certainly a big step up from the Rocket 1000s they replaced! I am driving them with a Wyred ST 250 (125watts/8) currently, but am going to upgrade to the Wyred ST 500 later this month. Rick Cullen is great to work with BTW.
Yes he is. Very trustworthy and pragmatic about what he decides to take on.
-
Jim let me borrow the original prototype pair of Archos speakers Sunday and I'll have some observations of my own soon. Interesting speaker for sure.
-
Jim let me borrow the original prototype pair of Archos speakers Sunday and I'll have some observations of my own soon. Interesting speaker for sure.
Look forward to hearing your comments Pete.
Will you be able to put some good tube amplification on them?
George
-
I have no bananas, er, tube amps. I have an Electrocompaniet AW220 and a DAC4800A - 70 wpc and 380 wpc. They are very efficient speakers. 6 o'clock is 0 db and I haven't got past 10 o'clock and it's LOUD. Had to do that with Hocus Pocus by Focus - rockin' out! Not the right speaker for that tune. :lol:
-
I have no bananas, er, tube amps. I have an Electrocompaniet AW220 and a DAC4800A - 70 wpc and 380 wpc. They are very efficient speakers. 6 o'clock is 0 db and I haven't got past 10 o'clock and it's LOUD. Had to do that with Hocus Pocus by Focus - rockin' out! Not the right speaker for that tune. :lol:
Pete,
Depending on how long your loan is from Jim, I could possibly loan you some nice amplification for just the cost of you covering shipping.
Shoot me a PM if there is any interest.
George
-
Well, I'll need to gain some more familiarity with them, but will keep that generous offer in mind.
-
I look forward to your impressions, Pete.
-
Getting there. Very cable dependent. I'm working the pieces to maximize the toe tapping. Very close. You have to tame those tweeters. I am sure I prefer ribbons but you can live with the domes if you are careful.
-
Pete, any new impressions?
-
Almost there. Need to make up one more cable and try some different speaker cables.
Time is tight as there is football practice every night and my wife works until 9 PM most nights.
I think you'll be surprised at what is in my system these days.
-
I think you'll be surprised at what is in my system these days.
Surprise me when you have a chance. :o 8)
-
Raising the dead thread....
New amps to audition; Dodd 120 watt monoblocks
They arrived with some damaged Oak side panels, so off to the Salk shop for some exotic wood dumpster diving, and whalla! Burled maple side panels! Look pretty? Jim's crew cut them for me and I sanded them and polyurethaned them.
Does anyone know if I can use KT66's in place of the KT77's presently in the amp?
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=23641)
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=23638)
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=23639)
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=23640)
-
Regarding amplifier power needed to drive the Archos speakers, at the last Detroit audio show (AKFest) Jim and I drove the Archos and Songtowers with a pre-production version of our 35W per channel Ultravalve vacuum tube amplifier in an "enormous" meeting room and seemed to have all the power necessary and great sound to boot.
Regards,
Frank Van Alstine
-
Yes, for sure. I'm planning ahead and hope to have HT2's or less efficient speakers someday.
-
Just to close this out. I sold the prototypes and will miss them. They did take some getting used to because that dome tweeter was unforgiving and I found it much more honest than a ribbon tweeter. Once I got to tube electronics and some cabling changes I felt the overall balance was much better. Then I went to some tweaks in the acoustic treatment arrangements and broadened the soundstage and reduced the rear reflecting sounds.
Given that the units were prototypes and the production units now use G2's, my assessment isn't really going to help anyone wanting the new versions. I'm a huge G2 fan and I was surprised how much output that dome produced. Not unbalanced, just a learning experience for me.
In the end I really enjoyed them. I felt the bass was a lot better than many would suspect for such an efficient design. After becoming familiar with them I felt they were very good at depth of soundstage and imaging. Never having any experience with the G2 version I don't know how much those would change if at all.
I did drive them with both SS and tube and preferred the musicality of tubes over SS. Certainly not much power required and using 120 wpc was overkill. I did use a 40 wpc tubed amp with good results and 60 wpc SS as well. At one time I augmented the bass with a small sub and found that very nice but the sub was barely on in case you were wondering how much was needed.
Definitely another winner and worth an audition.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by a dome being more "honest" than a ribbon tweeter. I'm not aware of any information that a ribbon obscures and a dome reveals. It sounds more like a voicing issue than a technology issue.
-
I like the sound of ribbons a lot, and plan to switch my current home speakers over from the Peerless HDS to the AC G2. The crossover is complete, just need to modify the cabinets.
Having said that, tests I've seen show that the MDT33 has extremely low non-linear odd-order distortion , lower than any of the ribbons out there that I have seen tests on. Since non-linear odd order distortion can be audible, there may be a different "flavor" to the tweeter. Of course, directivity is very different too, and this changes how we perceive it as well.
However, voicing does certainly have a huge impact on all of this, but I tried very hard to balance the G2 to match the level as closely as possible to what it was with the MDT33.
Finally, one more observation: I have found that a dome with a strong low distortion motor seems to carry more dynamic "punch" at the lower end of its operating range compared to ribbons I have used, which may aid in the way it crosses over to a mibass. Ribbons, on the other hand, sound much more open and realistic at the top of their range. This probably correlates to better acoustic impedance matching with the air-load at the lower range for a dome vs. much lighter moving mass for the ribbon at the top. Still, there are many factors involved.
Jeff
I'm not sure what you mean by a dome being more "honest" than a ribbon tweeter. I'm not aware of any information that a ribbon obscures and a dome reveals. It sounds more like a voicing issue than a technology issue.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by a dome being more "honest" than a ribbon tweeter. I'm not aware of any information that a ribbon obscures and a dome reveals. It sounds more like a voicing issue than a technology issue.
Being PC. I think Jeff captured what I was probably hearing. It makes sense to me given how much experience I had with the G2 and LCY and that dome really resonated with MY ears. I tamed it and was good to go. A non-issue with the production version.
-
I like the sound of ribbons a lot, and plan to switch my current home speakers over from the Peerless HDS to the AC G2. The crossover is complete, just need to modify the cabinets.
Having said that, tests I've seen show that the MDT33 has extremely low non-linear odd-order distortion , lower than any of the ribbons out there that I have seen tests on. Since non-linear odd order distortion can be audible, there may be a different "flavor" to the tweeter. Of course, directivity is very different too, and this changes how we perceive it as well.
However, voicing does certainly have a huge impact on all of this, but I tried very hard to balance the G2 to match the level as closely as possible to what it was with the MDT33.
Finally, one more observation: I have found that a dome with a strong low distortion motor seems to carry more dynamic "punch" at the lower end of its operating range compared to ribbons I have used, which may aid in the way it crosses over to a mibass. Ribbons, on the other hand, sound much more open and realistic at the top of their range. This probably correlates to better acoustic impedance matching with the air-load at the lower range for a dome vs. much lighter moving mass for the ribbon at the top. Still, there are many factors involved.
Jeff
The only controlled, direct tweeter comparisons I've done with Salk speakers have involved the 0W1 or 0W2 vs. the LCY ribbon. The little Hiquphons no doubt lack the low-end impact of the larger Morel. But in the comparisons I've done, the LCY actually had more low end output than the Hiq's. Still, I believe in measurements, and it's pretty clear that ribbons (other than the super expensive RAAL) don't do as well as domes in odd-order distortion tests at lower frequencies. I think we agree that there are other ribbon attributes that overcome this in the reproduction of very high frequencies, but distortion is never a good thing. It's a tough nut to crack. The obvious answer might seem the use of a very small mid (like a dome) crossed to a ribbon for the highest frequencies. But that's clearly impossible in a 2-way, and in a 3-way with deep bass capabilities, the mid has to be able to get down cleanly to around 300 Hz to work well with a large woofer.
-
The only controlled, direct tweeter comparisons I've done with Salk speakers have involved the 0W1 or 0W2 vs. the LCY ribbon. The little Hiquphons no doubt lack the low-end impact of the larger Morel. But in the comparisons I've done, the LCY actually had more low end output than the Hiq's. Still, I believe in measurements, and it's pretty clear that ribbons (other than the super expensive RAAL) don't do as well as domes in odd-order distortion tests at lower frequencies. I think we agree that there are other ribbon attributes that overcome this in the reproduction of very high frequencies, but distortion is never a good thing. It's a tough nut to crack. The obvious answer might seem the use of a very small mid (like a dome) crossed to a ribbon for the highest frequencies. But that's clearly impossible in a 2-way, and in a 3-way with deep bass capabilities, the mid has to be able to get down cleanly to around 300 Hz to work well with a large woofer.
How about a 4-way?
-
After becoming familiar with them I felt they were very good at depth of soundstage and imaging.
Thanks for the impressions. I am very greedy. Could you give me a couple of comments more about the midrange. I only heard three songs on the Archo's and am still haunted by the sound of them on the Brubeck Time Out song, Strange Meadow Lark. I was wondering if they sounded great on any other songs! It was fun seeing Alig's head snap around when the first cord of the piano played.
Bob
-
I have lived with the Archos (ribbon G2 tweeter) for 2 weeks while at the same time I own a HT3. I think perhaps Jim's next project can be an Archos II with a deeper bass extension (active woofer??) :wink:
From midrange up, the Archos sounded more 'diffused' than the HT3. Some may call the Archos more 'mellow', and more 3-dimensional, it can certainly be more seductive to some people - including me. Honestly it will be difficult for me to choose between the two.
In the bass region, however, the HT3 goes lower. It may not be obvious if you only listen to the Archos and not the HT3. But if you had the opportunity to swap them around like I did, the difference is larger than I thought.
Bob, I'm sorry that the piano piece continues to 'haunt' you until today :lol: :lol:. Part of it is due to the more 'mellow' characters of the open-baffle design, the rest is due to the McIntosh MC275 amp with stock tubes 12AX7 :wink:
-
The Archos wouldn't be best for everyone, as the midrange balance will be more dependent on place and room acoustics than for most other speakers. It can be set up, simply by placement, to sound anywhere from forward to slightly laid back in midrange presentation.
No, the Archos does not go as low at the HT3 does. However, what's not stated here is the difference in sensitivity. That's the Iron Law that we must trade-off. For the Archos to be 94dB/2.83V it simply will not have 20Hz extension unless we made the box very large, and that is impractical. The HT3, on the other hand, can reach into the 20's well, but at the expense of sensitivity. I think there is probably 9dB difference between the two speakers and that's a lot. Each speaker is excellent in what it does and may be someone's cup of tea, but there's no doubt they are different kinds of tea.
I have lived with the Archos (ribbon G2 tweeter) for 2 weeks while at the same time I own a HT3. I think perhaps Jim's next project can be an Archos II with a deeper bass extension (active woofer??) :wink:
From midrange up, the Archos sounded more 'diffused' than the HT3. Some may call the Archos more 'mellow', and more 3-dimensional, it can certainly be more seductive to some people - including me. Honestly it will be difficult for me to choose between the two.
In the bass region, however, the HT3 goes lower. It may not be obvious if you only listen to the Archos and not the HT3. But if you had the opportunity to swap them around like I did, the difference is larger than I thought.
Bob, I'm sorry that the piano piece continues to 'haunt' you until today :lol: :lol:. Part of it is due to the more 'mellow' characters of the open-baffle design, the rest is due to the McIntosh MC275 amp with stock tubes 12AX7 :wink: