[earlmarc]

Hi Jim, I have been comparing the specifications of the HT-2/QW/EXT. They are all priced about the same. What are the sonic differences between them? I currently have MG1.6QR. I like the midrange and imaging of the Maggies. If choosing between these three speakers, which offers more and at the same time provides the imaging attributes of the Maggies?

[jsalk]

earlmarc -

Hi Jim, I have been comparing the specifications of the HT-2/QW/EXT. They are all priced about the same. What are the sonic differences between them? I currently have MG1.6QR. I like the midrange and imaging of the Maggies. If choosing between these three speakers, which offers more and at the same time provides the imaging attributes of the Maggies?

Well, that is not an easy question to answer, but let's rule out the EXT's.  This speaker model does have a more extended bottom end than the others, but the midwoofers are not as detailed as the W18's used in the HT2's or QW's.

As for which of those would be a good candidate for you, it would be nice to know the size of your room, how loud you like to listen to music and what kind of music you listen to most often.  If you can supply that information, I can certainly tell you which I would recoommend and why.

- Jim

[earlmarc]

My room is about 15x20. I listen mostly to jazz. I like the volume just past half way.

[jsalk]

When the volume is half way, is it loud or just moderate?

- Jim

[DMurphy]

My room is about 15x20. I listen mostly to jazz. I like the volume just past half way.

Equally important, what is it specifically that you don't like about the Maggies, or at least think could be improved? 

[95bcwh]

My room is about 15x20. I listen mostly to jazz. I like the volume just past half way.

Equally important, what is it specifically that you don't like about the Maggies, or at least think could be improved? 

I have listened to Maggies 1.6 at a dealer store. My Salk HT3 is at least two classes above the 1.6 when it comes to imaging/soundstage and far more transparent. I think the Salk HT2 should just be as good as the HT3 except it doesn't go as low.

[earlmarc]

When the volume is half way, is it loud or just moderate?

- Jim

Moderate.

[earlmarc]

My room is about 15x20. I listen mostly to jazz. I like the volume just past half way.

Equally important, what is it specifically that you don't like about the Maggies, or at least think could be improved? 

More detail in highs and improvement in bass.

[zybar]

You will absolutely get that with Jim's speakers.

George

[earlmarc]

My room is about 15x20. I listen mostly to jazz. I like the volume just past half way.

Equally important, what is it specifically that you don't like about the Maggies, or at least think could be improved? 

I have listened to Maggies 1.6 at a dealer store. My Salk HT3 is at least two classes above the 1.6 when it comes to imaging/soundstage and far more transparent. I think the Salk HT2 should just be as good as the HT3 except it doesn't go as low.

I'm not sure what two classes above is, and I don't doubt what you say. Properly set-up the MG1.6QR are quite good.

[zybar]

Marcus,

I have owned 1.6's, 2.7's, and listened a lot to the 3.6's.  While I do like the Maggie sound, I can't think of a single area where I feel that it betters a properly setup Salk HT3 (and based off Jim's comments a Salk HT2).

As Marbles suggested, take the drive and hear for yourself.

I don't think you will be disappointed.

George

[Wally King]

I had Maggie 1.6s in my main system for about 7 years until I replaced them with Salk HT-3s about a month ago.  I also listen to a lot of jazz, and I can tell you that the Salks will reveal details in your recordings that will amaze and delight you. 

Compared to the Maggies, the deep bass the Salks produce is by far the most immediate and most  obvious change - some favorite recordings of mine in which I though an acoustic bass was badly under-mixed were revealed to have substantial bass; I'd just never heard it.  Some bass players tend to play in the upper registers of the bass, and with such recordings, you don't miss as much with the Maggies; but other bassists tend stay in the lower registers of the instrument, and with certain recordings the Salks reveal information I never knew existed, not too mention the sheer visceral impact of powerful, deep, but clean bass. The Salks' ability to deep also adds substantial weight to the reproduction of drums.

Besides the outstanding low bass reproduction, other favorite recordings that had a bit of glare in the reproduction of certain instruments (most often with piano and cymbals) are now completley devoid of glare,  harshness or any other listening fatigue-inducing qualiities.

While I never thought I'd purchase a speaker without first hearing it, I did with the Salks, and can't be more pleased.

[earlmarc]

Earlmarc,  Jim should only be a few hours from you.  Why not set up an appointment to go listen to his speakers? 

Where in Michigan is Jim located? I,m in South Bend IN. I could visit on a weekend.

[carusoracer]

Interested as well in the Salk products. I read the spec's to show 38HZ for the low end HT3. With the comments above have I missed something or is it the way they are measured. I would consider the 25 range to be deep low bass?

Any help appreciated. Very beautiful finishes. I really need to hear the "Salk" sound that members are buzzing about;-)

[zybar]

Interested as well in the Salk products. I read the spec's to show 38HZ for the low end HT3. With the comments above have I missed something or is it the way they are measured. I would consider the 25 range to be deep low bass?

Any help appreciated. Very beautiful finishes. I really need to hear the "Salk" sound that members are buzzing about;-)

I have measured response at -3db's around 25-28Hz in room.  Trust me, they are certainly not bass shy.   

Here are the specs per Jim's website:

Response    

34Hz - 25KHz (+/- 1.5 db)
29Hz - 40KHz (+/-3db)
(F10 23Hz)

Sensitivity
(dB/2.83v/1M)    
85db

Impedance (average/min.)    
8 ohms    


George

[jsalk]

earlmarc -

Based on your comments, I would probably go with the QW's, although my preference here would be slight.  The bass extension is slightly greater with the QW's (due to the cabient design) and since you report that you listen at moderate volumes, the QW's should work quite well for you.  If sensitivity were an issue, that might tilt the equation slightly toward the HT2's. 

The QW's are a nominal 8-ohm load, while the HT2's are a nominal 4-ohm load.  For most amps being manufactured today, this is not really an issue.  But for some older amps and especially some tube amplifiers, the QW's would be an easier load.

As for visiting, you are welcome to take a little drive here practically anytime.  This coming week-end I will not be available and perhaps not the next.  I am on a 3.5 USTA traveling tennis time and we won the SE Michigan District tournament this past week-end.  So this coming week-end we are competing with three other teams for the state title. If we prevail, we will be traveling to Indianapolis for the Midwest Regionals the following week-end.  But after that, I should be availalbe almost any week-end and you are welcome to listen to any speakers I happen to have available at the time (which varies as people often purchase my personal pairs).

You may also want to check with Marbles.  I'm sure he would be happy to let you hear his HT3's and he lives in Fort Wayne which is probably closer.  Just a thought.

- Jim

[carusoracer]

I have measured response at -3db's around 25-28Hz in room.  Trust me, they are certainly not bass shy.   

Here are the specs per Jim's website:

Response    

34Hz - 25KHz (+/- 1.5 db)
29Hz - 40KHz (+/-3db)
(F10 23Hz)

Sensitivity
(dB/2.83v/1M)    
85db

Impedance (average/min.)    
8 ohms    


George
[/quote]


Thanks for the reply. I now see what you are referencing. I must get in a listen sometime. Anyone in OH have a pair?
Do not want to redirect thread. Thanks in advance

[earlmarc]

earlmarc -

Based on your comments, I would probably go with the QW's, although my preference here would be slight.  The bass extension is slightly greater with the QW's (due to the cabient design) and since you report that you listen at moderate volumes, the QW's should work quite well for you.  If sensitivity were an issue, that might tilt the equation slightly toward the HT2's. 

The QW's are a nominal 8-ohm load, while the HT2's are a nominal 4-ohm load.  For most amps being manufactured today, this is not really an issue.  But for some older amps and especially some tube amplifiers, the QW's would be an easier load.

As for visiting, you are welcome to take a little drive here practically anytime.  This coming week-end I will not be available and perhaps not the next.  I am on a 3.5 USTA traveling tennis time and we won the SE Michigan District tournament this past week-end.  So this coming week-end we are competing with three other teams for the state title. If we prevail, we will be traveling to Indianapolis for the Midwest Regionals the following week-end.  But after that, I should be availalbe almost any week-end and you are welcome to listen to any speakers I happen to have available at the time (which varies as people often purchase my personal pairs).

You may also want to check with Marbles.  I'm sure he would be happy to let you hear his HT3's and he lives in Fort Wayne which is probably closer.  Just a thought.

- Jim

Ok Jim, Great!. I'll touch basis with you after you guys win the state title. Good Luck.