RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 8698 times.

oneinthepipe

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1378
  • Trainee
    • Salk Signature Sound/Audio by Van Alstine two-channel system
Re: RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM
« Reply #20 on: 5 Oct 2009, 03:20 am »
The HT4 were placed further apart on Sunday.  From left to right, the speakers were ST RT, HT2, or HT1,  then HT4, then ST RT, HT2 or HT1 again, then HT4.

Nuance

Re: RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM
« Reply #21 on: 5 Oct 2009, 04:02 am »
The bridged tubies put out 60 wpc according to Frank.   I assume that's into 4 ohms, because that's what the HT4's are.  The HT4-s were far from doomed in the room.  The bass is actually less likely to overload a room than the HT3, which has more output in the 60 Hz region.   It would have been nice to have them further apart, but I doubt that it would have made a major difference.

Good to hear Dennis.  From what it sounds, you guys really hit this one out of the ballpark!  It's amazing these things will work even in less than ideal rooms. 

MaxCast

Re: RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM
« Reply #22 on: 5 Oct 2009, 11:01 am »
I don't know.  From this poll
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=50528.0
40% of us have the same size room (or smaller) as the standard room at the show
http://audiofest.net/2009/exhibitor_room_layouts.php?Sid=35a356fae87bfbaeea5b9b23db63f5fb

Not to say big speakers can't overpower a small room but these hotel rooms are not too far off from what we are using.

OgOgilby

Re: RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM
« Reply #23 on: 5 Oct 2009, 02:59 pm »
Regarding the rooms, while a few exhibitors had larger rooms, most exhibitors had similarly-sized rooms.  While proper evaluation of components isn't arguably possible except in a listener's system, the exhibitors were 'in the same boat" with respect to room size, and some rooms sounded better than others, IMO.

That has to make it tough for comparisons - thanks for the updates  :D

twitch54

Re: RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM
« Reply #24 on: 5 Oct 2009, 03:40 pm »
Regarding the rooms, while a few exhibitors had larger rooms, most exhibitors had similarly-sized rooms.  While proper evaluation of components isn't arguably possible except in a listener's system, the exhibitors were 'in the same boat" with respect to room size, and some rooms sounded better than others, IMO.

While true there were some that DID take he time to 'dial-in' their rooms. For those that know Bobby P. (Merlin) his room, year-to-year is always one of the best, Harbeth did a fine job acousticaly with their room as well

cujobob

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 1262
Re: RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM
« Reply #25 on: 5 Oct 2009, 04:00 pm »
A normal sized hotel room is probably similar to most users rooms..however, RMAF has some uber speakers that wouldn't go in a typical room.  If you're paying $10K+, I assume there is either a very large room, or a dedicated medium-large room.  True full-range speakers can easily overpower a smaller room (depending on design)

DMurphy

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1546
    • SalkSound
Re: RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM
« Reply #26 on: 5 Oct 2009, 04:14 pm »
Again, the real problem wasn't that the big speakers were overpowering the room, in the sense that there was just too much sound pressure or the bass was boomy and obscuring the sound.  Quite the opposite.  Although the hotel rooms weren't all that much smaller than some dedicated listening rooms, they were constructed differently, with reinforced concrete floors and heavy wall-to-wall carpeting.  That's great for sound isolation between floors (and keeping the hotel upright), but bass and general impact suffers.  I'm afraid Jeff's handiwork with the passive driver tuning didn't get a fair chance to shine.  I actually had to walk up and check which speaker was playing during one cut with lots of deep bass content.  It turned out to the Song Towers.  They sounded almost as good as the HT4's in the bass department.  But they sure don't sound that way in my home, which has very well constructed hardwood floors throughout.  And, to be fair, more room for the speakers to breathe.   
« Last Edit: 5 Oct 2009, 07:10 pm by DMurphy »

Art_Chicago

Re: RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM
« Reply #27 on: 5 Oct 2009, 04:18 pm »
hey, who is the owner of that black shoe in bottom right corner of the picture? Noone mentioned its fashionable style yet :lol:

Nuance

Re: RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM
« Reply #28 on: 5 Oct 2009, 05:58 pm »

Again, the real problem wasn't that the big speakers were overpowering the room, in the sense that there was just too much sound pressure or the bass was boomy and obscuring the sound.  Quite the opposite.  Although the hotel rooms weren't all that much smaller than some dedicated listening rooms, they were constructed differently, with reinforced concrete floors and heavy wall-to-wall carpeting.  That's great for sound isolation between floors (and keeping the hotel upright), but bass and general impact suffers.  I'm afraid Jeff's handiwork with the passive driver tuning didn't get a fair chance to shine.  I actually had to walk up and check which speaker was playing during one cut with lots of deep bass content.  It turned out to the Song Towers.  They sounded almost as good as the HT4's in the bass department.  But they sure don't sound that way in my home, which has very well constructed hardwood floors throughout.  And, to be fair, more room for the speakers to breath.   

So the HT4's were lacking in the bass department in that room?  Bummer...that really stinks.  I wish you guys had a more ideal room to show off your flagship speakers.  I guess its the luck of the draw, huh?

DMurphy

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1546
    • SalkSound
Re: RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM
« Reply #29 on: 5 Oct 2009, 06:13 pm »
Well, they weren't "lacking."  There was all kind of bass.  But the extent of its superiority in really deep bass extension and clarity wasn't as obvious as I had hoped.

Nuance

Re: RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM
« Reply #30 on: 5 Oct 2009, 06:48 pm »
^ Gotcha.  Sorry to hear that buddy. 

I am sure the HT4's will get better exposure in a better room at the Oregon GTG this weekend.  I really wish I could attend, but my daughter's birthday is Sunday and family always comes before audio.  :)

zybar

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 12071
  • Dutch and Dutch 8C's…yes they are that good!
Re: RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM
« Reply #31 on: 5 Oct 2009, 06:53 pm »

Again, the real problem wasn't that the big speakers were overpowering the room, in the sense that there was just too much sound pressure or the bass was boomy and obscuring the sound.  Quite the opposite.  Although the hotel rooms weren't all that much smaller than some dedicated listening rooms, they were constructed differently, with reinforced concrete floors and heavy wall-to-wall carpeting.  That's great for sound isolation between floors (and keeping the hotel upright), but bass and general impact suffers.  I'm afraid Jeff's handiwork with the passive driver tuning didn't get a fair chance to shine.  I actually had to walk up and check which speaker was playing during one cut with lots of deep bass content.  It turned out to the Song Towers.  They sounded almost as good as the HT4's in the bass department.  But they sure don't sound that way in my home, which has very well constructed hardwood floors throughout.  And, to be fair, more room for the speakers to breath.

Dennis,

While I love my ST's for my HT (and recommend them on a consistent basis), it says a lot in both directions that you had trouble telling them apart from the HT4's (at times in the bass area) in your room at the show   :(

In my dedicated two channel room, that just wouldn't happen.   aa

We all know that show conditions are less than ideal and cause issues for all vendors.  Sounds like the HT4's will be given a much better chance to strut their stuff at the Oregon GTG.

George
« Last Edit: 5 Oct 2009, 09:15 pm by zybar »

Carl V

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 571
Re: RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM
« Reply #32 on: 5 Oct 2009, 08:52 pm »
I brought a friend along for much of the RMAF....
he thought the HT4 were playing when in fact it
was the ST.  Sound was fine.  Merlins, DeVore
& Bamberg has usually had excellant sounding rooms
as well.

Sunday they had a bit more spread...the Beasts that is.

I'm no expert  but most European homes are
more rigid than our Stick & drywall.  In South America most
homes are mostly concrete with smaller amounts of wood or
palster.  And I've noticed bass loading is very different.

And good point about typically sized Rooms....

Kokishin

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 26
  • Cirroc: Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
Re: RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM
« Reply #33 on: 6 Oct 2009, 11:18 am »
Nice feedback regarding HT4 and an interesting read about RMAF 2009 in general:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=72313.msg677114#msg677114

Wayner

Re: RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM
« Reply #34 on: 6 Oct 2009, 11:55 am »
Sometimes one picture says it all.  aa



Wayner  :D

Wayner

Re: RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM
« Reply #35 on: 6 Oct 2009, 12:10 pm »
Here is a photo of the room as it was on Sunday. While the setup was asymmetrical, the wider position of the Soundscape 12s opened the imaging department while not really screwing up the bass. Jim did comment that the room seemed to be amazingly free of strange bass nodes, walking around the room while the music played confirmed this.



They were also fired exclusively by the AVA 550 Ultra on Sunday and the Songtowers, HT1 and HT2TL were fired by a single Ultravalve in stereo mode (not horizontally bi-amped as on Friday).

It's good to be home.



Wayner  :D

fsimms

Comments about the HT4's ?????
« Reply #36 on: 6 Oct 2009, 01:53 pm »
There have been very few comments about the HT4's.  People keep saying that the Salk room was packed, so where are the comments.   How did the HT4's sound compared to the SongTowers or the HT2-TL's? 

Thanks ahead of time  aa

Bob

Wayner

Re: RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM
« Reply #37 on: 6 Oct 2009, 04:21 pm »
On Saturday, I think there were at one time 15 people in the room sitting or standing. The Soundscape 12 (HT-4) is powerful, dynamic and equipped with an unbelievable mid-range. The bass was strong, powerful and lacked any weird bass nodes. It moved the concrete floor. The Songtower and HT1 and 2 were also impressive. I really liked the synergy between the Ultravalve and the Songtowers. The fact is, all of the Salk speakers sounded wonderful. Yes, we could have used a larger room , but I think we did our homework on setting speaker locations and by Sunday had things really dialed in. I visited many other rooms during the 3 day event and was alway glad to be back to the home room for what I thought was some great sounding hifi.

This was also the first time I had met Jim and Mary Salk. I thought after the 3rd day, they were like family to me. They are wonderful people, dedicated to their product and customers. Jim seems to be always thinking of better ways to deliver fine speaker systems. I was very proud to be a small part of the organization and the memories of the show will be with me forever. I also met many AC members, all exceptional people and fun to be with.

Wayner  :D

Art_Chicago

Re: RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM
« Reply #38 on: 6 Oct 2009, 06:26 pm »
nice post, Wayner!

A few words on HT1-TL vs ST RT, please, as they are in the same price range. I realize HT1-TL have lower sensitivity, but apart from that? Thanks!

Nuance

Re: RMAF field report 10/3/09@11:10PM
« Reply #39 on: 6 Oct 2009, 09:13 pm »
Wait - so I see we have a name for the HT4: The Soundscape?