[yetis]

Interesting, a reverse merger in the speaker world.  Does Salk.inc own the brand to the extent that you can produce loudspeakers that are not part of Bud Fried's legacy?

Bud's main focus was using high quality drivers from all over the world, and that tradition is being upheld with these speakers.

Sounds a lot like Jim's philosophy.   

[Nuance]

^ It kind of does, yes, which is why Salk is a great choice to continue Fried's work.

[TJHUB]

It is my opinion that ANY company would benefit from Jim Salk owning/managing it. 

[JLM]

To "carry on" would I suppose mean "if Bud were still developing speakers, they would be like..."  Otherwise you do vintage stuff (if drivers are still available) or some variation of "Bud-like".  The later stuff with his name was produced after his death, so don't know how "Bud-like" they are (as he promoted the "expanding sound source" concept with tweeter above midrange that were both above the woofer, not MTM).  Updating ("improving") on his concepts isn't highly "Bud-like" either.  Philosophically, how "Bud-like" should it be to truly honor his name?

Specifically what makes this speaker any different than something else that Salk/Murphy/etc. would come up with?

[djbnh]

Sweet!

The image makes me think of Zus Omen Defs in the Sangria finish.

I owned Fried Q2s years back and they were great for the $. Should be interesting.

[DMurphy]

Specifically what makes this speaker any different than something else that Salk/Murphy/etc. would come up with?

Well, the series crossover, for one.  And you could say that Salks have always been "Fried-Like" in their use of TL cabinets.  The main difference there is that transmission line modeling is now much more accurate than it was when Fried was using the approach. 

[JLM]

Well, the series crossover, for one.  And you could say that Salks have always been "Fried-Like" in their use of TL cabinets.  The main difference there is that transmission line modeling is now much more accurate than it was when Fried was using the approach.

Just using TL (especially as you say Salk has been doing anyway) is stretching the Fried label IMO. 

Yes, I'm aware of Martin King's work (I own a Bob Brines single driver version) as being accurate modeling, but is it better than what Bud came up with?  I've owned both (20 years apart so I can't say, but the big Frieds impressed the hell of me back in the day).

[Nuance]

Just using TL (especially as you say Salk has been doing anyway) is stretching the Fried label IMO. 

Did you miss the part about the series crossover and Bud Fried custom tweeter?

[Big Red Machine]

I see much pontificating before the speaker has even been heard.

The Salk Communications team have all of Bud's notes and his white papers to better understand his thinking and approaches.  Will they be exact copies of historic designs?  No.  Will the models approach his intentions as much as practical given current drivers, current design techniques, current evaluation tools, and the Salk build quality you have come to expect?  Of course.

I am very impressed with this new speaker.  I believe you will be as well after you get a listen.  I'm also of the Fried vintage as many of you here and feel this speaker delivers his legacy plus some.

[srb]

It would be interesting to hear how the existing $2700 Salk SongTower RT and $3500 SongTower Supercharged sound compared to the new $3,000 Fried Tower, and for what considerations and applications one might choose one over the other.
 
Steve

[JLM]

I am glad to see Fried hasn't been forgotten (or worse).  And I'm glad to see Salk picking up the ball.  The last big Fried I heard (at 2009 AKFest) was $6500/pair but was the best speaker there to sound good (deep bass without boom) in the Embassy suite rooms.  I do want to hear them for myself.

Thanks Big Red for clarifying the Salk/Murphy design intent.

(I don't recall Bud using custom tweeters or being particularly focused on the higher frequencies - I've owned 4 pair and still have a pair in use.  And several firms use 1st order crossovers.  So I'll wait to hear for myself.)

[Paul K.]

If I may inject my 2 cents worth into this discussion, I have a lot of respect for what Bud Fried did, as should all of us, but if anyone has taken the time to actually model any of his TL designs, like I have, you would quickly see their shortcomings.  Why that occurred is obvious since Bud didn't have the tools we have that eliminate all the guess work and trial and error.  I hope no one views what I've said as bad-mouthing Bud's work; it's just a simple issue of fact.   It's amazing what Bud was able to accomplish but that doesn't mean what can be done today much more quickly and accurately should be viewed as inferior to his work or not maintaining and building on what he started.
Paul

Just using TL (especially as you say Salk has been doing anyway) is stretching the Fried label IMO. 

Yes, I'm aware of Martin King's work (I own a Bob Brines single driver version) as being accurate modeling, but is it better than what Bud came up with?  I've owned both (20 years apart so I can't say, but the big Frieds impressed the hell of me back in the day).

[yetis]

If I may inject my 2 cents worth into this discussion, I have a lot of respect for what Bud Fried did, as should all of us, but if anyone has taken the time to actually model any of his TL designs, like I have, you would quickly see their shortcomings.  Why that occurred is obvious since Bud didn't have the tools we have that eliminate all the guess work and trial and error.  I hope no one views what I've said as bad-mouthing Bud's work; it's just a simple issue of fact.   It's amazing what Bud was able to accomplish but that doesn't mean what can be done today much more quickly and accurately should be viewed as inferior to his work or not maintaining and building on what he started.
Paul

I think this is a brilliant move by Jim.  I would bet that Fried's legacy will be a loose guide, while Salk's current designs are likely to fill out the line. While Salk has a strong but small base of loyal followers, a quick web search would suggest that Fried is more of a "global brand".   

[DMurphy]

I am glad to see Fried hasn't been forgotten (or worse).  And I'm glad to see Salk picking up the ball.  The last big Fried I heard (at 2009 AKFest) was $6500/pair but was the best speaker there to sound good (deep bass without boom) in the Embassy suite rooms.  I do want to hear them for myself.

Thanks Big Red for clarifying the Salk/Murphy design intent.

(I don't recall Bud using custom tweeters or being particularly focused on the higher frequencies - I've owned 4 pair and still have a pair in use.  And several firms use 1st order crossovers.  So I'll wait to hear for myself.)

I don't think there's any question that the fluid model for the 0W2 tweeter was developed for Bud.   So that's not a matter of your recalling it.  And Bud never used 1st order crossovers, and the new Fried doesn't either.  I believe there were some models that used 1st order electrical filters, although that may have been after Bud sold his name rights.  But, as I'm sure you realize, it's the acoustic slope, not the electrical transfer function, that defines a true 1st order crossover.  And the Fried designs never came close to that.  I modeled the series crossover for the new Fried after the crossover for one of Fried's most popular satellite-sub designs.  That used 2nd order electrical filters, which work very well with the Peerless woofers, and also with the original 0W2 tweeter used in the "new'and "old" Fried speakers. 

[Nuance]

In case you guys missed it, Stereophile posted about the Bud Fried Towers on their website.  Here's the link and an excerpt:

"Partnered with Tube Research Labs amplification, a Wavelength DAC, and homemade cables, the Bud Fried speakers painted a very pretty picture, with good speed, fine imaging, and especially nice body and tone to female vocals and acoustic guitars."

http://www.stereophile.com/home?page=1

[jtwrace]

I think this room sounded better then the Salk room.  Jim needs to think about using some higher end gear IMO. 

[Nuance]

Here's another review by our very own Pez and Tyson:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=110610.20

[Nuance]

I think this room sounded better then the Salk room.  Jim needs to think about using some higher end gear IMO. 

Did you re-visit the room after Friday?  It sounded much better.  That large room is hard to "tame."

[jtwrace]

Did you re-visit the room after Friday?  It sounded much better.  That large room is hard to "tame."

The Salk room?  Yes.  Still not close to as good as I was expecting given the positive feedback I've read.

[yetis]

Here's another review by our very own Pez and Tyson:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=110610.20

This isn't going to sell a lot of speakers to people who listen to their speakers.  If they just look at them, then yes.  I agree with the earlier post.  I think Salk needs to mix it up on the electronics side. These are $10k speakers, lets get some electronics that go with that sort of investment!
As an SS8 owner, I am a little concerned that even Salk is struggling with setup/placement. What about the room is so challenging, that its a constant comment to listeners.