[fishinbob]

Just checked to see if my only horse in this race made the cut and sure enough it did. Now I'm wondering if Jim is willing or even able to furnish them a pair.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/home-audio-speakers/71707-3-000-speaker-evaluation-event-nominated-speakers-voting-poll-10.html#post666338

[jsalk]

Just checked to see if my only horse in this race made the cut and sure enough it did. Now I'm wondering if Jim is willing or even able to furnish them a pair.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/home-audio-speakers/71707-3-000-speaker-evaluation-event-nominated-speakers-voting-poll-10.html#post666338

Sure, we could furnish them with a pair - no problem.  Do they want one?

- Jim

[fishinbob]

Outstanding! My guess is someone will be getting in touch with you soon.

[robcentola]

Go team Salk!

[RAW]

I put my vote in for Jim and Phil 

[chargedmr2]

I put my vote in for Jim and Phil 

As did I--glad Salk is participating

[audiotom]

registered and voted as well

this will be fun up against a B&W CM9

[robcentola]

registered and voted as well

this will be fun up against a B&W CM9

Indeed it will. The CM9 was a speaker I was considering in my research before I discovered Salk.

[ctviggen]

Why is B&W so popular?  The few times I've done a comparison, B&W turned out to be near the bottom of the list of speakers I'd buy.   Yet, they got more votes for this competition by far.   

How are they going to test 6 speakers?  For me, I've had two speakers at a time (VMPS RM40s and Salks HT3s), and that was a hard enough comparison.  For instance, ideally, you'd want to only have one set of speakers in the room at one time, and trying to move speakers like those is tough.   

[JLM]

Start with a "good" room (large enough, etc.), add a hand truck and visual screening, have a extra room to hide the speakers not being A/B'd, move judges to another room during setups, not that hard if you have a couple of volunteers to do swap outs and run the gear.  I'd consider using different material for each round of testing and hopefully the speakers are reasonably comparable (frequency range, efficiency, cost) but might be interesting to throw in a odd ball (dipole/omni-directional).

There's lots of well marketed audio brands out there that do better than I can explain, B & W is near the top of my list.  They just don't light my fire and seem expensive.

[fishinbob]

How are they going to test 6 speakers?  For me, I've had two speakers at a time (VMPS RM40s and Salks HT3s), and that was a hard enough comparison.  For instance, ideally, you'd want to only have one set of speakers in the room at one time, and trying to move speakers like those is tough.

I believe they will be avoiding any AB comparisons as they have stated it is not a shootout, so they will be evaluating each speaker separately.

[fishinbob]

Here is a link showing the room and a bit about their process.

[Big Red Machine]

Now I'm having a problem with this evaluation based on the room and the electronics and placements.

I would NEVER seriously listen to 2 channel in a room treated for HT.  Way too damped and dull in most HT's to have a realistic 2 channel experience.

The gear they are using is mediocre.  Sorry to be the snob but why not a computer, FLAC/WAV/DSD files, and a top end 2 channel dac at least?  Is this an eval of stereo performance or HT performance?  For HT listening the gear seems fine and I'd be happy with it, but for 2 channel, no way.  My Onkyo HT pre is not very good for serious 2 channel listening. 

And those speaker placement triangles appear to be HT-spacing-induced-to-clear-the-screen.  I would never want my speakers farther apart than the distance to my ears.  In all my years of listening, having the speaker to ear distance exceed the speaker spacing is critical to imaging.

And let's talk toe-in.  They have used some rather radical toe in angles in my book in the 2013 eval.  I'm a 0 - 2 degree guy with anything Salk.  If they toe those SCST's in more than 5 degrees I think that will be a travesty.

So sure, all the speakers will be using the same gear, but I can tell you that when I had a separate HT and 2 channel, they were treated much differently acoustically and the HT was no place for enjoyable 2 channel.  I have moved well beyond having first reflection absorption to now demanding diffusion for a much more enjoyable experience.  I would be happier if they just set the speakers up in a living room with zero treatment.  But that's me.  I'm opinionated and an audio snob.   But I do know how to maximize the sound of a Salk speaker or two. 

Hoping for the best on that level playing field....  but had to vent.

[yetis]

I find the list very disappointing. More than half the speakers are reviewed all over the place. Seems like most just wanted to feel good about their purchase. They should take the winner and bang it up again the five least popular. Great news for Salk however.

[Saturn94]

...I would never want my speakers farther apart than the distance to my ears.  In all my years of listening, having the speaker to ear distance exceed the speaker spacing is critical to imaging.

And let's talk toe-in.  They have used some rather radical toe in angles in my book in the 2013 eval.  I'm a 0 - 2 degree guy with anything Salk.  If they toe those SCST's in more than 5 degrees I think that will be a travesty.....

Interesting.  My experience was a little different.

I found my HT2-TLs did best if I spread them a little further apart than the distance to the prime LP and toed them almost directly at the prime LP.  With this setup the soundstage was wide and imaging was excellent.  If I placed them closer together and reduced toe in the soundstage shrank considerably and the image flattened a bit.

Perhaps the fact that my main speakers are along the long wall of the room makes a difference?

My suggestion is use the "rules" as starting points, but don't be afraid to break those rules and experiment.....you might be pleasantly surprised. 

[audiotom]

Now I'm having a problem with this evaluation based on the room and the electronics and placements.

I would NEVER seriously listen to 2 channel in a room treated for HT.  Way too damped and dull in most HT's to have a realistic 2 channel experience.



So sure, all the speakers will be using the same gear, but I can tell you that when I had a separate HT and 2 channel, they were treated much differently acoustically and the HT was no place for enjoyable 2 channel.  I have moved well beyond having first reflection absorption to now demanding diffusion for a much more enjoyable experience.  I would be happier if they just set the speakers up in a living room with zero treatment.  But that's me.  I'm opinionated and an audio snob.   But I do know how to maximize the sound of a Salk speaker or two. 

Hoping for the best on that level playing field....  but had to vent.

Pete

You crack me up and are dead on

From one audio snob to another

The Salk's wont be optimized
Lesser "forgiving" speakers will be at an advantage


Still should be a very interesting read if they dont water it down

And hats off to Jim's speakers being in the mix

[audiotom]

Interesting.  My experience was a little different.

I found my HT2-TLs did best if I spread them a little further apart than the distance to the prime LP and toed them almost directly at the prime LP.  With this setup the soundstage was wide and imaging was excellent.  If I placed them closer together and reduced toe in the soundstage shrank considerably and the image flattened a bit.

Perhaps the fact that my main speakers are along the long wall of the room makes a difference?

My suggestion is use the "rules" as starting points, but don't be afraid to break those rules and experiment.....you might be pleasantly surprised. 

I have a long wall setup as well and my findings are precisely like Pete's

Cardas equilateral distance between speakers and listener. In my case 8 1/2 ft

Zero to minimal toe in

The SS10s have a beautiful dispersion pattern, disappear in the room, scary depth and layering of instruments and imaging that extends well beyond the outside of the speakers

I dont use the rear baffle

I agree with you on the rules as starting points


I feel the lack of sidewall reflections and openness makes long wall settings ideal with the right room dimensions

I am 14 1/2 by 27

[audiotom]

I just skimmed the article

A 19 1/2 by 23 1/2 converted garage isnt ideal
Length and width too similar

1 speaker at a time, one listener at center position is ideal

The oppo 105, i have one
Is great in a HT blu ray setting but not ideal for 2 channel

[audiotom]

Missed this comment

As a bonus to our members and readers, we will also be reviewing a $20,000 two-channel system. This review will be published later in our Reviews forum, but we will introduce you to the company and the products during the event. This system is truly to die for... just plain awesome and worth every penny of its price.

Read more: http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/home-audio-speakers/70413-official-2-500-speaker-evaluation-home-audition-event.html#ixzz2pnnenQ2P

[fishinbob]

Missed this comment

As a bonus to our members and readers, we will also be reviewing a $20,000 two-channel system. This review will be published later in our Reviews forum, but we will introduce you to the company and the products during the event. This system is truly to die for... just plain awesome and worth every penny of its price.

Read more: http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/home-audio-speakers/70413-official-2-500-speaker-evaluation-home-audition-event.html#ixzz2pnnenQ2P

That was done during the previous evaluation of $2500 speakers.