Salk Silk monitors: need for subwoofer(s)?

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 3167 times.

blueflog

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 27
Salk Silk monitors: need for subwoofer(s)?
« on: 3 Jun 2017, 02:29 am »
Looking for subwoofer recommendations for a pair new of Salk Silk Monitors. Smaller room, 13x19, dedicated 2 channel room. Cart before the horse... I have not taken delivery yet, expecting need for sub(s) Your thoughts and ideas please.

Andrew

ratso

Re: Salk Silk monitors: need for subwoofer(s)?
« Reply #1 on: 3 Jun 2017, 03:38 am »
sky's the limit of course. but I think rythmik gives you good bang for your buck. in most cases 2 subs are better then 1.
« Last Edit: 5 Jun 2017, 12:19 pm by ratso »

guf

Re: Salk Silk monitors: need for subwoofer(s)?
« Reply #2 on: 3 Jun 2017, 04:09 am »
I'm a 2 channel no sub snob. I've had a a few different floor standing Salks and a few years ago changed to larger high efficiency monitors. I love them with their beautiful mid bass and never felt they were lacking bass. A couple months ago wanting a change I purchased a Rythmik sub. Now I can't believe I lived so long with out one. It makes everything better. I really think it cleans up my mids and highs. My speakers run a little lean so I would turn them up more to get the bass to fill in and then causing them to sound a little hot. I don't think you can go wrong getting a sub, ask for a little help to set it up properly and you'll be wanting another one.  And yes I want to try 2 now also.

mresseguie

  • Volunteer
  • Posts: 3304
  • D Sachs amp/pre + Daedalus Audio Speakers = HEAVEN
Re: Salk Silk monitors: need for subwoofer(s)?
« Reply #3 on: 3 Jun 2017, 05:21 am »
You ready for a third Rythmik recommendation? I've had a Rythmik F12G for over three years now. It's bested a JL F112, a Velodyne sub, and a PSB 10" sub. I can't say how it compares to a Rel sub (which many think highly of), but I know the next time I buy a sub, it'll be a Rythmik.

I agree with Guf's assessment that two are better than one - and three are even better!

I have a pair of speakers that use the same midwoofer as the Silks, but dome tweeters. I enjoy them very much, but I do find the lower range lacking. They would benefit from the addition of a sub IMHO.

Michael
« Last Edit: 3 Jun 2017, 07:31 am by mresseguie »

Gzerro

Re: Salk Silk monitors: need for subwoofer(s)?
« Reply #4 on: 7 Jun 2017, 06:52 pm »
A subwoofer (or better yet 2) would be a tremendous upgrade.

How about Salk? He uses Rythmik speakers and amps, but Jim's cabinets are much better. You could match the finish with your Silks if you choose.

http://www.salksound.com/series.php?series=Subwoofer



milford3

Re: Salk Silk monitors: need for subwoofer(s)?
« Reply #5 on: 7 Jun 2017, 07:28 pm »
I have two subs that match very well with my mains (Hoyt Bedford Type 1's)  Look at HSU,Rythmik and SVS.  All three vendors offer great subs.  Don't know your budget but also look at the Revel line of subs.

billmcc

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 367
Re: Salk Silk monitors: need for subwoofer(s)?
« Reply #6 on: 9 Jun 2017, 04:52 pm »
Another recommendation for Rythmik. Excellent company to deal with and their subs are outstanding IMO. I have two F12SEs and couldn't be happier! I bought one used for an excellent price. The second was B stock from Rythmik that had an imperfection on the bottom of the cabinet. I looked for the imperfection but could never find it.

Bill

JLM

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 8987
  • The elephant normally IS the room
Re: Salk Silk monitors: need for subwoofer(s)?
« Reply #7 on: 9 Jun 2017, 08:10 pm »
+4 Rythmik

Ascend Acoustics sells them.  Two L12 (sealed 12 inch) subwoofers (their cheapest) run $1018.00 USD ($60 discount).

Rythmik subs use servo feedback, lots of options, and the L12 is compact (14" x 14" x 15.5") and has a F3 = 18 Hz.

jtwrace

Re: Salk Silk monitors: need for subwoofer(s)?
« Reply #8 on: 9 Jun 2017, 08:20 pm »
Looking for subwoofer recommendations for a pair new of Salk Silk Monitors. Smaller room, 13x19, dedicated 2 channel room. Cart before the horse... I have not taken delivery yet, expecting need for sub(s) Your thoughts and ideas please.

Andrew
I think a swarm from AudioKinesis would be ideal for that small room.  They're also very cost effective and Duke is a super nice guy.  You will be shocked by the result with multiple subs. 

blueflog

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 27
Re: Salk Silk monitors: need for subwoofer(s)?
« Reply #9 on: 10 Jun 2017, 01:02 am »
I'm liking the L12 direction, lots of positive comments around...

NIGHTFALL1970

Re: Salk Silk monitors: need for subwoofer(s)?
« Reply #10 on: 10 Jun 2017, 05:25 am »
Another vote for two Rythmik subs. F12G.

Ern Dog

Re: Salk Silk monitors: need for subwoofer(s)?
« Reply #11 on: 10 Jun 2017, 05:46 am »
I bought a black F12 from Rythmik and found it a bit industrial looking. The sound was excellent, better than my JL F110. I returned it and had Salk make me a Salk/Rythmik sub with the most gorgeous veneer I've ever seen. I loved it so much that I bought another one.  There are beautiful art!  Once you hear dual subs, there's no going back.

JLM

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 8987
  • The elephant normally IS the room
Re: Salk Silk monitors: need for subwoofer(s)?
« Reply #12 on: 10 Jun 2017, 11:10 am »
Jim Salk is a great guy, but $800 for veneer and going from 3/4" to 1" MDF on two subs ain't cheap and if a pair of Rythmik L12 can do the job the savings would be over $1700. 

What's the difference between L12 and F12 Rythmik subs?

Duke LeJeune is a super great guy, but a Swarm (using 10" drivers and a Parts Express stereo amp) is $1,000 more than four Rythmik L12s (with servo amps and 12" drivers).

Unfortunately both Jim and Duke lack scale of production to compete with Rythmik.


blueflog

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 27
Re: Salk Silk monitors: need for subwoofer(s)?
« Reply #13 on: 10 Jun 2017, 12:30 pm »
At the end of the day, performance has to trump beauty for my limited $$$$...

SCompRacer

Re: Salk Silk monitors: need for subwoofer(s)?
« Reply #14 on: 10 Jun 2017, 01:59 pm »
Once you hear dual subs, there's no going back.

I agree. However there are folks that think your speakers or amp sucks if you use subs. They don't understand what the room can do to a speaker. Your floor standers may measure 25Hz - 40kHz +- 3dB, but put them in 10,000 + cubic feet of space on an open wall and the room won't allow them to play +- 3dB at 25Hz.

I always suggest folks read up on what room modes can do and consult a music chart to see how low the instruments they listen to play. Then do a room sweep at listening position. If you like to listen to pipe organ music and 25 to 35Hz is -10dB, you are missing something. I use two 12" subs to shore up the 25 to 35 Hz range rather than get a -10dB hint of what I am missing. They really shouldn't be called subs in my case. Low Hz enhancers...lol

I experimented with the best placement of my SS8's doing multiple sweeps, employed acoustic treatments and bass traps, then added the subs. I found best placement for subs in my space was between the speakers and they must be against the wall. As you move to center of room from listening position, the low bass disappears. It is an education for folks that visit. You get what you accept. Still love my SS8's.


jsalk

Re: Salk Silk monitors: need for subwoofer(s)?
« Reply #15 on: 14 Jun 2017, 07:14 pm »

Unfortunately both Jim and Duke lack scale of production to compete with Rythmik.


Just to clarify, it has almost nothing to do with scale.  It has more to do with where the cabinets are made.  Manufacturing cabinets in the US is simply more expensive.  That's why the vast majority of speaker cabinets are made in Asia (China in particular) these days. 

In years past, there were many speaker building facilities in the US.  Today, there are relatively few and even some of the best names in the business are no longer manufactured here.

The cabinet is the single most expensive part of a speaker system.  Having them built in Asia is quite a bit less expensive.  But there are almost no finish options since all cabinets must be ordered without knowing who will eventually own them.

We decided early on that we would build here in the US.  That allows us to customize each product to meet a customer's desire.  Yes, it is more costly, but that customization allows us to do things that companies purchasing cabinets in Asia can't do.  Need the dimensions of a sub modified to meet space requirements?  That is no problem for us. Want subs to match your speakers.  Again, no problem.

We build quite a few Rythmik subwoofers and have a great relationship with Rythmik.  Customers who come to us want something Rythmik cannot offer.  So there is ample room for both approaches. And believe it or not, some of our customers purchase from us just so that they can support companies whose products are "Made in the USA."

- Jim


martyo

Re: Salk Silk monitors: need for subwoofer(s)?
« Reply #16 on: 15 Jun 2017, 01:50 pm »
Thanks Jim for your typical response and clarification. I have owned Salk speakers for almost 9 years. Bought Jim's from 2007 RMAF. Over the years have watched all kinds of crap, misinformation, and what have you, posted in the Salk thread and he rarely steps in to "set the record straight." When he does, as in this thread, he is always the gentleman that he is. One of the perks in purchasing Salk products is meeting and getting to know Jim (and Mary). He's also an extremely humble guy so probably doesn't even care for this post.


Quote

What's the difference between L12 and F12 Rythmik subs?


EVERYTHING!

Since Salk uses the F12 in his Salk/Rythmik subs, not the L12,  a price comparison using the L12 is misleading.
I'm always amazed when I see the price of Jim's subs compared to the Rythmiks.