[Rob Babcock]

Any owners here of the Salk Veracity QW?  I'm pretty intrigued by them, as they're not only cheaper than the HT3 but look like a decent fit for my system (I have a pair of subs, so the bass edge of the HT3's would be irrelevant).

How do they stack up against the HT3s, soundwise, from 100 hz on up?  Again, I don't care about the bass so much, but how do the dynamics and tonal qualities compare to their big brothers?

Living in SD I don't have much chance to hear stuff without just buying it.

[jsalk]

Rob -

I don't know if any forum members have ever heard the QW's.  So I thought I would pass along a few comments.

The QW's are basically a Veracity HT1 2-way in a mass-loaded quater-wave tube cabinet design.  This cabinet design is based on the pioneering work of Martin King.  It is basically an 80" tall transmission line cabinet folded in half, the main benefit of which is extended bass response.

As Alan Sull commented in his audioreview.com review, "By far, they are the most impressive 2-way design I have run into, and aside from the HT3’s, clearly the best speaker under <$10k I have witnessed."

They were really designed to be the ultimate 2-way speaker.  Many people have commented that they are the most neutral, natural 2-way they have ever heard.  

The HT3's, by comparison, will have slightly lower distortion in the midrange since the W18 does not need to play below about 300Hz.  But other than that, they are voiced pretty much the same as the HT3's and perform about the same above 100Hz.

But depending on where you crossed over to your subs, the extended bass response of the QW's may not be necessary. The HT1's also sound about the same above 100Hz.

All three speakers feature Dennis Murphy crossovers and are voiced very similarly.

I hope this helps.

Also, just to address your comments about being in SD.  I fully appreciate that purchasing a speaker you have never heard is stress inducing.  My solution has been to offer the ability to return Veracity speakers if they fail to meet your needs for any reason. My intention is to remove much of the risk involved in such a purchase.  But, in all honesty, I do this knowing full-well that the risk on my part is minimal to say the least.

- Jim

[MaxCast]

Rob, when your done auditioning the HT1's, send them to me  
What subs you using again?

Hope to listen to some HT1 or 3's in Chicago as I probably won't make it to RMAF.  

[brj]

Jim, what are the -3dB values for the HT1, HT3 and QW's?

I believe that the HT3's are good down to -29Hz, but I don't know the corresponding values for the HT1 or QW...

Thanks!

[Hogg]

I own the Veracity QW's.  They were prototypes owned previously by Dennis Murphy.  I like it the best of the Veracity series.  I've heard the HT3's at Zybar's home and like the mellowness of the QW's better .  It suits my listening.  If you're anywhere near NYC, I live in Connecticut, come have a listen.

                                                                       Jim

[Marbles]

I own the Veracity QW's.  They were prototypes owned previously by Dennis Murphy.  I like it the best of the Veracity series.  I've heard the HT3's at Zybar's home and like the mellowness of the QW's better .  It suits my listening.  If you're anywhere near NYC, I live in Connecticut, come have a listen.

                                                                       Jim

       

Where were they at the Rave???

[Rob Babcock]

Rob, when your done auditioning the HT1's, send them to me  
What subs you using again?

Hope to listen to some HT1 or 3's in Chicago as I probably won't make it to RMAF.  

I'm using a pair of Hsu TN-1220's in my main rig.  Bass isn't an issue.  Right now I'm using a 60 hz X-over point.

When is RMAF?  I suppose there's an outside chance I might be able to attend.  That's a bit of a trip, but maybe flying out would work.  Will Salk be showing anything there this year?

[Rob Babcock]

BTW, I'm used to buying stuff "sound unheard."     It goes with the territory when you live in the stix like I do.

[Bingenito]

RMAF is Sept 30th-Oct2nd

Basic Show info:
http://www.audiofest.net/

Jim's demo room is 594.

[ctviggen]

Jim,

Was that with or without the TACT at Zybars?  I've heard mixed reviews of the HT3 -- some people say they're too bright/aggressive, which is a characteristic I personally cannot stand.  However, I would think that the TACT would be able to reduce brightness/agressiveness.  Maybe I'm wrong, though.  The TACT can modify frequency response, but perhaps Zybar likes brightness so has that (higher frequencies) tuned higher.  Or perhaps what people quantify as "brightness" (or "aggressiveness") doesn't necessarily equate with high frequency response.

[zybar]

Jim,

Was that with or without the TACT at Zybars?  I've heard mixed reviews of the HT3 -- some people say they're too bright/aggressive, which is a characteristic I personally cannot stand.  However, I would think that the TACT would be able to reduce brightness/agressiveness.  Maybe I'm wrong, though.  The TACT can modify frequency response, but perhaps Zybar likes brightness so has that (higher frequencies) tuned higher.  Or perhaps what people quantify as "brightness" (or "aggressiveness") doesn't necessarily equate with high frequency response.

I find that Jim's speakers pass what they are given.  Having tried a few different amps on the HT3's it was easy to hear the differences in each.  When I recently tried a pair of TacT S2150 amps, the sound became congested, muddied, lost dynamics, and had a grainy character to it when compared to the sound of the DNA-500.

I bring this up, because if you had never previously heard the HT3's or my system, you would form a very different opinion based on the amp change.

As for the TacT...yes, you can tune the sound with the TacT, but I am not really doing that.  For everything about 200Hz I am trying to "mostly" follow the response of the speaker (which works well anyway b/c of the excellent driver response).

The RM 40's were much more aggressive/bright sounding than the HT3's to my ears given all of the same equipment.

Lastly, I do appreciate that something like brightness and aggressiveness is very subjective and will vary from person to person.  Ten years ago when I was in love with the SET sound, I probably would have labeled what I currently have as being bright/aggressive.  Instead, I now view it as being musically engaging, less colored, and more accurate and detailed.  
 

George

[Hogg]

I own the Veracity QW's.  They were prototypes owned previously by Dennis Murphy.  I like it the best of the Veracity series.  I've heard the HT3's at Zybar's home and like the mellowness of the QW's better .  It suits my listening.  If you're anywhere near NYC, I live in Connecticut, come have a listen.

                                                                       Jim

       

Where were they at the Rave???

Marbles,   the QW's were upstairs.  You'll have to come again and listen to them

[Hogg]

Jim,

Was that with or without the TACT at Zybars?  I've heard mixed reviews of the HT3 -- some people say they're too bright/aggressive, which is a characteristic I personally cannot stand.  However, I would think that the TACT would be able to reduce brightness/agressiveness.  Maybe I'm wrong, though.  The TACT can modify frequency response, but perhaps Zybar likes brightness so has that (higher frequencies) tuned higher.  Or perhaps what people quantify as "brightness" (or "aggressiveness") doesn't necessarily equate with high frequency response.

I believe George had the TACT in the mix.  As George stated, brightness or forwardness is very subjective.  Maybe you can arrange a listen at my home and George's.  

[Marbles]

Did you pick them up when you were at DM's house?

How do they compare to your other speakers?

Thanks

[jsalk]

A few thoughts on "brightness"...

Speaker "brightness" is an ill-defined term that can describe a number of aspects of speaker performance.

For example, many speaker designs, including many well-respected designs, roll off the high frequencies slightly.  This is typically done with traditional dome tweeters that exhibit moderate distortion levels at high frequencies.  This distortion typically leads to listener fatigue and prevents long-term enjoyment of the speakers.

This roll-off typically falls well withing the normal +/- 3db range that defines a speaker's frequency response.  And it is a very wise design decision where some dome tweeters are concerned.

Now, if a listener is used to such response, they will tend to define a speaker with flat response as being overly "bright." It is simly not what they are used to hearing.

The G2 ribbon in the Veracity series speakers is a highly detailed, low-distortion driver with essetially flat natural response well beyond audibility.  So upper treble distortion is not an issue with this driver.

When designing the Veracity series speakers, Dennis Murphy and I decided to voice the speaker as flat (accutate) as possible.  The result is speakers that will accurately produce minute detail in the high treble area.

Anticipating that perhaps some people would not prefer this type of response, or that they may have an overly bright room or have a collection of early CD's with excessive high-end emphasis, we decided to offer an optional "contour" switch.  This switch substitues a capacitor and resistor combination to roll off the high-end response.

I normally do not recommend it, nor would I use it myself.  Rolling off the top-end response results in a loss of high end detail.  I prefer to hear all the detail contained in the recording I am listening to.  And with great recordings, the reproduction is phenominal, IMO.

I have had a few Veracity customers (very few), upon recieving their speakers, ask if the high end could be rolled off.  But in EVERY case, a week or so later they determined that the problem was not that their new speakers were overly bright, but that their old speakers were totally lacking in high-end detail (in comparison).

From my personal experience with users, those who have taken some time to live with flat, high-end response with minimal distortion, will never again be satisfied with speakers that have a rolled-off high-end response.  While some first-time casual listeners may percieve the Veracity speakers to be slightly "bright." I have found it is mostly due to the bias they developed over time with their current speakers.

To me, it is an issue of distortion.  Even a moderate level of distortion in the high treble will lead to listener fatique.  In this case, rolling off the response is essential for good design.  But the G2's distortion levels are so low, it allows you to voice the speaker flat with no risk of fatigue.  In fact, owners universally comment that they can listen for very extrended periods of time without any negative effects.

In the end, if listener fatigue is not an issue (and it doesn't appear to be with the Veracity designs), then I would personally prefer flat speaker response so that the speakers can accurately reproduce minute detail in the high treble. The resulting "transparency" is like a crystal clear window into the sound.  And with great recordings, it is something I would never personally trade away.

That said, if a customer prefers a rolled off high end response, we will do our best to accomodate.  After all, they are his or her speakers, not mine.

Just some thoughts...

- Jim

[Bingenito]

Nice response. I am not concerned about brightness but to satisfy my own curiosity are the HT3s and QW voiced the same (Flat)?

[jsalk]

Nice response. I am not concerned about brightness but to satisfy my own curiosity are the HT3s and QW voiced the same (Flat)?

Essentially yes.  If you change anything in a design, it impacts the final retult.  Since the cabinets are different, the results will never be exactly the same.  But that aside, they are voiced very similarly.

- Jim

[Hogg]

Did you pick them up when you were at DM's house?

How do they compare to your other speakers?

Thanks

Marbles,
  Yes, I picked-up the QW's from Dennis, when I visted him in Jan 2004.  The QW's are vey nice speakers; not as insightful as my Tannoy's or ATC active monitors.  They have much in common with the Cadence Avita's you heard but with less dispersion in the treble.  Afterall, the Cadence uses a small electrostatic panel for the treble.
   The nature of the QW's with my gear, Naim and LFD, as well as what Dennis was using, Marsh electronics, is relaxed but clear presentation with excellent imaging.  I didn't like the QW's with my tubes, the bass wasn't as defined and tended to be a little sloppy.  This was too much to gove up for a little better midrange.
     Of course my QW's are early prototypes and the cabinets were definetely not done by Jim Salk.  I usually leave them in the bedroom, as they're a little rough to look at  

                                                                          Jim

[Bob Wilcox]

I was at George's house when he hooked up the HT3s. I thought they sounded a bit bright for the first few hours. I am not sure how many hours may have been on them before George got them.

One factor in this brightness may have been the awesome dynamic range of the DNA 500 and the HT3s ability to take the high instantaneous watts being fed to it with my ears ability to take it as possibly the weakest link.

One CD that stood out was Wynton Marsalis' The Magic hour where the rim shots on the track The Feeling of Jazz were scary.

Bob

[jsalk]

Brian -

Jim, what are the -3dB values for the HT1, HT3 and QW's?

I believe that the HT3's are good down to -29Hz, but I don't know the corresponding values for the HT1 or QW...

Thanks!

The F3 for the HT1 is about 45Hz and the QW's is about 38Hz.  However, the nature of the QW's is that, depending on placement and the resultant room gain, it can effectively be another 3 - 5 Hz lower.

- Jim