[JROE]

Basically, I am looking to break into higher end audio (not the highest, just really lovely music. Not an "audiophile" in that I'm somewhat easy to please but of course I have my preferences, which arent always very easy to describe so i wont go on too much about the exact sound I'm looking for) I'm totally taken with Van Alstine amps and Salk speakers. Something about the ethos, made in US, no middle man, no big name brand REALLY appeals to me. Ive listened to B&W, Quad, JMLab, Dynaudio, Vandersteen, Paradigm and a few others. I've liked some and some were disappointing. My budget is around $2000 give or take but not much higher. But I've pretty much made up my mind on the Salks, love the custom cabinets and the finish is stunning. What I'm getting at here is I am curious about the difference between the Salk speakers in the $2000 range. I talked to Frank at Van Alstine and he recommended the Song Towers but I really prefer bookshelf. Love small speakers with huge sound that just disappear. I will get floorstanding if its completely worth it, though. So, between the Ellis 1801, the HT1 and Song Tower, how would you compare them? I LOVE a really pure crisp warm sound. "Liquid" sounds GREAT, although i dont often hear speakers that i would describe as such. I like just really beautiful sound, a little warm is okay but i dont like "bright". Bass is great but if i had to choose between really clear, "3-D" sound or lots of bass, I would choose the clear ... but best of both worlds is probably best, LOL. Any input on these speakers would be really helpful. Any input from Salk owners who use Van Alstine amps would be great, too. I havent decided what kind of amp (tube vs. SS) and dont really know which is best. basically I need lots of help, LOL, the more the better, thanks everyone, Josh.

[fsimms]

I did a comparison of the HT1's and the SongTowers here.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=44172.0

I posted a picture at the end of the topic.

If you get a small speaker then you can always add a sub later.  The only problem with that is that you won't be able to integrate the sub as well as Jim can integrate woofers, unless you have something like a $5,000 Tact preamp to integrate the sub.  If I had a chance to do it over, I would have bought the HT3's.  Jim has a good upgrade policy in that you can get HT1's now and later trade it in for HT3's and he will give you full price for the HT1's.  I don't think you will find the HT1's as too bright at the top.  If you do, then you can return the HT1s and Jim will return your money and build you anything you want.   Talk to Jim.  He will give you straight talk.

[JROE]

Great write-up! It sounds like what i feared, both great speakers but each have strengths and "weaknesses". I think I should audition them, maybe I'll call Mr. Salk and see if i can audition without buying outright. I'm guessing the Songs will be best for me because I am not using the best source for music, forgiving speakers will probably sound better in the long run. So you would say that the HT1's are in a different league from the Song tower in terms of clarity? Hmmmmmmm, have to hear them! Thanks for your input, I appreciate it!

[95bcwh]

HT1 being bright? well I know a guy who complains that the G2 tweeter used in HT1 isn't bright enough for him..

[DMurphy]

Hi   I'm too close to these speakers to be really objective, but I can tell you what the design goals were.  In all cases, I was trying to obtain as transparent and neutral sound as possible.  None of the speakers were intended to sound "crisp" or "warm," which are actually mutually exclusive terms.  The voicing is very similar across models.  One should not sound noticeably brighter than the other.   My personal opinion is that the SongTower has the most transparent midrange, due to the smaller size of the woofers and perhaps the radiation pattern of the MTM design.  The ribbons used in the more expensive models probably give a little more detail than the 0W2 dome, although it's not exactly deficient in this respect.  As for bass, nothing can touch the HT3.   Overall, I think people might differ in their preference for the HT1 vs the SongTower.  I believe Jim does have a return policy on the SongTower (and probably the HT1), so I don't think this would be a problem. 

[DMurphy]

I kind of forgot  the 1801 was in play.  I would agree the bass is quite adequate, and roughly on a par with the SongTower in that respect.  The crossover for the HT1 and 1801 are very similar (identical for the woofer), so they sound more alike than different.  As for the choice between the 1801 and SongTower, for me it would come down to cost, and whether I preferred a standless tower, or an MT on a stand.

[DMurphy]

Oh--meant to mention that I heard the SongTowers driven by Van Alstine electronics at Pete's this weekend.  As I wrote Jim, my overall impression was "smooth."  I'm not sure what the models were, but Jim can post on that.  If I ever get around to upgrading my living room system, I think I would just tell Frank to send me what Jim's got. 

[JROE]

wow!!! TONS of great feedback, i feel i am in good company. I think i may have to get my amp/pre amp set up and see if i can audition some speakers. Right now, based on BrianM's post, I would have to say i am leaning toward the Ellis 1801. They are so gorgeous, and the description fits my needs exactly. I guess "warm" and "crisp" probably do sound contradictory but i cant really describe it better. I like very clearing instrument separation and "3-d" type sound (would that be the soundstage, or maybe imaging?) but i dont like the overall sound to be harsh, i like smooth, liquid "3-d" enveloping sound. I dont play music super loud at all but i like to know that i can if i want to, LOL. I agree that its hard to go wrong with any of em, so I am happy! These truly seem like speakers you would want to own for the rest of your life, which is EXACTLY what I'm looking for. So glad i found this company, just feels like a perfect match. I'm hoping that the sound lives up to the hype I'm building around these speakers, LOL, want to hear some so bad. How do the speakers I've mentioned compare to big name brands like JMLab, B&W or Paradigm? In terms of driver quality, build quality and overall sound? Any thoughts on that? Thanks again, all the input has been truly helpful.

[95bcwh]

From my extensive listening to JMLab, B&W or Paradigm speakers (from low end to high end), and if you appreciate transparency (i.e putting you in the same recording studio as the singer), then:
(1) no speakers from Paradigm can touch the HT1
(2) B&W 800s with diamond tweeter came closer
(3) JM-lab Micro Utopia is the closest thing to HT1

How do the speakers I've mentioned compare to big name brands like JMLab, B&W or Paradigm? In terms of driver quality, build quality and overall sound?

[DMurphy]

Well Brian, I think you put it about as well as it can be put.  I've been to a lot of concerts, and I've never thought the orchestra sounded liquid.  I've been liquid, of course, and I've also been warm, but that's because I drank too much coffee (or whatever) and sprang for the cheap seats in the balcony.   I really think "neutral" and "transparent" are about the best attributes a speaker can have.  I'm not trying to put anyone down--just trying to articulate what my personal objectives are in speaker design.

[JROE]

You guys are completely right and the more i think about it, I can tell I am confusing the MUSIC itself with the job of the speaker, which is to deliver the music with as little bias as possible. All these adjectives are really vague and I swore to myself I wouldnt resort to using them, LOL ... There's no arguing that different speakers have different qualities but so do all the components in the set up. If any set up can make me feel like the band, or performer or orchestra is IN my living room, I coudnt ask for more. Thanks guys, when i finally get my system, I will post a very non technical review : )

[jsalk]

JROE -

I have been watching this thread from the sidelines waiting until others had a chance to comment (since I am somewhat biased, I thought perhaps my opinions would be of less value to you).

I do have the same AVA gear BrianM has with the exception of the Fet Valve 350.  I have the 550.  I find these components to do a superb job with all the speakers you mention.

Brian commented that he was not sure what "transparency" really meant.  The best way I can describe it is that the Hiquphon tweeters produce a gorgeous, detailed top end.  Their 3/4" size seems to handle high treble better than any 1" dome I have personally had the pleasure of working with.  The ribbon, on the other hand, seems to have no top end at all.  It just seems to go on forever.  It is like a crystal clear window into the sound.  While I could personally live with either tweeter and be perfectly happy, you can see which we selected for our top end models.  It's just a reflection of my personal preference.

All of the speakers we choose to offer must, at a minimum, meet one requirement.  That is that they must faithfully recreate the music as delivered by the source gear.  People often ask us questions such as, "are your speakers are on the "warm" side?"  To me that implies that the speakers are adding "warmth" to the sound.  I personally find this unacceptable.  While some might find the sound appealing, it is not the sound contained in the original recording.

My early background in recoding studios has influenced my personal preferences in this regard.  I want a speaker that is neutral, truthful, accurate and detailed.  I want to hear what is in the recording, nothing more, nothing less.  So that is what I personally look for in a speaker.

I feel all the models we currently build meet that test and our customers seem to agree.

JROE, as to your comments about floor-standers or stand-mounted speakers, there really should be no difference attributable to the cabinet style.  The drivers don't know the height of the cabinet.  If the internal volume is correct for a given driver, the cabinet is tuned properly and the crossover is executed with precision (which all are in this case), the speakers will perform very well.  So floor-standing or stand-mounted are aspects of taste more than anything else.

I hope this helps.

- Jim

[JROE]

Thanks for the response Jim, of course I value your input! I think that everything i want to know would be best answered by my own ears. I simply need to compare them. The "no limit" high-end of the HT1 sounds AMAZING but it might not be the best balance of high and low end for me. Just cant tell until i hear it myself. Lookin forward to the day. Thanks again, cant tell you how nice it is to be able to talk to the maker of the product, if only everything was like that. Josh.

[BPuckett]

I’ve been following this discussion with some interest and I have been seeing several subjective terms used to describe the sound speakers (e.g. liquid, warm, bright, etc.).  No one seems to be able to describe these terms in a standardized way.  I have some information that might help.

J. Gordon Holt, the founder of Stereophile magazine (indeed, the founder of subjective reviewing of high fidelity audio equipment) coined and defined most of the terms that have been used in the audio press for the past two decades.  In 1990, the Audio amateur Press published Holt’s booklet, The Audio Glossary.  It is still available from Audio Express.

http://www.audioxpress.com/bksprods/products/bkaa7-s.htm

As an immediate help to the discussion, I will quote some of the definitions from The Audio Glossary.

“liquid – In reproduced sound, describes a complete absence of texture or grain.

texture, texturing – (1) A recognizable pattern or structure in reproduced sound, even if random in nature. (2) A sensation that the energy continuum of reproduced sound is comprised of discrete particles, like the grain of a photograph.

grainy – A moderate texturing of reproduced sound.  The sonic equivalent of grain in a photograph.  Coarser than dry but finer than gritty.

gritty – A coarse-grained texturing of reproduced sound.  The continuum of energy seems to be comprised of discrete, sharp-cornered particles.

warm – The same as dark, but to a lesser degree.

dark – A warm, mellow, overly rich quality in reproduced sound,  The audible effect of a frequency response which is clockwise-tilted across the entire range, so that output diminishes gradually with increasing frequency.

bright, brilliant – The most often-misused terms in audio, these describe the degree to which reproduced sound has a hard, steely edge to it.  Brightness relates to the amount of energy content in the 4- to 8-kHz band.  It is NOT related to output in the extreme-high-end range.

hard – Tending toward steeliness, but not quite as shrill.  Often the result of a moderate frequency response hump centered around 6 kHz, sometimes also caused by small amounts of electrical distortion.

shrill – Strident, screechy.

steely – Shrill, strident, teeth-setting-on-edge, like the screech of an un-oiled bearing.  Like hard, but more so.

crisp – In reproduced sound: Sharply focused and detailed, sometimes excessively so, due to a peak in the mid-treble region.

transparency, transparent – (1) A quality of sound reproduction which gives the impression one is listening through the system to the original sounds, rather than to a pair of loudspeakers. (2) Freedom from veiling, texturing, or any other quality which tends to obscure the signal.  A quality of crystalline clarity.

veiling – Loss of detail and focus, due to moderate amounts of distortion or treble-range restriction.

smooth (rhymes with ‘soothe’) – (1) sound reproduction having no irritating qualities; free from HF peaks, easy and relaxing to listen to, effortless. (2) To remove the residual AC (hum) component from a DC power supply.

harsh – Gratingly unpleasant to the ear; raucous.

neutral – (1) That part of an electronic device or circuit which is at ground potential, such as the chassis. (2) In a balanced AC supply, the center tap of the feed transformer. (3) Descriptive of sound reproduction which is free from coloration.”

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.  I strongly recommend you purchase The Audio Glossary.  It’s a big help when trying to decipher what audio reviewers are saying about their listening experiences.

Hope this helps.

Bob

[BPuckett]

Here's my two cents.

I think the author was trying to say, perhaps clumsily, that when you hear or see the word "smooth" within the context of audio equipment descriptions, you should think "soothe".  Audio equipment that sounds smooth is soothing to the ears.

Any engineer worth his salt, including me, should be able to explain that noise is a recognizable random pattern.  For example, the noise that can often be heard on analog tape recordings is recognized as hiss.  Hiss is a random pattern of multiple frequencies, restricted to the upper end of the audio band.  So, noise = recognizable hiss = random pattern.  Hence, noise is a recognizable random pattern.  An example at the lower end of the audio band is turntable rumble.

[TomW16]

I am a little late to the dance but I don't think that a wrong decision could be made with either the Ellis 1801s or any of Jim Salk's speakers where the crossover was designed by Dennis Murphy.  I had a pair of 1801s and they made beautiful music driven by AVA equipment. 

Cheers,
Tom