Salk HT2's versus Dali Helicon 400's

rydenfan · « **on:** 8 Oct 2007, 03:20 pm »

Hi guys. I am brand new to this forum, and looking for some guidance. I have recently auditioned the Dali Helicon 400's with the C200 Center Channel, and I was very impressed. They are a ribbon tweeter speaker as well and I am considering them in the Gloss Rosenut finish. The other speaker I am considering is the Salk HT2's with the Veracity HTC. The HT3's are not an option for me due to price, but also I am running a SVS PB-13 Ultra sub so the additional bass is not a neccisity for me. I have never heard these speakers, but have heard many positive things about Salk Speakers in general. I thought this would be the place to go to try and gain some additional insight. Thanks so much, and I look forward to the input.

carusoracer · « **Reply #1 on:** 8 Oct 2007, 05:12 pm »

Welcome aboard!

The Dali Helicon is a very nice speaker. I thought that it was very controlled and smooth with a nice extended top end with a warm sound. I thought the price was about the same as the HT3's?

I also listened to Eggleston right after hearing the Dali's,same song cuts and equipment. I thought they had very good detail and more clarity with less bottom end and a good top end but different sound.

I prefer the ribbons which is why I wanted to hear the Dali, plus the finish is nice looking.
I then auditioned the Salk HT3's and heard very extended bass,no sub needed,clear accurate midrange with low level detail and the ribbon tweeter. Not to mention my own choice of personally selected veneer. I went with the HT3's. All three are good speakers just my preference with extraordinary customer service with Salk Sound

Sorry I do not use nor heard the center channel pieces..
Good luck.

rydenfan · « **Reply #2 on:** 8 Oct 2007, 05:21 pm »

Thank you for the input! The Helicons are on a closeout special right now due to a few cosmetic changes being made to the new Helicon mkII. So, I can get the Helicon 400 Fronts and the C200 Center for roughly $4500. It is a pretty incredible deal considering the Helicon 400's are usually more than that alone. However, I am extremely interested in having my choice of finish. I am hoping to hear some thoughts on the HT2's.

DMurphy · « **Reply #3 on:** 8 Oct 2007, 06:17 pm »

Hopefully some HT2 owners will speak up. I make it a point not to compare the sound of one of my designs with a competitor that I haven't heard. The only thing that gives me a little pause about the Dali is that funny pairing of a small conventional dome with a ribbon. They must operate at least in part over the same range, and that would seem to introduce comb filtering problems. The ribbon in the HT2 has excellent dispersion horizontally, and does about as well as a 1" dome vertically, so I can't see any benefit, and definite downsides, to adding a dome. Perhaps the Dali ribbon is a good bit taller than the AC G2 we use. I couldn't tell.

rydenfan · « **Reply #4 on:** 8 Oct 2007, 06:27 pm »

Thank you very much; this is exactly the type of information I am looking for. I am really hoping for some HT2 owners to chime in as well.

rydenfan · « **Reply #5 on:** 8 Oct 2007, 08:58 pm »

Any HT2 owners out there? I expected more of a response today, maybe tonight...

Marbles · « **Reply #6 on:** 8 Oct 2007, 09:16 pm »

I would be pretty patient as there aren't very many pairs of HT2's out there.

rydenfan · « **Reply #7 on:** 8 Oct 2007, 09:53 pm »

Why is that? Is there a reason I should be aware of?

Marbles · « **Reply #8 on:** 8 Oct 2007, 10:08 pm »

No need to worry, it's a relatively new model. Most either got the HT3 or HT1.

Sparks · « **Reply #9 on:** 9 Oct 2007, 02:21 am »

I have 3 HT2s in a L\C\R configuration.
I am also a Helicon fan and seriously considered the 400's but due to my room, the tweeter\ribbon was above ear level, plus the price.
Lately I have had some extended Helicon listening time, between the 300s, 400s and 800s.
I'm not considering selling my HT2s, a friend has a friend who is selling the Helicons and we did some serious listening.

The 800s have better bass than the HT2s which should be obvious.
I think my configuration lacks a bit in that area in that I haven't taken the time to really dial-in my dual CS-Ultra subs.

Although the Dalis were not the first ribbon speaker I heard, after hearing them I knew I wanted a speaker with a well-implemented ribbon.
For a high-end that has endless extension, there's nothing like it, imo.
You could say that hearing Dalis led me to Salk speakers.
As far as comparing the HT2 against the 400, I like the HT2 better in the highs and mids.
I feel a more direct connection to the music. Cymbals, etc., are more detailed with better decay.
IMO, the Helicons have a bit more "forgiving" nature than the Salks.
This may or may not be an advantage depending on what you listen to and your preferences.
3 strong points of the HT2s, 3D imaging, detail and cleanliness.

Rydenfan, if your room allows for 3 HT2s instead of the HTC I would highly recommend it.
BTW, I have the sealed monitor version, not the floor stander so my bass is limited in comparison but
for my setup, the sealed ones work better.

No doubt you are getting the 400s\C200 for a great price so the decision is a toughie.
I can say I have no regrets as far as the Salks.
What's your associated gear?

The Dali ribbon is 10 x 55 mm.

DMurphy · « **Reply #10 on:** 9 Oct 2007, 02:37 am »

"The Dali ribbon is 10 x 55 mm"

That's the same as the G2, so I still don't understand the need for a companion dome tweeter. Now you've got my curiosity up.

Sparks · « **Reply #11 on:** 9 Oct 2007, 03:56 am »

Dennis,
If you look at the Onix Ref 3's, they combine a ring and ribbon tweeter but not as an integral unit.
See here:
http://www.av123.com/products_product.php?section=speakers&product=38.1

Sorry for the OT addendum but I've noticed that many MTM\D'Appolito speakers have the tweeter offset from the mids.
The SongTowers are an example.
1. Why is this?
2. Why aren't the HT2s?
Thanks.

95bcwh · « **Reply #12 on:** 9 Oct 2007, 05:24 am »

I owned a HT3, I listened to the HT2 briefly at RMAF06, the mid and high of HT2 were pretty close to that of HT3.

Recently I visited a local Hi-End store - Esoterick and listened to the Dali Helicon 400. I agreed with what "Sparks" has commented, i.e. the mid and the high of the HT2 is cleaner and more "transparent" than the Helicon 400. On good recordings, the HT2 should bring more realism to your ears, however, on bad recordings the Helicon 400 would be more pleasing to your ears. So take a pick.. aa aa

satfrat · « **Reply #13 on:** 9 Oct 2007, 05:39 am »

Quote from: 95bcwh on 9 Oct 2007, 05:24 am

I owned a HT3, I listened to the HT2 briefly at RMAF06, the mid and high of HT2 were pretty close to that of HT3.

Recently I visited a local Hi-End store - Esoterick and listened to the Dali Helicon 400. I agreed with what "Sparks" has commented, i.e. the mid and the high of the HT2 is cleaner and more "transparent" than the Helicon 400. On good recordings, the HT2 should bring more realism to your ears, however, on bad recordings the Helicon 400 would be more pleasing to your ears. So take a pick.. aa aa

I'm not sure how you can compare 1 set in your home, another set in a motel room and yet another set in a store and be able to make any sort of accurate comparison between the 3. Too many variables imho.

ctviggen · « **Reply #14 on:** 9 Oct 2007, 09:55 am »

So, the supertweeter in the Onix Ref. 3s starts at 15 kHz? Yikes! That's a strange design -- the bass/midbass and two tweeters overlap in frequency range by quite a bit, whereas the midbass/tweeters don't overlap at all.

As for comparisons, these are always hard to draw when comparing different rooms and different equipment. Heck, I have a hard time comparing speakers in the same room with the same equipment.

95bcwh · « **Reply #15 on:** 9 Oct 2007, 12:51 pm »

I played the same track, put my ears 2 feet away from the tweeter/midrange and listen.

I was talking about the mid and high, I am not talking about attributes like soundstage, imaging, bass, etc etc that's more room independent.

Even if my comparison is not valid by your "superior" standard, it's still my conclusion based on what I heard, I cannot say what my ears didn't hear.

Quote from: satfrat on 9 Oct 2007, 05:39 am

I'm not sure how you can compare 1 set in your home, another set in a motel room and yet another set in a store and be able to make any sort of accurate comparison between the 3. Too many variables imho.

rydenfan · « **Reply #16 on:** 9 Oct 2007, 01:09 pm »

Sparks & 95bcwh , thank you so much for you comments! They are extremely insightful. You make me feel like I cannot really go wrong either way. I have kind of a laundry list of gear; but currently I am auditioning a Cary Cinema 11 and an Integra 9.8 for pre's, and I have an Emotiva MPS-1 Amp. I am a true 50/50 split between 2 channel listening and Home Theater.

rydenfan · « **Reply #17 on:** 9 Oct 2007, 01:12 pm »

Quote from: DMurphy on 9 Oct 2007, 02:37 am

"The Dali ribbon is 10 x 55 mm"

That's the same as the G2, so I still don't understand the need for a companion dome tweeter. Now you've got my curiosity up.

Dennis here is the link to the Helicons... They are one of the largest speaker companies in Europe.

http://www.dali.dk/us/page245.aspx?sub=266&prod=248 (front speakers)
http://www.dali.dk/us/page245.aspx?sub=266&prod=250 (center channel)

DMurphy · « **Reply #18 on:** 9 Oct 2007, 01:37 pm »

I read through the brochure and other discussions, but I couldn't find any description of the dome-ribbon crossover. I noticed that they claim the speakers are "time coherent." I really doubt that, at least not in the rigorous meaning of the term. I would be amazed if those things could pass a square wave in tact. But they still may sound fine.

DMurphy · « **Reply #19 on:** 9 Oct 2007, 02:00 pm »

Sorry for the OT addendum but I've noticed that many MTM\D'Appolito speakers have the tweeter offset from the mids.
The SongTowers are an example.
1. Why is this?
2. Why aren't the HT2s?
Thanks.

[/quote]

That was covered in a previous thread, but I can't find it now. Briefly, the idea (which isn't limited to MTM's) is to avoid serious diffraction dips or peaks caused by sound waves diffracting off of the edges of the baffle and returning either in or out of phase and cancelling each other or augmenting each other. If the tweeter is centered, then there is a greater chance of a large peak or dip at specific frequencies. If you mount the tweeter so that the side distances aren't equal, then you have a better chance of avoiding large effects. But it all depends on the baffle width, crossover frequency, and drivers. I found some problems with the tweeter centered on the prototype ST, and changing the position did help. I didn't notice anything problematic when I was working with the HT2.