[redskinsfan]

Hey guys, I haven't seen a lot of discussion in the forum about the HT1/HTS combo and  how it would compare to the HT3 in terms of bass extension, imaging, etc. While they share the same tweet/mid drivers, the HT1/HTS config sports the larger 12'' woofer (still TC Sounds?), which would seem to argue for deeper bass response. Also, and I apologize for the ignorance of this question, but are the HT1 and HTS physically connected in some fashion (jumpers?) with one set of binding posts (on the HT1 or the HTS?). I've been following the Salk forum for a couple of years, and I have to say that IMHO, the craftsmanship and value represented by the Salk product line are without peer.

[Nuance]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is an HTS?  I thought HTS was the home theater speaker package offered by Salk?  I assume the HTS is some sort of subwoofer?   

[DMurphy]

Right--unless Jim's been even busier than I thought, there isn't any "HTS" sub with a 12" woofer.  The HTS is a whole series of relatively inexpensive home theater speakers with crossovers by Jeff Bagby and cabinets by Parts Express. 

[Miney]

I think the OP is referring to the Veracity HTS ... an integrated subwoofer specifically for the Veracity HT1?

[DMurphy]

Whoa   I didn't even know that existed.  I've worked with a modified 12" TC sounds driver in a ported cabinet, but  not sealed.  I guess Jim has been busier than I thought.

[Miney]

Whoa   I didn't even know that existed.  I've worked with a modified 12" TC sounds driver in a ported cabinet, but  not sealed.  I guess Jim has been busier than I thought.

LOL guess I spend more time  on Jim's website than the man who engineers those great Salk crossovers?

[Nuance]

Whoa   I didn't even know that existed. 

Me either.  That is pretty cool looking, though.  I'd love to see some outside or in-room measurements of that badboy!

[mpd]

Jim built the HTS sub to my specifications.  Its genesis was my decision, well after purchasing a pair of HT1s and subject to my wife's lack of enthusiasm for a separate, large subwoofer, to add a high-quality woofer module that could also do double-duty as a home theater sub.  In retrospect, if I had purchased an HT3 from the start, I would likely have gone with a single, 15" ported sub for HT effects.  That said, I am very happy with this combination.  The 12" driver has a ton of excursion and is in a very small box (1.3 cubic feet, if I remember correctly).  I have a Crown K1 amp and a Behringer 2496 EQ to deal with the fairly high F3 of 50Hz.  I think it's fair to say that this combination is the equal of the HT3 while offering the additional advantage of allowing bass management via the Behringer equalizer.  It doesn't have quite the HT punch that you might find with a couple of 15" dedicated subs but it's plenty in my 22x20x9 room for all but the most extreme effects.  To answer your specific question, there are separate binding posts for the HT1 and HTS sections.  Design-wise, if I had to do it over from the start, I would have Jim install low-profile speaker cups and spikes to better couple the HT1s to the sub module.  Right now, I use some super tack just to keep the kids or the dog from accidentally knocking the HT1s from their perch. If you your primary interest is 2-channel and don't have any tricky room modes to deal with, you should go with the HT3.  If, on the other hand, you do have a problem room or have a big amp and want a little extra punch, the HT1/HTS combo may be the ticket.  Good luck.

Mike

[Nuance]

Mike, thanks for the info; really sounds amazing!  Would you mind posting pics?  I'd love to see this setup!

[redskinsfan]

Sorry for the confusion, guys; I should have specified Veracity HTS. In my defense, the submodule is referenced on the HT1 web page, with a link to its very own page, as Miney noted. I had forgotten about the HTS line of home theater speakers.

 As a longtime sufferer of ''subophobia,'' I was looking for a HT setup that would ''plumb the depths'' without a dedicated sub, and as Mike noted in his post, the sub modules are more than up to the task. My dream system would consist of a pair of Veracity HT1s, cabinets: hand-rubbed piano gloss black with cocobolo stringers and a solid wood baffle of museum-grade cocobolo, perched atop a pair of satin black sub modules, an HTC with satin black cabinet and solid wood baffle matching the HT1s (to go in the middle in a 2'' thick satin black maple rack from Timber Nation_check out their web site, Chris Futrick builds beautiful racks), and HT1 on-wall surrounds like the pair Jim built for Randy Bessinger, with cabinets and baffles matching the HT1 monitors, all powered by an Earthquake Cinenova5 or ATI 3005 300 wpc SS amp, setting all the speakers to LARGE at my pre/pro. I haven't thought about this stuff very much. 

P.S.: Would the differences in bass extension produced in sealed or ported floor standers or monitors apply in the same fashion to on-wall surrounds? In other words, would it be feasible to build a front-ported on-wall surround, for purposes of deeper bass extension, or would cabinet volume considerations make it impractical? 
 

[mpd]

Here is link to a posting that includes pictures of my setup:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=42853.0

And here is Jim's Veracity of the Month story:

http://www.salksound.com/gallery-votm-0406-2.shtml

To your question about surrounds, I don't think much is gained by trying to push their low-end response.  First, most surround mixes tend to locate the low frequency content (i.e. <80Hz)  in the LFE or L/R front channels.  Second, as you point out, a ported surround, which might have extended response over a sealed configuration, would be larger than most of us want to contend with.  I imagine that some multi-channel SACD or DVD-Audio recordings might have some low frequency content in the surrounds but a current generation DVD player with bass management should be able to move that content to the LFE channel.


Enjoy.

Mike

[DMurphy]

Well, actually, Jim switched to a ported configuration after he built Randy's sealed pair.   I believe the internal volume of the box is the same as for the HT1, which is ported to begin with.  It's the sealed version that actually isn't quite optimal for bass response.  I just had one of Randy's here to take some reference measurements for him to key off while he's learning how to do his own measurements, and the bass was pretty restrained, even for a surround.  So I think the issue is now moot. 

[redskinsfan]

Thanks, Mike, for sharing your thoughts and experience with your equipment. As you indicated, in my proposed 5.0 system, absent a dedicated LFE channel, most of the low frequency material would be directed to the L/R front channels, where the HT1/modules would reproduce all but the lowest bass effortlessly.

Thanks also to Dennis for relating that not only is a ported on-wall surround feasible, it is now the standard in the Salk line.

It's really great to be able to share our thoughts, ideas, experiences, and enthusiasm for what we all consider to be some ''most excellent'' audio gear. Salk Sound rocks. Period.