[TNTguy]

Hi folks. I have started to look seriously into a Salk speaker purchase. Their reputation, as you already know, is outstanding. I have done some reading through the site but haven't found what I have been looking for. I have a question about the audible performance differences between the floorstanding Veracity models.

All 3 use the same mid-bass driver correct? How does the G2 ribbon sound in comparison to the LCY ribbon? I have heard about how wonderful the spatial detail and soundstaging is on the HT3, just wondering how well that translates into the HT2 models. Is the soundstage width and depth as large on the HT2 models? I know each step up in the line has an increase in bass but I am not really as concerned with bass performance as I am with tweeter/midrange performance. Just trying to get more of a feel for how much I would be giving up with the HT2 models.

Also, where do the Veracity QWs fit in? I don't really hear them talked about as much. Thanks.

[Art_Chicago]

I know that Jim and Dennis are working on the HT1-TL  just to make your choice a bit easier 
It uses G2/SEAS W18 as the HT3, I believe.
Anyway, welcome to AC/Salk!

[vintagebob]

I asked this question when I ordered my home theater set of Speakers (HT2-TL, HT2 Center and HT1s) and this was the answer I got back from Jim.

"Can you just clarify for me, which tweeters will be used in the HT-Center and HT-1s?  G2s or LCYs and does it really matter at all for multi-channel music?"

Jim's Response:

"Since you ordered HT2-TL's, we would use the HT2 center channel rather than the HTC center channel.  That way all three front speakers will have the came LCY tweeter.

The HT1's use the G2 tweeter as it was designed before the LCY existed.  From an audible standapoint, there really isn't any meaningful difference between the two.  And for surround duty, having identical drivers is not important.  For music, it is more of an issue, but there is not real reason to re-design the HT1's at this point since they would basically sound identical (they are voice exactly the same as the HT2's).

I hope this answers your question.

- Jim"

[R Swerdlow]

Yes, the HT1, HT2, HT2-TL, and HT3 all use the same Seas W18 woofer.

According to Dennis, the LCY ribbon works better with MTM speakers because its smaller faceplate allows the woofers and tweeter to be located closer to each other.  He seems to like the LCY ribbon as well as he likes the G2 ribbon.  I haven't heard a direct comparison, so I can't comment about them.

The HT1-TL will have one W18 woofer and a LCY ribbon tweeter (similar to the HT2 models), instead of the G2 as in the HT1 and QW.  It will probably replace the QW model, but Jim has not made any announcement about this yet.  Its cabinet should be less complicated to build than the QW's and as a result might cost less.

[DMurphy]

Yes, the HT1, HT2, HT2-TL, and HT3 all use the same Seas W18 woofer.

According to Dennis, the LCY ribbon works better with MTM speakers because its smaller faceplate allows the woofers and tweeter to be located closer to each other.  He seems to like the LCY ribbon as well as he likes the G2 ribbon.  I haven't heard a direct comparison, so I can't comment about them.

The HT1-TL will have one W18 woofer and a LCY ribbon tweeter (similar to the HT2 models), instead of the G2 as in the HT1 and QW.  It will probably replace the QW model, but Jim has not made any announcement about this yet.  Its cabinet should be less complicated to build than the QW's and as a result might cost less.

That's all correct We're still futzing with the tweeter placement of the HT1TL, but it shouldn't take much longer.  Even less if I weren't clowning around in Jackson Hole Wyoming. 

[TNTguy]

Wow. Great info guys. A couple of follow up questions.

So the only difference between the HT2 and HT2-TL is the extended bass response? Also, how is the vertical dispersion of the LCY ribbon? I am coming from a metal dome tweeter where the sound wasn't as good when your ears went above tweeter level. Just wondering how that works with the LCY ribbon.

[R Swerdlow]

So the only difference between the HT2 and HT2-TL is the extended bass response?

Yes, the drivers are the same, and the crossovers are very similar or identical (not sure which).  The only difference is the cabinet design and the resulting bass alignment.  The HT2 is in a ported bass reflex cabinet, and the HT2-TL is in a mass-loaded transmission line cabinet.  If you decide on one of those, I'd recommend the HT2-TL.

Also, how is the vertical dispersion of the LCY ribbon? I am coming from a metal dome tweeter where the sound wasn't as good when your ears went above tweeter level. Just wondering how that works with the LCY ribbon.

All tweeters, dome or ribbon, will do that to varying extent.  With domes, the smaller the diameter of the dome, the less this is a problem.  With ribbon tweeters, the shorter the vertical dimension of the ribbon, the less it suffers from narrow vertical dispersion.  The LCY ribbon has one of the shortest (if not the shortest) vertical dimension of any ribbon tweeter, and because of that, it has the best vertical dispersion among ribbon tweets.

[jsalk]

One other difference worth considering is that the QW, the HT2-TL and the upcoming HT1-TL designs are much less sensitive to placement issues than any other speaker in the Veracity series.  They can be placed closer to room boundaries with fewer consequences than a typical ported design.

As for other differences, the HT2's and HT2-TL's are more sensitive (requiring less power) and lower distortion designs (due to the fact that the W18's share the load).

There was also a question about the QW's.  A little history is in order.  We first came out with the Veracity HT1's.  The thought was that a TL version using these same drivers would play deeper than the stand-mounted HT1. The result was the development of the Veracity QW's.

Not too long after that, we came out with the HT3's. 

Even though the QW's are a wonderful speaker (the first person to review them said he thought they might be the best 2-way speaker there is), it seemed like people who could afford the HT3's would go right to that model, bypassing the QW's.  So we haven't built all that many over the years.

The SongTowers achieved great success with an MLTL cabinet.  So we decided to do the HT2-TL (which turned out to be an extremely good performer).  We like the results so well, we decided to design an MLTL HT1-TL and simply replace the harder-to-build QW's.  So the HT1-TL will have all the great sound qualities of the QW's, but it will use the same LCY tweeter as the HT2's and the same cabinet style as well.

Since there is no reason to have two TL-based MT 2-ways, the QW's will probably no longer be offered.

I hope this helps.

- Jim

[oneinthepipe]

Jim:

What are the differences in the cabinet design of the QW and the HT1-TL?  Aren't they both MKTL design's?  I seem to recall that the QW has a bottom mount crossover, but are there other differences, and if so, what are they and how do those differences effect the sound?

Additionally, would there ever be a valid reason to build a TL-based sub?  Either as a stand alone unit or a unit to mate with the HT1?  I know you once wrote that a TL-design could not go as low as a non-TL design, but it could go low enough, couldn't it?  The HT2-TL have an F3 of 32hz.

What about a hybrid 3-way, with a LCY tweeter, a W16 or W18 mid-woofer in a sealed cabinet, and another W18, pair of W18, or a W22 in a TL cabinet, whether in a single cabinet or a modular design?  The way design would deal with any additional midrange distortion because of the two way design, correct?  Maybe we can talk about a pair of one offs.  I've got the bug.

[R Swerdlow]

What are the differences in the cabinet design of the QW and the HT1-TL?  Aren't they both MKTL design's?  I seem to recall that the QW has a bottom mount crossover, but are there other differences, and if so, what are they and how do those differences effect the sound?

There are several ways to design a transmission line cabinet, some are very complex to build, and thanks to Martin King, some are as simple to build as a ported reflex cabinet.  I haven't seen the inside of a QW cabinet, but I'll guess that it uses a folded and tapered transmission line.  These are complex and time consuming to build.  The MLTL designs, with the careful choice of woofers and cabinet dimensions, sound just as good, but are much simpler to build.

Additionally, would there ever be a valid reason to build a TL-based sub?  Either as a stand alone unit or a unit to mate with the HT1?  I know you once wrote that a TL-design could not go as low as a non-TL design, but it could go low enough, couldn't it?  The HT2-TL have an F3 of 32hz.

Good question.  I suppose there is no reason why it can't be done, although it might be as large as a 3-story doghouse.  The more practical question is with the extended bass response that a TL cabinet gives to smaller woofers like the W18, why would you need a TL sub with it's wide tuning range?  A simple sealed sub might handle the narrow range of bass that the HT2-TL couldn't.

What about a hybrid 3-way, with a LCY tweeter, a W16 or W18 mid-woofer in a sealed cabinet, and another W18, pair of W18, or a W22 in a TL cabinet, whether in a single cabinet or a modular design?  The way design would deal with any additional midrange distortion because of the two way design, correct?  Maybe we can talk about a pair of one offs.  I've got the bug.

I'll let Jim answer that.  But I think there is another issue here.  This guy has a pair of HT2-TLs and all that other nice gear, and he's still got the bug .  This may require an intervention .

[oneinthepipe]

....  I think there is another issue here.  This guy has a pair of HT2-TLs and all that other nice gear, and he's still got the bug .  This may require an intervention .

If I didn't have the bug, I never would have the HT2-TL and the other gear.  It didn't all show up on the same day, you know. 

I don't really have the bug, and I am very happy with my system as is, especially with the addition of the tube DAC a few months ago and the tube amp that I received the week before last and some other stuff that I have been thinking about getting, such as a preamp to match with the second DAC and the second amp, and something for my AIFF files, etc.

[oneinthepipe]

Additionally, would there ever be a valid reason to build a TL-based sub?  Either as a stand alone unit or a unit to mate with the HT1?  I know you once wrote that a TL-design could not go as low as a non-TL design, but it could go low enough, couldn't it?  The HT2-TL have an F3 of 32hz.

Good question.  I suppose there is no reason why it can't be done, although it might be as large as a 3-story doghouse.  The more practical question is with the extended bass response that a TL cabinet gives to smaller woofers like the W18, why would you need a TL sub with it's wide tuning range?  A simple sealed sub might handle the narrow range of bass that the HT2-TL couldn't.

That is a good point. My question is probably indicative of my lack of knowledge about subs and other audio-related issues.

[jsalk]

Jim:

What are the differences in the cabinet design of the QW and the HT1-TL?  Aren't they both MKTL design's?  I seem to recall that the QW has a bottom mount crossover, but are there other differences, and if so, what are they and how do those differences effect the sound?

RSwerdlow answered that question very well above.  There should be no difference.

Additionally, would there ever be a valid reason to build a TL-based sub?  Either as a stand alone unit or a unit to mate with the HT1?  I know you once wrote that a TL-design could not go as low as a non-TL design, but it could go low enough, couldn't it?  The HT2-TL have an F3 of 32hz.

One main advantage of a TL design is bass extension.  When we started work on the HT4, we assumed that we would use a TL cabinet for the bass section so we could get down to 20Hz.  But when we built the prototype cabinet, we ran into a significant problem.  At 20Hz, the air velocity at the terminus is so high, you could dry you hair with it.  The resulting "port noise" was objectionable.  Making the terminus larger to allow less restricted airflow resulted in changing the tuning.  So there was no practical way of resolving the issue.

The solution was to use passive radiators.  This allowed an F3 of about 18Hz with absolutely no port noise.

What about a hybrid 3-way, with a LCY tweeter, a W16 or W18 mid-woofer in a sealed cabinet, and another W18, pair of W18, or a W22 in a TL cabinet, whether in a single cabinet or a modular design?  The way design would deal with any additional midrange distortion because of the two way design, correct?  Maybe we can talk about a pair of one offs.  I've got the bug.

You are basically describing what we started with when designing the HT3's.  We simply ended up using a woofer that was even more capable than the W22.  And we're taking this concept one giant step forward with the impedning 10" version of the HT4's.

- Jim

[Paul K.]

When I designed the prototype tapered TL section for the HT4 woofer, I had to use a very aggressive design to fit it into the allowable space.  That meant the single-fold line had a length of only ~60", thus it needed to be tapered at a ratio of ~30:1 in order to obtain a low enough 1/4-wavelength resonant frequency that would be optimum for the woofer as well as achieve the desired F3.  If the woofer had been a typical one with an Xmax of 6 mm or so, the terminus air velocity would not likely have ever become an issue.  But this woofer has an Xmax of almost 1" and when driven hard puts out a lot of air movement.  Thus the terminus air velocity was just too high.  So Jim did the wise thing and used passive radiators instead of ports or a tapered TL.  Now for my own peace of mind I modeled a different tapered design for the HT4 woofer.  In a box 45" tall, I was able to use a much less agressive taper because the single-fold line was longer at 90", and the resulting terminus area was 3 times as large as what I ended up with the 60" long line.  Not having built this box, I can only speculate, with some level of confidence, however, that its terminus air velocity would have been acceptable.  Before anyone, especially Jim, thinks I felt criticized by Jim, I do not.  I've thoroughly enjoyed being able to participate in the TL design for the Songtowers, HT2s and the upcoming HT1, and hope to be able to continue my contributions in the future.

[R Swerdlow]

Paul - Thanks for that explanation. 

A 45" tall TL subwoofer cabinet is big but it doesn't quite qualify as a 3-story doghouse.  It does make me just a bit curious to know what it would sound like.

Richard