[DMurphy]

Hi Funkmeister.  Thanks for putting everything into perspective.  Any improvements from the RAAL are going to be way out there on the diminishing returns curve.  If you like the Salk speaker you have, then at best you might like it very very slightly more with the RAAL.   If you don't like what you have, then you won't like it with the RAAL.  I probably have more invested in this than anyone else simply because I enjoy coming as close to perfection as I can, and the RAAL does have the smoothest response, lowest extension, and tightest quality control of any ribbon I've worked with.  It just makes my job easier.  But that may not translate into a significant audible difference.  I am hoping to get the chance to test that theory out, however. 

[Marbles]

Well, since Pandoras box is open....what speakers would benifit from an upgrade to the (or an) Accuton midrange?  I'm thinking of the HT3 or HT1.

[lowtech]

Dennis, Now that diminishing returns and Accuton have been mentioned in the same thread, what do you think about Mark K's results for the C44? http://www.audioheuristics.org/measurements/Testing/Midrange2/midrange_2_test_data.htm?  Have you ever compared the C44 (C50-8-44) to the C79-6 (C90-6-79)?

[ctouhey]

[snip]
I have come to realize that no matter what I buy, that a couple of days, months, or occasionally years later there is always something that comes along that is "better" than the top of the line thing that I already own.  I do my best to enjoy what I have, and not worry about, or lust for the new hotness too much. 

Cheers

Well said.  I've just received my HT3s, and I really am not interested in looking beyond.

If the Soundscapes were available when I began looking, would I have considered them?  Yes.  Would I have not purchased my subwoofers?  No, I needed them for movies – to balance the room.  Can there be better sounding speakers than my HT3s?  Probably.  But they sound so much better than anything I’ve ever experienced, I still need a lot of time to even appreciate what I have.

I’m quite happy with what I have and at this point, my eye does not stray.

Chris

[charmerci]

Well said.  I've just received my HT3s, and I really am not interested in looking beyond.

I’m quite happy with what I have and at this point, my eye does not stray.

Chris

Ha! Easy for you to say - you have the walnut burl HT-3's!!!!  I'll continue my own lust, thank you. 

[DMurphy]

Well, since Pandoras box is open....what speakers would benifit from an upgrade to the (or an) Accuton midrange?  I'm thinking of the HT3 or HT1.

Uh--Why don't we just call the HT3 upgrade the SoundScape10. 

[DMurphy]

Dennis, Now that diminishing returns and Accuton have been mentioned in the same thread, what do you think about Mark K's results for the C44? http://www.audioheuristics.org/measurements/Testing/Midrange2/midrange_2_test_data.htm?  Have you ever compared the C44 (C50-8-44) to the C79-6 (C90-6-79)?

Hi  I've used the C44 in a custon design with the big RAAL tweet, but I've never used the Parts Express RS dome.  So I can't verify that they're as close as Mark maintains.  None of those units would have been appropriate for the SS series because they have sealed backs--there would be no backwave to take advantage of in the open-back design.  I have no doubt that the C-79 is well out there in diminishing returns land.  But it does test out extremely well, it had a clear advantage in our controlled listening tests, and it's small enough to provide the wide dispersion we were particularly interested in.

[Rocket]

Hi,

I've extensively heard accuton midrange and midrange/bass drivers for many years.  They are great sounding components and reveal the many inner details of recordings.

That said until I purchased my ht2 speakers I had never heard seas components and I have to say the w18 driver sounds excellent.  I also had a pair of focal speakers that used 7k4211db mid/bass driver and raven 1 ribbon tweeter.  The implementation of lcy and seas in the ht2 is clearly a level better than my old speakers (I sold them to a friend and hear them from time to time).

It sounds like some customers want to salk sound to revamp their product line or possibly product se versions of the same products.

Regards

Rod

ps I suffer badly from upgraditis but almost everytime I listen to my speakers I keep thinking why on earth do I want more 

[Big Red Machine]

Well said buddy.  Well said.

Agree.  The RAAL over the G2 would not be worth the rework and shipping hassle for the HT3 IMO.  I'd like to see a new Accuton mid/RAAL tweet HT2TL version though.   And then the HT3 as we know it could be put out to pasture, so to speak?

[funkmonkey]

Agree.  The RAAL over the G2 would not be worth the rework and shipping hassle for the HT3 IMO.  I'd like to see a new Accuton mid/RAAL tweet HT2TL version though.   And then the HT3 as we know it could be put out to pasture, so to speak?

I thought this would be very interesting as well...  perhaps it would be better called a SoundScape2-TL though...  MTM layout, but only the bottom mid-woofer using the TL, the top one would be open backed.   

[DMurphy]

I thought this would be very interesting as well...  perhaps it would be better called a SoundScape2-TL though...  MTM layout, but only the bottom mid-woofer using the TL, the top one would be open backed.   

And then you would have an expensive, really insensitive design with added crossover complexity and not nearly the SPL capability of the regular HT2TL.  Frankly, the upgrade that makes the most sense to me is the RAAL HT3. 

[jsalk]

There are two issues here - modifying existing designs and retro-fitting existing speakers.  Each has its considerations.

If someone wanted an HT3 with a RAAL tweeter, we're game.  But I'm not sure it makes all that much sense.  Where do you stop?  If we were going to re-work the HT3's for the RAAL, we might want to take another look at the midrange as well.  Oh, and we'd probably want to re-tune the woofer section and incorporate some passives.  Gee, we'd probably end up with a much more expensive speaker...something along the lines of the SoundScape 10's 

The fact is, the current HT3's are a very good design and I don't know if I'd want to mess with it at this point.

As for retro-fits, that makes even less sense.  While we would certainly do just about anything a customer would want, driver holes would need to be re-cut and, since the edges would be rough, the speakers would probably need to be re-finished. The labor involved makes it an expensive process.  Then, of course, there would be the cost of new tweeters and new crossovers.
 
As for whether or not the gains would justify the cost, I recall when we first worked with the LCY tweeters, we looked at re-working all of our designs to incorporate it.  But when we compared LCY designs with G2 designs, it just didn't seem to make much difference.  Upgrading all models didn't make sense since the sound quality wouldn't change much at all.

I suspect the same would be true here.  Yes, the RAAL is better. But how much difference would you hear? When you look at re-working an existing cabinet, swapping out the tweeters and replacing the crossovers, I doubt any gains could be cost justified.

There is no end to the tweaking that could be done with any design.  But at some point, I think you just have to go into production and hope people like the decisions you have made along the way.  I personally like the driver combinations in all of our speakers (or we wouldn't build them) and don't see any compelling reason to change them.  When "new" and "improved" drivers some on the market (which they will), we will simply design new speakers to take maximum advantage of them.  To me, that seems like a better approach since you are not tied to any existing design element that would prevent you from getting the most out of these new drivers.

- Jim

[DMurphy]

I agree with most of what you say--certainly retrofitting makes zero sense.  But I still think a RAAL upgrade for the HT3 would make some sense, since anyone forking over that much money is really serious about sound, and the upgrade premium might not seem so large.  The crossover mod would certainly not be a problem.  But the more I think about offering the RAAL on all or most of the other speakers, it just seems like a lot of work with lots of potential for confusion. 

[jsalk]

Agreed.  We will do whatever anyone wants - HT3's, HT2-TL's, etc.

- Jim

[funkmonkey]

And then you would have an expensive, really insensitive design with added crossover complexity and not nearly the SPL capability of the regular HT2TL.  Frankly, the upgrade that makes the most sense to me is the RAAL HT3.

  ...and this is why I am not a speaker designer   

[GhostintheToast]

Agreed.  We will do whatever anyone wants - HT3's, HT2-TL's, etc.

- Jim

And THAT  is a big reason why I'm a Salk customer, dedication to customer service....  along with amazing speakers.

_____________________________________
Currently listening to:
Delta Spirit - People Cmon

[Rocket]

Hi Jim/Dennis,

Is there that much sound quality difference between an accuton mid/bass and seas mid/bass?  The seas mid/bass driver used in my ht2 sounds very good and is better than focal ime.

I'd be interest in your collective comments.

Thanks

Rod

[DMurphy]

The Seas W18 is awfully good.  But it is a 7" driver.  The much smaller Accuton will have better dispersion, and soundtaging is part of what the SS is all about.  And the small Accuton has less breakup at the top end, which allows a simpler crossover and even more precise tracking of the 4th order acoustic slope. But to give you a really informed opinion on sound, I would have to drill a big hole in the back of my HT3 to release some rear wave information and compare with my SS10. 

[Big Red Machine]

Shazam!  3 inches do it for ya?!

[DMurphy]

Shazam!  3 inches do it for ya?!

You're going to have to do better than 3", dude.