I have heard numerous Salks at shows. They have generally sounded quite ood and their reputaion as a business is excellent.
A Freudian slip? -- good or odd ? -- I couldn't resist, sorry.
This seems unfair. I have heard a number of Salks. Have you? ... we see the acrimonious, endless subjective-vs-objective debate playing out.
Do You say something like "measures bad, sounds good"? Or do You expect this speaker to be out of specs, defective?
... out of sync with the intended level and type of discourse encouraged on this site. ... nothing in Jim's quote that is dismissive of measurements. I should know--I've been designing the crossovers for Jim for something like 15 years, ... in a previous life he was a professional sound engineer. ... it's the audible results that count in the end. ..
Usually sound engineers are not interested in loudspeakers. They simply have to work. These people have other problems than your crossover. Why should they be a guarantee for good construction in their new life?
My experience with such references is rather that these people make a big "I know what I'm talking about" blast and then continue in the most flowery hifi gazette language that you might wonder. No idea what Jim (?) thinks about that. Anyway, as a sound engineer he will have been essentially just a user, just like everyone else.
The published measurements on the SALK page are rather poor. A little ironed out frequency response, from 200Hz, well, and nothing else. That speaks for itself. 'In all silence.
Well, we have, as with the ribbon for the BMR Symphonic (?), the question whether this is a hard engineering design, like Revel, Genelec pp., or whether SALK fulfills the most fervent dreams of tinkerers: great special drivers, presentable housings?
Let's get down to the point: did you do the crossover here? Does it fit? Thanks!
I'm not sure what your point is, ... but if the speaker is an easy fix, then I don't see the problem with someone saying they would still buy it.
I don't know what Your point is in missing my point?!