Salk WoW1 Bookshelf Speaker Review

[MZKM]

So, I thought @jsalk would receive the speaker and get back to us if there were an issues (like the dip from 600-700 Hz)?

 

[JPA]

I remember when Salks started... I always thought they gave too much importance to the cabinet finish and exotic woods. An acquired taste for sure (one I didn’t acquire). Looks like they know how to build cabinets and to mount decent drivers on them, but obviously not how to actually design a speaker.

Jim Salk builds the cabinets, but farms out crossover design to others, most notably Dennis Murphy.

 

[Aperiodic]

The quoted post is ignorant IMJ. Salks have knocked my socks off many times. To make statements like that based on one review of one model on one website seems silly, especially when one's profile page boasts of an 'addiction to learning'. They definitely know 'how to design a speaker'. If you want to save on cabinetry, many companies, including Salk, will paint the cabinets for you. Other people want other things.

The most Salk could be considered guilty of is working a little too hard to paint a rosy picture. Anyone should be able to figure out that a minimonitor with a 4" woofer is not going to do what a big floorstander with a 12" woofer will do. Puh-LEEZE.

 

[dtaylo1066]

I have listened to many Salk speakers at the RMAF over many years of shows. I thought they all sounded quite good, some were certainly excellent. To employ that type of syllogistic logic, based on this forum's measurments of one model, one would conclude that Schiit Audio would suck, as would Pro-Ject, NAD, B&W, Arcam, Mytek and many numbers of brands or companies that had an individual model not get a recommendation from Amir.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Jim Salk builds the cabinets, but farms out crossover design to others, most notably Dennis Murphy.

If you actually look at the measurements, the only issue was with the box tuning via the slotted port, a problem shared with other attempts to extract maximum bass reach out of a very small woofer in a small volume (see Amir's review of the Ascend Luna). And even then the problem arose only at the very high output levels Amir tends to inflict on speakers that were never designed to be used that way. or purchased for that purpose.

 

[richard12511]

If you actually look at the measurements, the only issue was with the box tuning via the slotted port, a problem shared with other attempts to extract maximum bass reach out of a very small woofer in a small volume (see Amir's review of the Ascend Luna). And even then the problem arose only at the very high output levels Amir tends to inflict on speakers that were never designed to be used that way. or purchased for that purpose.

Yeah the measurements actually look fairly good. I was surprised how good they were when I looked back at the first page, given my memory of how the review went. We've seen other speakers with similar measurements(good overall, but big port hole) that got golfing panthers(705p, 708p). The main issue here seems to be that they didn't get loud enough or low enough, which is understandable, given the size.

 

[MZKM]

I did notice the sensitivity on the product page for this speaker is now lower (82dB from 84dB), but it is still inflated.

 

[thewas]

If you actually look at the measurements, the only issue was with the box tuning via the slotted port, a problem shared with other attempts to extract maximum bass reach out of a very small woofer in a small volume (see Amir's review of the Ascend Luna). And even then the problem arose only at the very high output levels Amir tends to inflict on speakers that were never designed to be used that way. or purchased for that purpose.

The directivity mismatch of tweeter without WG is imho its biggest issue (DI drops around 5 dB again from 2 to 4,5 kHz) and can be seen also in the PIR as also correctly commented by Amir.

 

[TankTop]

I think this type of review (if done well) is great for the audio community and industry. When a manufacturer shows up to a negative review and engages honestly everyone wins in the long run.

Maybe if Dennis could send in the new Songtower II, let’s get to the real meat and potatoes of Salk

 

[pjug]

I have been using the WOW1 upside down. The reason being they sit well above listening level, and even tilted down the axis is a little above ear level. So vertical directivity measurements look like it should be better this way. I don't really notice a difference, but it got me thinking:

Would this kind of small front slot ported speaker do better with the tweeter below the woofer? Would the port resonance problem be reduced by moving the woofer further away from the port? Or is this all to do with pressurization of the box such that it wouldn't make a difference?

 

[richard12511]

The directivity mismatch of tweeter without WG is imho its biggest issue (DI drops around 5 dB again from 2 to 4,5 kHz) and can be seen also in the PIR as also correctly commented by Amir.

You're right. I was mainly looking at on axis and LW, which pretty good(similar to JBL 700 series). That directivity error is pretty large, though, and can't be fixed with EQ. The Directivity Index in the CEA2034 really shows the problem well, imo. 2 ways with no waveguide are hard to do right. I would bet Salk's 3 ways look much better.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

You're right. I was mainly looking at on axis and LW, which pretty good(similar to JBL 700 series). That directivity error is pretty large, though, and can't be fixed with EQ. The Directivity Index in the CEA2034 really shows the problem well, imo. 2 ways with no waveguide are hard to do right. I would bet Salk's 3 ways look much better.

I had also forgotten about the directivity measurements. There certainly is an issue, but I'm still not convinced that it's always important. It's interesting to compare these measurements with those of my mod to the Pioneer BS-22, which Amir loved. The woofers are similar in size and dispersion. What's different is the 3/4" Hiquphon 0w1 tweeter, which has broader dispersion than the 1" Vifa unit in the Pioneer mod. The crossover point is about the same for both speakers. There is a greater disparity in the radiation pattern of the WOW1 woofer and tweeter, but there is also greater dispersion in the highs. I don't think we can conclude that one speaker will sound "better" or more "accurate" than the other. My guess is that many people would prefer the WOW in a blind test. And I'm also not convinced that placing a wave guide on the 0W1 would improve the sound. This is a very old design, and I currently try to avoid the issue by choosing tweeters that can operate down to around 1900 Hz for 2-ways. In that regard, the SB Acoustics 25mm ceramic tweeter does very well--low distortion down low while still maintaining broad dispersion. I recently changed one of my designs that used a more expensive Aurum Cantus AMT to the SB. Not as sexy, but definitely a better unit.

 

[Spocko]

That's another old, odd duck in the Salk line that is rarely ordered. I certainly didn't have it in mind when I designed the BMR, and its horizontal dispersion won't be nearly as wide as the BMR's. The BEATs tower is a much more current design that's more representative of what Jim is actually selling these days.

In the Salk line between the BMR and SS7M, for midrange monitoring where accuracy and neutrality are paramount, which would you recommend?

 

[Dennis Murphy]

In the Salk line between the BMR and SS7M, for midrange monitoring where accuracy and neutrality are paramount, which would you recommend?

I think the BMR is as accurate and neutral in the midrange as any of the Salk designs below $5,000. The dispersion pattern is different, though. It's much broader on the BMR. What type of music would you be listening to primarily?

 

[dtaylo1066]

Dennis: How you feeling these days? Is Philharmonic back in operation? How do you like the SBA ceramic dome vs a silk dome?

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Dennis: How you feeling these days? Is Philharmonic back in operation? How do you like the SBA ceramic dome vs a silk dome?

I'm totally back in the speaker biz. Lots of Covid-generated sales, particularly of the BMR towers. SB Acoustics has greatly improved their driver lineup and they're excellent values. The ceramic tweeter is very smooth and clean, although quite frankly most 1" domes sound way more alike than different.

 

[Spocko]

I think the BMR is as accurate and neutral in the midrange as any of the Salk designs below $5,000. The dispersion pattern is different, though. It's much broader on the BMR. What type of music would you be listening to primarily?

It’s to master vocals and dialogue for work but also listening to acoustic guitar and small jazz ensemble during my breaks so deep bass is not necessary - it will be in a smallish 10’ x 10’ space with an open door. For work I need to accurately hear all the minute tongue clicks, sibilance and other annoying vocal artifacts that people want speakers to hide. I’m flexible on dispersion as I can angle it on axis as necessary

 

[dtaylo1066]

I'm totally back in the speaker biz. Lots of Covid-generated sales, particularly of the BMR towers. SB Acoustics has greatly improved their driver lineup and they're excellent values. The ceramic tweeter is very smooth and clean, although quite frankly most 1" domes sound way more alike than different.

I have two of the SBA 5-inch ceramic mid-bass units (8 ohm) and am deciding which tweeter to match the with.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

I have two of the SBA 5-inch ceramic mid-bass units (8 ohm) and am deciding which tweeter to match the with.

The ceramic tweeter will certainly work. No need for anything with high sensitivity. You'll probably end up with around 82 dB after baffle step compensation using the 8 Ohm version of the 5" ceramic.

 

[dtaylo1066]

The ceramic tweeter will certainly work. No need for anything with high sensitivity. You'll probably end up with around 82 dB after baffle step compensation using the 8 Ohm version of the 5" ceramic.

I am presuming you used the SBA 4-ohm in your mini?