Salk WoW1 Bookshelf Speaker Review

[Selah Audio]

There's nothing wrong with the crossover that I could see. The problem is way below the crossover point.

I knew the crossover wasn't the problem; however, an impedance curve isn't shown on the Salk site for comparison to what Amir measured. That would've indicated a wrong assembly and / or crossover component.

 

[ctrl]

Do you know what causes the horizontal response to rise & bunch up ~5kHz?

This is simply the usual edge diffraction, which is shifted to high frequencies due to the narrow baffle.
For the usual baffle widths of 22-25cm it is in the range 2-3.5kHz.

Where are you seeing distortion info?

As I said from (german) print-magazines. They pile up by the kilo on my shelves or are available as online subscription, unfortunately only in German.
http://hobby-hifi.de/
https://klangundton-magazin.de/

 

[MZKM]

I knew the crossover wasn't the problem; however, an impedance curve isn't shown on the Salk site for comparison to what Amir measured. That would've indicated a wrong assembly and / or crossover component.

In the Innerfidelity review, it included a Q&A with Jim and he posted one:

Looks similar, however the phase at 2kHz is more extreme in Amir’s measurements (~55° vs ~68°) and impedance at 900Hz is ~22ohm here but Amir measured ~27ohm.

 

[MZKM]

This is simply the usual edge diffraction, which is shifted to high frequencies due to the narrow baffle.
For the usual baffle widths of 22-25cm it is in the range 2-3.5kHz.

It’s using chamfered edges, do you think using a round over instead would lessen this diffraction?

 

[Selah Audio]

That measurement only starts at 200 Hz:

View attachment 74617

That usually indicates it is gated. If so, then its resolution is extremely poor in the region of our interest.

The date on the graph is 2013. You want to assure me that nothing has changed since then?

There is this note on the company website:

View attachment 74619

Where did that 48 Hz come from? It is not from the above graph so there must be another measurement.

So I suggest we wait for the company to respond instead of spinning our wheels creating work for ourselves.

A properly placed gate would still show the port artifacts and the gate wouldn't have to be that low. My guess is that this curve was taken with a rear mounted port or a sealed box. As far as the 48hz I think it was derived in the same way as the spec for the BMR monitor (34hz). If you look at the BMR measurements from the reviews done by Erin and Audioholics both are not even close to 34hz.

 

[Selah Audio]

In the Innerfidelity review, it included a Q&A with Jim and he posted one:
View attachment 74660

Looks similar, however the phase at 2kHz is more extreme in Amir’s measurements (~55° vs ~68°) and impedance at 900Hz is ~22ohm here but Amir measured ~27ohm.

Thanks for posting it.

 

[ctrl]

It’s using chamfered edges, do you think using a round over instead would lessen this diffraction?

Rounding off the side edges would, if the radius is large enough, reduce the edge diffraction and "smear" it over a larger area.

Had shown the effect of a generous round over with simulations of the Philharmonic BMR.

With original baffle:

With rounded baffle:

Details can be found in the posts:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...harmonic-bmr-speaker-review.14781/post-460966
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...harmonic-bmr-speaker-review.14781/post-461130

 

[Ilkless]

As long as the break-up does not come too close to the planned crossover frequency, it is not a problem - especially with active crossover.

The Excel W18EX001 has a maximum of 0.5% HD2 and HD3 at 90dB in the 1-2kHz range, according to magazine reports.

On the other hand, the larger 8" U22REX chassis with soft cone, which decays completely without break-up at high frequencies, has about 2% HD2 at 90dB around 700Hz and at 500-1000kHz decay delays - probably due to the flexible cone (which in this case is a disadvantage).

The devil is in the details

Distortion data from Zaph show the Revelator and Satori in the same price range have competitive, if not even better distortion. Revelator beats Excel 400Hz-2kHz in H3 (W18 has sharply-climbing H3 profile in that range) and is about equal in H2. My original point was that the Excel is not competitive in a market where Prestige provides higher distortion (remember HD correlation with audibility is stilla very fuzzy field but not FR) but smooth FR and easy crossover design (good for passive production line because less parts means lower BOM and less to QC), while high-end drivers contemporary to it distort lower and have more manageable FR. This is brought to starker relief by the release of the Purifi.

 

[Rick Sykora]

The disturbance around 500 Hz has many comparable characteristics to the one discussed at length on the Buchardt S400. If I recall correctly, the conclusion was acoustic interference caused by a directivity shift. Also was thought to be more of a measurement artifact than an audible one. @Juhazi did some extensive analysis on the Buchardt. Might be worthwhile to apply a comparable analysis to this speaker?

 

[Sonny1]

Sure thing, my bad. I just found it odd, obvious statements like 'similar hardware would push similar performance' had to be stated seeing as they're self-evident, didn't think I'd get push back on a basic comparison I tried to draw about how odd it is that devices with pick-and-choose parts (passive speaker setups) that don't have much in the way of development difficulty compared to an active speaker all-in-one, can somehow be so far behind in performance than active speakers at times.

No worries. Also, I don’t think these are pick and choose parts speakers. I believe Dennis Murphy designed them and am interested in learning why they didn’t measure as well as expected. Dennis is a very thoughtful and talented speaker designer. A lot of work went into the construction as well. I don’t doubt Amirm’s measurements.

Thanks!

 

[R Swerdlow]

No worries. Also, I don’t think these are pick and choose parts speakers. I believe Dennis Murphy designed them and am interested in learning why they didn’t measure as well as expected. Dennis is a very thoughtful and talented speaker designer. A lot of work went into the construction as well. I don’t doubt Amirm’s measurements.

I completely agree with you.

I also don't doubt the measurements amirm published here. As data, it looks correct. But microphone location can, depending on speaker design and front baffle layout, create some unusual looking artifacts. That dip centered at 600 Hz was prominent and ugly looking with very close mike placement. As the mike was moved farther away, it didn't disappear, but it's depth became much less of a problem.

And the speaker designer's intent, that these speakers were meant to be nearfield monitors, must not be ignored. They were never meant for 90 dB playback. If that is the only way to measure driver distortion with the Klippel tools, then I question his interpretation of their meaning.

 

[Sancus]

And the speaker designer's intent, that these speakers were meant to be nearfield monitors, must not be ignored. They were never meant for 90 dB playback. If that is the only way to measure driver distortion with the Klippel tools, then I question his interpretation of their meaning.

96dB @ 1m isn't that loud. If your average playback level is only 75dB you will still hit 96 on short passages and transients in plenty of music. There are other nearfield monitors in this price range that have no trouble with that playback level. So I don't agree that it's unfair to hold them to the standards of the competition at the same(or less!) size and price.

 

[richard12511]

The more I look at this, the more I actually see a really great measuring speaker, except for that one (likely) port issue, which really drags it down. The JBL 705p actually had a very similar response, yet it received a favorable review, likely because its port null was much higher Q, and the output was better.

 

[R Swerdlow]

96dB @ 1m isn't that loud. If your average playback level is only 75dB you will still hit 96 on short passages and transients in plenty of music. There are other nearfield monitors in this price range that have no trouble with that playback level. So I don't agree that it's unfair to hold them to the standards of the competition at the same(or less!) size and price.

96 dB at 1 m, if continuous, is quite loud. It is far louder than 75 dB where transients hit 96 dB. When I said the WOW1 was never meant for playback at greater than 90 dB, I meant continuous loudness, not short transients. If I remember correctly, the distortion levels were measured at both 86 and 96 dB.

Other nearfield monitors may very well be designed for such high playback levels. But comparing them to the WOW1 monitor, with different design goals, is unfair and as unwise as it would be to expose one's self to such loud sound levels for long.

 

[R Swerdlow]

The more I look at this, the more I actually see a really great measuring speaker, except for that one (likely) port issue, which really drags it down. The JBL 705p actually had a very similar response, yet it received a favorable review, likely because its port null was much higher Q, and the output was better.

Remember, it required both very high SPL and placing the microphone ½" away from the port to generate a graph with the prominent dip at 600 Hz. See amirm's comments in post #67. When the mike was about 30" away, and when the SPL was 90 dB or less, that dip was less than 5 dB, and the differences between open port or closed port were even smaller.

 

[Sancus]

96 dB at 1 m, if continuous, is quite loud. It is far louder than 75 dB where transients hit 96 dB. When I said the WOW1 was never meant for playback at greater than 90 dB, I meant continuous loudness, not short transients. If I remember correctly, the distortion levels were measured at both 86 and 96 dB.

Other nearfield monitors may very well be designed for such high playback levels. But comparing them to the WOW1 monitor, with different design goals, is unfair and as unwise as it would be to expose one's self to such loud sound levels for long.

As far as I understand, the distortion measurements are a sweep, not a long term output test, so I don't see why they wouldn't be relevant for avg playback levels of 75dB.

In any case, I'd prefer speakers be tested near their limit when possible, not to arbitrary levels that make them look good. If you're fine with the amount of distortion this produces at 96dB SPL then that's your decision. Personally I'd prefer something that stays below audible levels because I want enough headroom that I'm not likely to ever reach the limit no matter what I'm listening to or how loud I feel like playing that day.

 

[R Swerdlow]

In any case, I'd prefer speakers be tested near their limit when possible, not to arbitrary levels that make them look good. If you're fine with the amount of distortion this produces at 96dB SPL then that's your decision. Personally I'd prefer something that stays below audible levels because I want enough headroom that I'm not likely to ever reach the limit no matter what I'm listening to or how loud I feel like playing that day.

I don't have a problem with finding a speaker's limit and then testing them near their limit. The WOW1 tests done here, avoided finding the limits of the WOW1 speaker and proceeded to test them beyond their limits. The reviewer made the conclusion that the speakers were "a lot more furniture than speaker" because it failed to meet an arbitrary standard. I find that unwarranted and unfair.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Testing is part of the procedure listed in the build process that you can follow when you order from Salk. So I'm sure the speakers were tested, but I would guess that the testing might be too cursory to reveal the problems that Amir found.

My feeling on this speaker is that I will give it a chance. It will be in a small room and I won't be playing the speakers very loud. I will also have a sub or maybe two so I am willing to stuff the port. It is important to me that the speakers for this room are small and look nice, and they must be passive. So I'm not sure there is a better option. I do have a pair of Overnight Sensations (similar size but my cabinet work doesn't cut it) so I might compare them just for kicks.

Revel M105 is pretty small.
How small do you need?

Sure thing, my bad. I just found it odd, obvious statements like 'similar hardware would push similar performance' had to be stated seeing as they're self-evident, didn't think I'd get push back on a basic comparison I tried to draw about how odd it is that devices with pick-and-choose parts (passive speaker setups) that don't have much in the way of development difficulty compared to an active speaker all-in-one, can somehow be so far behind in performance than active speakers at times.

Much easier to design a speaker when you have active crossovers and especially if using dsp. Not to mention many active speakers also employ custom drivers.

 

[blueone]

The more I look at this, the more I actually see a really great measuring speaker, except for that one (likely) port issue, which really drags it down. The JBL 705p actually had a very similar response, yet it received a favorable review, likely because its port null was much higher Q, and the output was better.

When I saw the first frequency response graph I was thinking the same thing. Of course, later when I read Amir's conclusion and saw this:

"As luck would have it, I started listening with one of my headphone test tracks which is bass heavy. The response here was the worst I have heard from any speaker. Bass was muted, muffled and overall fidelity just wrong. Fortunately as the playlist progressed and I listened to typical "audiophile" tracks with light string instruments and vocals, the performance was better. But have any bass come into the picture and fidelity sinks and sinks low."

I began to wonder what was going on.

Looking at the Salk web page specs, this is a tiny speaker. Yeah, Salk says you can put it on stands and use them in the intermediate field, but the Salks remind me more of nicely built desktop monitors or nearfield studio monitors, like you'd put on the far edge of a mixing board. It would have never occurred to me to expect 90db at one meter continuously from these speakers, no less 96db. I never listen that loudly in the nearfield; more like 75db average and louder peaks for movies and some classical music. This was one of the reasons why I didn't expect a great review for the AudioEngines 5+, but got a passable one anyway, because they don't strike me as going loud all that well either.

I understand, Amir, that you want to make all of the measurements you do comparable to one another. But somehow using the same criteria for measuring a tiny speaker like this Salk using similar criteria as you would a 3-way design with 8" woofers might not be the most useful approach for consumers of your reviews. Perhaps you should consider classifications based on the most likely use model. To be more specific, perhaps consider a nearfield classification, and adjust the measured loudness levels accordingly. Just a thought.

All of this thinking out loud aside, I still keep coming back to the quote from Amir above. This speaker didn't sound very good in a simple listening test.

 

[EchoChamber]

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.