Salk WoW1 Bookshelf Speaker Review

[GelbeMusik]

That validates my point that they are cabinet makers and not speaker designers. I wouldn’t call designs conning from the DIY community something we should look at outside of a curious exploration. It’s likely developed without proper measurement gear and methodology, like a hobby, for fun. With plenty of assumptions and little validation. Nothing compared to what Genelec, JBL, Kef, and other serious speaker manufacturers with real design and engineering teams would produce.

I listed some numbers above. I have to correct them down by 6dB. The reason is a wrong specification of the maximum excursion in WinISD. So there is still 70dB average level left if you want to have about 15dB dynamic - in one meter distance mind you. This is really not much. Especially the bass should be barely perceptible at these low levels, although the weak construction aims at deep bass, they say. After all, the small driver doesn't disintegrate completely despite heavy overload.

Basically such small pieces of equipment are not suitable for HiFi as it is meant. Who likes it, fine, but hifi, rather not.

The driver of the genelec used here for comparison is already much bigger. No wonder that it can do something.

But I find it remarkable that SALK advertises with products that enjoy a mystical reputation in hobbyist circles. First the ribbon everywhere, then SEAS Exel, even those funny diamond things.

What else I noticed are correct, but self-evident statements, which however encourage misinterpretation.

The xo's are phase-coherent, so they think they have to point out as a special feature. Sure, always! Otherwise xo's just don't work at all.

Or even wrong statements, like that a BMR has no partial vibration / break up or something. On the contrary, their operating principle is based entirely on it!

And about taste, after all, one can only argue.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)


Ab

 

[cOz]

Hello all first post here, I've read the forum on many occasions and see value in the efforts. Unlike most people on this thread, I've actually owned these speakers in the past ( My Speakers ) and I think most people are missing the point of this speaker. It is very small and can't be considered a full range speaker. For what it is worth, I enjoyed owning them and listening to them for a few years. I never expected them to be a full-range speaker or to not have imperfections. I even considered rebuilding them as a three-way as Troels did in this design Three Way The tweeter and mid are fantastic and I'm sure they sound wonderful as a three-way. Salk as a company is wonderful and they build great speakers. They have other models that will run with any speaker in their price range. I think it is unfortunate that this speaker was chosen to review as anyone buying it knows that they have made a compromise to hit the small size.

 

[Xyrium]

I almost wonder if Salk mixed up crossovers from a different speaker model or something.
Every speaker I have heard from Salk has been a good listen.

I was under the impression that Salk was a carpenter, not a speaker (or xover) designer. So, your assertion could be correct. I wonder what their QC measurements are before releasing a product.

 

[MZKM]

I was under the impression that Salk was a carpenter, not a speaker (or xover) designer. So, your assertion could be correct. I wonder what their QC measurements are before releasing a product.

There is nothing wrong with the crossover in the speaker. The main negatives are:

1) No usable bass <50Hz
2) Low sensitivity
3) Port issues ~600Hz
4) Baffle diffraction ~5kHz.
5) Tweeter distortion

 

[Aperiodic]

I don't think that would be fair. This is the only mini speaker that Salk makes.

I have heard numerous Salks at shows. They have generally sounded quite ood and their reputaion as a business is excellent. I have not heard these. There's only so much you can expect with a mini monitor no matter how well the design is executed, so if it were me, I'd spend more internslly and a lot less on artistic cabinetry ( a matte black finish suits me fine).

One thing about Salk, they don't seem to have a 'house sound' like a lot of speaker brands do that reflects the manufacturer's idea of 'how a speaker should sound'. The design details between models are quite different and, unsurprisingly, so is the sound.

Loudspeakers (and other transducers) are notoriously difficult to measure. If you doubt this, google 'Shure SE535 frequency response' for an assortment of 'professional' FR plots that bear almost no resemblance to each other. I assume all of the measurers tried to get it right. There's an old saying that it's possible to design a speaker that measures great but sounds terrible, so perhaps the opposite is also possible? Magneplanars come to mind; look at a response graph and you would think "Ugh. No. Next." But people who kave them generally love them.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Well... My real life experience has been the opposite (I’m a DIY guy as well, at least I was). Often DYI audio gear have issues because the designs are not fully mature and the technology not well understood. It takes time, knowledge, perseverance and a lot of thinking, validation, re designing, and professional experience to get it right and well balanced. It’s a process that’s hard to achieve at a hobby, DYI, level.

That's why most DIY folks should build a kit. There are many plans and kits available that were created by superb engineers and speaker designing talents.
Many of these folks give away their plans and otherwise sell at a very reasonable price.
In other words there are some staggeringly good designs available.
If you want to DIY from the ground up you will have to look at it as an art and plan to develope over time. Honesty though that said with all the forums, software and cheap measurement gear one can do well sooner vs later.

 

[rmsanger]

I love me some Salk Speakers but this wouldn't be his bread and butter... The Song Tower / Ribbon / Veracity is more up his alley. I doubt per $ his will ever measure as the top of the heap but his work is almost an art piece it's that good. Again his main products are inefficient but do sound quite good.

 

[beefkabob]

Judging by this speaker, the only reason to buy Salk over Revel is for looks.

From the Salk website:
"I'll admit it, I do love technical equipment. But I also realize that gear is not an end unto itself. It is simply a means to an end. In the end, it is not about what equipment is installed. It is about the experience. Success or failure is based solely on the magic that results. In the final analysis, it comes down to one very simple question: Is it, or is it not, a stunning audio experience?"

Translation: We wow you with looks and then you think you're getting a good product. Measurements? Pshaw! Magic, baby! Magic. Magic! MAGIC! LOOK AT THE PRETTY BOX!

 

[napilopez]

I don’t get it—the speaker measures poorly, as if there are fundamental problems with its design, and it certainly isn’t cheap, yet a bunch of people are stating “I’m going to buy it anyway.” Why flush money down the drain like that?

Because different people balance priorities differently. For some, having a good looking, well made speaker from a small business adds value. Salk also has a reputation for providing excellent support, and that's important too.

Not to mention that the only real problem this design has, the dip from 500-700Hz, is readily EQable. The rest, at least in terms of FR and directivity is actually very good. Horizontal directivity is excellent, and the listening window is very flat, especially for a passive design, and especially above 2K or so where I tend to feel linearity is more important.

From a reviewer's perspective, I very much agree that a passive speaker should not require EQ to fix major errors. But from a consumer perspective, I wouldn't really care. Same way I don't really care if a burger comes with yucky pickles if I can just take them off.

This also isn't directed just towards you, but I'm also of the opinion the ASR community is suffering a bit from a sort of compression of what constitutes a "good" speaker. Let's face it, were kind of snobs.

This is partly because most what has been reviewed are 'good' speakers from companies known to take a Harmanesque approach and likely not representative of the market as whole. Look at all the Revels, KEFs, JBLs, ELACs, Pioneers, Infinitys, and studio monitors.

Compare that to the number of B&Ws, Klipsch's, Martin Logans, Zus, Monitors, Paradigms. And yet, these brands are plenty popular and people still enjoy them a bunch!

I get it, we're a picky a bunch. But whenever a speaker doesn't measure in the top 10 or something, people seem to assume it's 'bad.' If a speaker scores below a 7 and Amir didn't like it, the default reactions seem to be either "this speaker is an awful deal" or to insinuate it's silly to spend money on that speaker when you can get something that scores better/seems to be preferred by amir. Imo that's too narrow a perspective.

Personally, I think there are just a lot of good speakers these days. I've enjoyed speakers that measure less than perfect. Over a large average, the preference score is likely a good indicator of preference over a few decimal points but for individual, sighted preference, I feel I need a solid 2 point difference to feel completely confident in my preference of one over the other.

That validates my point that they are cabinet makers and not speaker designers. I wouldn’t call designs coming from the DIY community something we should look at outside of a curious exploration. It’s likely developed without proper measurement gear and methodology, like a hobby, for fun. With plenty of assumptions and little validation. Nothing compared to what Genelec, JBL, Kef, and other serious speaker manufacturers with real design and engineering teams would produce.

This is a faulty assumption, imo.

When it comes to the basics of directivity and frequency response, you really don't need all that much fancy equipment. An anechoic chamber makes certain things easier but even then chances are you'll have to do some 'DIY' measurements anyway, because chambers aren't anechoic all the way down to 20Hz. That's why even Neumann and Dutch and Dutch use ground plane measurements. (By the way, if I recall correctly, the D&D 8C started as a project on DIYAudio).

And frankly, measuring speakers, especially bookshelf speakers, isn't really all that hard. Time consuming, yes, but not difficult.

If having access to resources were so important, we'd see much better speakers from a lot of the giants.

 

[EchoChamber]

That's why most DIY folks should build a kit. There are many plans and kits available that were created by superb engineers and speaker designing talents.
Many of these folks give away their plans and otherwise sell at a very reasonable price.
In other words there are some staggeringly good designs available.
If you want to DIY from the ground up you will have to look at it as an art and plan to develope over time. Honesty though that said with all the forums, software and cheap measurement gear one can do well sooner vs later.

Agree, that’s what I’ve done for my speakers. They are both full kits designed by SB Accoustics. They are excellent IMO, maybe one day Amir will be able to measure them. I find my ARA Be pair to perform far better than the already excellent Buchardt Audio S400 I had before them.

That and XLR cables are pretty much what I DIY today. Fairly easy and low risk projects where my contribution is only in the assembly process, not the design. In the past I’d build DACs from an evaluation board or a power amp with Hypex modules, add my own power supplie(s), op amps, chassis, etc... I was often rewarded with high end performance at an affordable price (not counting my time).

But there were also plenty of disappointments... It was fun to explore and learn, I once built a pair of open baffle full range speakers out of curiosity, they sounded horrible, lol...

 

[GelbeMusik]

Because different people balance priorities differently.

Ja, now include the phases of the moon and we have arrived. Pardon the sarcasm, but there comes a time when that relativization stops.

Not to mention that the only real problem this design has, the dip from 500-700Hz, is readily EQable.

Sorry again, but this relativization of the mischief can be a real pain in the neck. If the measurements made are valid, then this is simply crap. You just want to provoke.

For the price quoted you could ask for a few hundred years of cumulative engineering experience, don't you think? That's the promise of, say, Genelec, Neumann, or K&H, Revel. Any problems? Nope! Why? Competence! Complaints? Poor guy!

This is not arrogance, it's just a realistic view of the market. There are good ones, and not so good ones. Pity, sure. But that's what this site is for. Maybe you can paint the ugly Genelecs, if there is a need in this direction.

At least the offer from Salk is fortunately not without alternative. Whew!

 

[CDMC]

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.

Based on a sample size of one. I purchased a pair of WOW1s and while not sounding terrible, were not what I hoped for. I would not have purchased them had I not experienced his other speakers that perform far better, the Surround One and the Song 3. Unfortunately, it looks like the dud may have been the first one measured. I would gladly supply my Surround One for testing, which if you look at my measurements on Page 4, measures far better compared to the WOW1.

 

[jsalk]

First off, thanks to Amir for running these tests and conveying his appraisal.

We sent these speakers to be evaluated at the request of a customer. While the speakers were intended to be shipped from Amir to the customer after the tests were completed, yesterday we requested that they be shipped back to us for a closer inspection. Until they are returned and we’ve had a chance to evaluate them, I can’t comment on what we may find with respect to this particular pair.

That said, perhaps a review of the origins of this speaker might be in order.

As I’ve said many times in the past, speaker design is all about balancing trade-offs. There is no such thing as the “perfect” speaker.

About eight years ago, a customer requested we build a custom speaker he called the WOW1. The name came from the Seas Excel “W”12 and the “OW1” tweeter. As I recall, the reason he chose the Seas W12 was to match his existing speakers which used larger Seas Excel woofers.

In a perfect world, that might have been the only pair we ever built. But we don’t live in a perfect world.

Every day we receive emails asking us to recommend a speaker that can overcome issues related to an intended application. An example would be a situation where one speaker sits in an open area with plenty of room behind the speaker, while the other speaker must fit in a corner with a glass wall right next to it. Or a tower speaker that can’t be over 35” tall. The list is endless.

We also must deal with issues related to other household members. Comments like “my spouse will not agree to floor standing speakers,” or “my partner does not want to see any speakers,” are quite common.

After we designed that first pair of WOW1’s, we continued to get requests for speakers that were very small (mini-monitors) and would fit inside an existing bookshelf cavern or mounted on the wall…applications where rear porting was not feasible (rear porting is always an option).

We also had many requests for a small speaker that could be mounted on a wall for home theater surround duty, crossed to a sub at 80Hz.

Another common request is a small speaker to be used at relatively low volume levels for a computer monitor, again placed against a wall.

While none of these situations are necessarily ideal, the WOW1 design is the only design we currently have available that can meet those requirements. If another design would work better, we would certainly recommend it instead. But most often, interest in this design is related to obstacles that prevent the use of larger speakers, or even rear-ported speakers.

When someone orders a pair of these speakers, we normally like to know how they intend to use them. Often, they are used as computer monitors, surround speakers crossed at 80Hz, crossed with a sub in a small system or for casual background music in a den or bedroom. If not, we normally recommend they look at another, better suited design. After all, it makes no sense to sell someone a speaker that would not work for them, especially when selling direct on the internet where negative comments can spread quickly.

We have another design called the SongBird. When people attempt to order them, I most often encourage them to look at the SongTowers instead. The SongBirds are a wonderful sounding speaker. But the sensitivity is low and the power handling is limited. Some potential purchasers have indicated that they rarely ever crank the speakers up to high SPL’s. I make sure they understand that they can never do it with this design. And yet, in the right situation, it is a particularly good speaker.

The WOW1’s were never intended to be main speakers in a serious listening environment. We obviously wouldn’t choose a 4” woofer for that purpose. As was pointed out, this driver would be better suited as a midrange. But a larger woofer is simply not an option on a speaker of this size. And even that size is considered too large for some. The other day I received an email asking if we could reduce the WOW1 height for a bookshelf application that only allowed a 10” tall speaker. Another customer asked if we could build a speaker that was 10” on a side and played at SPL levels of 110 – 115 db (we obviously passed on that one). We deal with these sorts of requests every day.

While perhaps not a perfect solution, sometimes a design such as this is the only viable option. That said, this design has only received positive reviews and very positive comments from scores of owners who are perfectly happy with them. None have ever been returned.

I should add here that I personally use these for surround speakers in my dedicated home theater and am very happy with them – and I’m quite picky.

Since driver technology has advanced in the last eight years, why wouldn’t we design a mini-monitor that used a superior driver combination and dealt more effectively with the front port issues? For one reason: there is no money in speakers in this size and price range. It is like in-wall speakers. We are constantly asked whether we would be willing to produce custom in-wall speakers. The answer is always no. No matter how well they are designed, there are simply too many compromises. We would rather spend our time working on more cutting-edge designs like one on the drawing boards now - a project which will introduce a novel new tweeter concept.

I noted several comments concerning powered speakers with DSP. I completely agree that all issues noted could be addressed with this approach.

A few years ago, we did a slightly larger powered monitor we called the PowerPlay. It had the flattest response of any speaker we have ever offered. And when auditioned at shows and audiophile society meetings, it received nothing but rave comments. But there was zero demand for the design. The only pair we ever sold was the original prototype pair.

While I may wish it was different, powered speakers are of no interest to our customers.

Converting this to an active speaker would only serve to add cost to a design in a field that is already crowded. And there would not be much margin in it. This is better left to a high-volume manufacturer.

When these WOW1s return, we will evaluate them and determine the nature of the issues here.

Stay tuned…

 

[napilopez]

Ja, now include the phases of the moon and we have arrived. Pardon the sarcasm, but there comes a time when that relativization stops.



Sorry again, but this relativization of the mischief can be a real pain in the neck. If the measurements made are valid, then this is simply crap. You just want to provoke.

For the price quoted you could ask for a few hundred years of cumulative engineering experience, don't you think? That's the promise of, say, Genelec, Neumann, or K&H, Revel. Any problems? Nope! Why? Competence! Complaints? Poor guy!

This is not arrogance, it's just a realistic view of the market. There are good ones, and not so good ones. Pity, sure. But that's what this site is for. Maybe you can paint the ugly Genelecs, if there is a need in this direction.

At least the offer from Salk is fortunately not without alternative. Whew!

I'm not sure what your point is, nor why you feel the need to accuse me of trying to provoke. I do not think the problems exhibited by this speaker are as serious as problems exhibited by other speakers tested. I think the negative review is completely warranted, but if the speaker is an easy fix, then I don't see the problem with someone saying they would still buy it.

 

[Ericglo]

Since driver technology has advanced in the last eight years, why wouldn’t we design a mini-monitor that used a superior driver combination and dealt more effectively with the front port issues? For one reason: there is no money in speakers in this size and price range. It is like in-wall speakers. We are constantly asked whether we would be willing to produce custom in-wall speakers. The answer is always no. No matter how well they are designed, there are simply too many compromises. We would rather spend our time working on more cutting-edge designs like one on the drawing boards now - a project which will introduce a novel new tweeter concept.

Great response, Jim.

Tweeter concept? Is this in relation to Dennis's friend in the D.C. area?

 

[MZKM]

First off, thanks to Amir for running these tests and conveying his appraisal.

We sent these speakers to be evaluated at the request of a customer. While the speakers were intended to be shipped from Amir to the customer after the tests were completed, yesterday we requested that they be shipped back to us for a closer inspection. Until they are returned and we’ve had a chance to evaluate them, I can’t comment on what we may find with respect to this particular pair.

That said, perhaps a review of the origins of this speaker might be in order.

As I’ve said many times in the past, speaker design is all about balancing trade-offs. There is no such thing as the “perfect” speaker.

About eight years ago, a customer requested we build a custom speaker he called the WOW1. The name came from the Seas Excel “W”12 and the “OW1” tweeter. As I recall, the reason he chose the Seas W12 was to match his existing speakers which used larger Seas Excel woofers.

In a perfect world, that might have been the only pair we ever built. But we don’t live in a perfect world.

Every day we receive emails asking us to recommend a speaker that can overcome issues related to an intended application. An example would be a situation where one speaker sits in an open area with plenty of room behind the speaker, while the other speaker must fit in a corner with a glass wall right next to it. Or a tower speaker that can’t be over 35” tall. The list is endless.

We also must deal with issues related to other household members. Comments like “my spouse will not agree to floor standing speakers,” or “my partner does not want to see any speakers,” are quite common.

After we designed that first pair of WOW1’s, we continued to get requests for speakers that were very small (mini-monitors) and would fit inside an existing bookshelf cavern or mounted on the wall…applications where rear porting was not feasible (rear porting is always an option).

We also had many requests for a small speaker that could be mounted on a wall for home theater surround duty, crossed to a sub at 80Hz.

Another common request is a small speaker to be used at relatively low volume levels for a computer monitor, again placed against a wall.

While none of these situations are necessarily ideal, the WOW1 design is the only design we currently have available that can meet those requirements. If another design would work better, we would certainly recommend it instead. But most often, interest in this design is related to obstacles that prevent the use of larger speakers, or even rear-ported speakers.

When someone orders a pair of these speakers, we normally like to know how they intend to use them. Often, they are used as computer monitors, surround speakers crossed at 80Hz, crossed with a sub in a small system or for casual background music in a den or bedroom. If not, we normally recommend they look at another, better suited design. After all, it makes no sense to sell someone a speaker that would not work for them, especially when selling direct on the internet where negative comments can spread quickly.

We have another design called the SongBird. When people attempt to order them, I most often encourage them to look at the SongTowers instead. The SongBirds are a wonderful sounding speaker. But the sensitivity is low and the power handling is limited. Some potential purchasers have indicated that they rarely ever crank the speakers up to high SPL’s. I make sure they understand that they can never do it with this design. And yet, in the right situation, it is a particularly good speaker.

The WOW1’s were never intended to be main speakers in a serious listening environment. We obviously wouldn’t choose a 4” woofer for that purpose. As was pointed out, this driver would be better suited as a midrange. But a larger woofer is simply not an option on a speaker of this size. And even that size is considered too large for some. The other day I received an email asking if we could reduce the WOW1 height for a bookshelf application that only allowed a 10” tall speaker. Another customer asked if we could build a speaker that was 10” on a side and played at SPL levels of 110 – 115 db (we obviously passed on that one). We deal with these sorts of requests every day.

While perhaps not a perfect solution, sometimes a design such as this is the only viable option. That said, this design has only received positive reviews and very positive comments from scores of owners who are perfectly happy with them. None have ever been returned.

I should add here that I personally use these for surround speakers in my dedicated home theater and am very happy with them – and I’m quite picky.

Since driver technology has advanced in the last eight years, why wouldn’t we design a mini-monitor that used a superior driver combination and dealt more effectively with the front port issues? For one reason: there is no money in speakers in this size and price range. It is like in-wall speakers. We are constantly asked whether we would be willing to produce custom in-wall speakers. The answer is always no. No matter how well they are designed, there are simply too many compromises. We would rather spend our time working on more cutting-edge designs like one on the drawing boards now - a project which will introduce a novel new tweeter concept.

I noted several comments concerning powered speakers with DSP. I completely agree that all issues noted could be addressed with this approach.

A few years ago, we did a slightly larger powered monitor we called the PowerPlay. It had the flattest response of any speaker we have ever offered. And when auditioned at shows and audiophile society meetings, it received nothing but rave comments. But there was zero demand for the design. The only pair we ever sold was the original prototype pair.

While I may wish it was different, powered speakers are of no interest to our customers.

Converting this to an active speaker would only serve to add cost to a design in a field that is already crowded. And there would not be much margin in it. This is better left to a high-volume manufacturer.

When these WOW1s return, we will evaluate them and determine the nature of the issues here.

Stay tuned…

Thanks for joining the discussion!

Besides the port issue ~600Hz, the lower sensitivity was something that stood out to me, as even if you ignore that port issue, the response average seems to be ~80dB, and the highest peak is 81dB, yet the sensitivity is stated at 82dB. Your specs don’t state, so is this a 2-3dB in-room estimate?

There is also what looks like a “bunching” up in horizontal response ~5kHz. Have you experimented with roundover edges over chamfered edges for this design?

The vertical performance is very good, the +/-10° vertical range is closer to on-axis than the similarly priced Genelec reviewed!

Also, I asked Dennis this but he didn’t have an answer, what is the rational for what speakers get put in the bookshelf/surround category and which put in the monitor category?

I’ve always admired your cabinetry/design. I fantasize when I have enough money to commission a custom build from you for an endgame speaker for me

 

[BenB]

Great response, Jim.

Tweeter concept? Is this in relation to Dennis's friend in the D.C. area?

This tweeter concept is something different. My involvement has not been requested.

 

[cOz]

First off, thanks to Amir for running these tests and conveying his appraisal.

We sent these speakers to be evaluated at the request of a customer. While the speakers were intended to be shipped from Amir to the customer after the tests were completed, yesterday we requested that they be shipped back to us for a closer inspection. Until they are returned and we’ve had a chance to evaluate them, I can’t comment on what we may find with respect to this particular pair.

That said, perhaps a review of the origins of this speaker might be in order.

As I’ve said many times in the past, speaker design is all about balancing trade-offs. There is no such thing as the “perfect” speaker.

Jim,

Thanks for your response and mature approach to helping your customers. My thoughts on this speaker which I've happily owned is the same. I understand the laws of physics and the tradeoffs of this design, yet happily enjoyed it for years, YEARS. I'm also super happy that my current speaker doesn't have to make those tradeoffs Current speaker, hand-built by me. Another pic of my speaker build. Jim has always answered my questions even when they were about how to achieve a finish on a special veneer or about Salk Speaker that I purchased used. About that used Salk purchase, $800 purchased used, and 4 years later sold for $700. In audio land, that is a win.

I would love to see a Salk Speaker tailored to this task under review. BeAT perhaps?

 

[Ericglo]

This tweeter concept is something different. My involvement has not been requested.

Good to know.

Glad to see you here. I remember Dennis was excited about your speaker concept, but I haven't heard anything lately.

 

[Aperiodic]

Judging by this speaker, the only reason to buy Salk over Revel is for looks.

From the Salk website:
"I'll admit it, I do love technical equipment. But I also realize that gear is not an end unto itself. It is simply a means to an end. In the end, it is not about what equipment is installed. It is about the experience. Success or failure is based solely on the magic that results. In the final analysis, it comes down to one very simple question: Is it, or is it not, a stunning audio experience?"

Translation: We wow you with looks and then you think you're getting a good product. Measurements? Pshaw! Magic, baby! Magic. Magic! MAGIC! LOOK AT THE PRETTY BOX!

This seems unfair. I have heard a number of Salks. Have you? Most of them will knock your socks off. Want room filling, full range sound? Choose the right speaks. Here in this thread, we see the acrimonious, endless subjective-vs-objective debate playing out.