Salk WoW1 Bookshelf Speaker Review

[Colonel7]

so the interesting question is what are the measurements missing.... or not measuring?

Nothing...that's pretzel logic there

 

[snapsc]

If pretzel logic is twisted reasoning...then I'd say not. I'm only saying that there seems to be a gap between measurements and sound/hearing in this instance. If these speakers based on measurements perform so poorly, the word would be out there and they wouldn't sell...and there would be many of them constantly changing hands. This hasn't been the case as can be seen on hifi shark.

I'm not saying the measurements are wrong...they are what they are. I don't know what is missing but there is something unexplained as to why a speaker that measures this way seems to perform in a much better manner at home in people's systems.

That would seem to be something worth understanding/explaining.

 

[Zvu]

But measurements aren't that bad actually. Firstly, if someone buys them as a desktop speakers, they'll hardly play at volume as high as 86dB/1m. Yes there is a dip at midrange but dips aren't insulting to the ear as peaks, so i'm not surprised people do not complain about it. Directivity is rather wide and that is very good. In nearfield you'll be listening the direct sound much more than reflected so you actually shouldn't worry about slight dip at 3000Hz 70 degrees off axis. Yes, distortion is high at lower frequencies but there we are least sensitive on it. Toole said that sometimes even 4-7% couldn't be perceived in music.

Bottom line, is it poor price performance ratio ? For most of us the answer is yes.

Is it a bad loudspeaker ? I'd say not as bad as someone reading all this comments would think.

 

[Zvu]

I'm strugling to see how is WOW1 any worse (other than price/performance ratio) from Q acoustics 3020i that didn't get the headless panther:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...oustics-3020i-bookshelf-speaker-review.14568/

 

[q3cpma]

I'm strugling to see how is WOW1 any worse (other than price/performance ratio) from Q acoustics 3020i that didn't get the headless panther:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...oustics-3020i-bookshelf-speaker-review.14568/

This is at least four time the price. Compare it with something roughly the same price and you'll understand why some expectations were far from being met:

8030C:

WOW1:

 

[Zvu]

I am disregarding the price in favour of objectivity/measurements. Let us look at measurements. Q acoustics and WOW1 share the same features. Flat baffle, 3/4" tweeter without waveguide, similar size midwoofer (q acoustic actually has a bit larger midbass). Measurements don't differ that much.

Let us also look at where will it be used. I consider 1m a nearfield. Who listens loudspeakers at 89dB (there are two loudspeakers) from 1m distance or less ?

 

[HarmonicExtorsion]

Three points...

First, I’m pretty sure Jim and Dennis took measurements when this speaker was designed.

Two... I’m pretty sure this speaker exceeded their goals for the size, budget and application for a small computer type monitor.

Third and most important.... the key “clue” about this speaker is that for 7 years people keep ordering them and the almost never come up for resale.

This may suggest that in people’s home systems, these speakers sound a lot more satisfying than what the measurements imply.... so the interesting question is what are the measurements missing.... or not measuring?

Nothing is missing.

Technically flawed speakers can sound good to the human ear, especially if it’s not one belonging to an audio engineer that knows what to look for.

There are literally dozens of major brands out there that over the years have sold hundreds of millions/billions worth of speakers that have been reviewed well subjectively, but that would utterly fail such diverse and clinical benchmarking.

Today, most decent entry level and above hi-fi speakers sound good enough for most people, the rest is all marketing and placebo.

With that said, I would bet these Salk speakers sound quite good at the levels most people would push them to, the midrange is likely very sweet sounding and many possibly even love the flawed bass reproduction.

Case in point, this site is not overtly concerned with subjective experience. It seeks to uncover technical imperfections\engineering mistakes or fineness, at times the imperfections, while appearing pronounced on graphs, are barely or not audible at all.

 

[WolfJackson]

I don't assume anything, but that's why I'm here, looking for the best sound quality possible at home within a reasonable amount of money and practicality. If your priority is sound quality, then that's all that matters. That's my priority.

If, on the other hand, you're looking for a big box finished with an exotic wood laminate that produces sound, that's different. And that's fine too. I'm not questioning your choice. And if that expensive box doesn't perform like a hi performance speaker in 2020 should, providing a clear window to the music with maximum transparency and minimum coloration, be objective and open to that. Or show something to back the claims of greatness.

My real life experience with Selah many years ago was not a positive one, I didn't think it was a good investment to buy a second product from a manufacturer I didn't trust to see if that second one worked better than the first one. I gave it a try, it didn't work out, I learned my lesson and moved on, it wasn't the first time (nor the last) I was disappointed with an expensive purchase. Yes, I might be generalizing a bit, but given the current review of the WoW1, my generalization might not be totally unfounded. Please do prove me wrong, I'm open to that.

I obviously can't speak for Selah's older products, but I own the Tempestas, one of Rick's most celebrated designs, and they are subjective and objective champs.

https://imgur.com/a/QxU3E2o

Those are (my) gated measurements going from on axis to all the way to 90 degree off-axis, and you can see the directivity remains constant and with a wide listening window. These speakers are trivial to EQ in room because the directivity is so good. Here's how my complete system measure in room vs. a Genelec near-field system with 500 pounds of room treatment.

https://imgur.com/a/R1PhAkk

I'm purple.

Here's another one of Rick's designs measured at the NRC. Soundstage

Again, exceptional directivity with wide dispersion. As good as anything from modern Revel.

Yes, your generalization is unfounded because you seem to be assuming that speaker designers can't improve their designs over a decade. Furthermore, since your opinion of the Selah speakers you had is purely subjective without any provided measurements, they have to be taken with a heaping spoonful of salt.

 

[q3cpma]

I am disregarding the price in favour of objectivity/measurements. Let us look at measurements. Q acoustics and WOW1 share the same features. Flat baffle, 3/4" tweeter without waveguide, similar size midwoofer (q acoustic actually has a bit larger midbass). Measurements don't differ that much.

Well, but you complained about the panthers, and the price is quite obviously (from the recent BIC review) accounted for when choosing it. As is Amir's subjective impression.
As far as the measurements go, I don't think they're that far, too.

Let us also look at where will it be used. I consider 1m a nearfield. Who listens loudspeakers at 89dB (there are two loudspeakers) from 1m distance or less ?

Don't know, but isn't 85 dB SPL at the listening position the "standard"? Doesn't seem incredible to use it as reference too, even if 75-80 dB is more sane.

 

[Zvu]

Well, but you complained about the panthers, and the price quite obviously (from the recent BIC review) accounted for when choosing it. As is Amir's subjective impression.

I have not wrote anything in BIC review thread. It is of no interest to me as a loudspeaker or brand. I have looked at the first post and that is it.

I don't know about any standard but i usually listen at 78-80dB at listening position.

 

[q3cpma]

I have not wrote anything in BIC review thread. It is of no interest to me as a loudspeaker or brand. I have looked at the first post and that is it.

That's not the point, just trying to explain that the panther choice doesn't disregard price.

EDIT: is this me or the BIC review was edited? I remember it being recommended due to the price. Maybe I'm going mad.

 

[Ericglo]

I obviously can't speak for Selah's older products, but I own the Tempestas, one of Rick's most celebrated designs, and they are subjective and objective champs.

https://imgur.com/a/QxU3E2o

Yes, he is a N=1. @NoAudiophile gave a positive review of his Selah speakers. I haven't really seen any negative feedback from any of Rick's speakers. The only thing that might come close is one of his speakers didn't "win" a HT shootout a couple of years ago. I think that had more to do with the desire for db.

Since Echo hasn't replied to Rick, my guess is he had an issue with the speaker itself not its performance. Damaged cabinet or crossover? Maybe he purchased a used speaker?

 

[Zvu]

@q3cpma Didn't know that. Then panther actually means nothing, since you can have perfectly measuring and sounding loudspeaker but costing at 500k € and it gets headless panther.

 

[Zvu]

That's not the point, just trying to explain that the panther choice doesn't disregard price.

EDIT: is this me or the BIC review was edited? I remember it being recommended due to the price. Maybe I'm going mad.

I think it was not recommended. But maybe i am going mad too

 

[WolfJackson]

Yes, he is a N=1. @NoAudiophile gave a positive review of his Selah speakers. I haven't really seen any negative feedback from any of Rick's speakers. The only thing that might come close is one of his speakers didn't "win" a HT shootout a couple of years ago. I think that had more to do with the desire for db.

Since Echo hasn't replied to Rick, my guess is he had an issue with the speaker itself not its performance. Damaged cabinet or crossover? Maybe he purchased a used speaker?

Yeah, even the older design (16 year old design) reviewed here measured very well and Rick himself says he's improved his on/off-axis consistency since then.

 

[q3cpma]

@q3cpma Didn't know that. Then panther actually means nothing, since you can have perfectly measuring and sounding loudspeaker but costing at 500k € and it gets headless panther.

I don't think it works that way. But having a >$1200 speaker performing like a $300 one sure isn't good. Anyway, take what I said with a grain of salt: I "think" that price is considered.
What is sure, though, is that our host's subjective evaluation has a big weight in the panther grading.

 

[WolfJackson]

I'm reading a lot of irrational arguments so I felt like having a little fun too... ;-)

What I'm trying to say is that, the technology has greatly evolved in the past years and small custom made speaker manufacturers will have a hard time keeping up with it, especially if they are not seriously investing in R&D. We're talking fully integrated systems with native room correction. In a few years I don't see myself having anything more than a pair of speakers that combine everything from DAC to drivers like what Kii, Genelec, D&D are producing now. Separate components and custom made speakers will have a place in the audio market the same way people choose to buy a convertible roadster. For fun, like an exotic product, but unlikely a serious performer because the concept itself has been surpassed.

Eh, I have to disagree with this. 2 channel technology is 80 years old and there's really not any more summits to conquer with regard to in room transparency per the limitations of our hearing. It's pretty much a "solved" technology. To clarify, I'm only speaking of 2 channel speakers playing content mixed for 2 channel for someone sitting in the sweet spot/listening window. The focus on directivity over the past decade or so really pushed general speaker design forward to new heights and even budget manufacturers understand the concept well enough that a 300 pair of speakers can be "end game" if you don't need face melting SPLs and lower bass extension (I'm thinking of something like the BSR22 mod).

Pretty much every designer worth their salt understands the importance of directivity, from Harman, Genelec to many of the ID direct designers. As long as they make a speaker that meets that design goal, they are "keeping up." Fully integrated speaker systems with room correction, DACs, etc aren't useful for everyone because many of us use MiniDSP, Dirac, or an Equalizer APO, and some of us don't like the idea of "fully integrated" walled garden systems where you're forced into an ecosystem of some kind. Reducing the need for "boxes" shouldn't be conflated with technological evolution. MiniDSP, for instance, is a wonderfully versatile product that offers the user more control than anything you'll get in GLM.

Point is, passive speakers (with great directivity) employing solutions like MiniDSP, Dirac, multisub, and etc are literally the exact same "concept" as what those fully integrated systems are doing. The former just comes with more boxes, but not better performance.

 

[Xulonn]

And just in case it was missed before. I do currently have an order in for a pair of BeATs and I live about 20 minutes from Amir. I will get my pair tested as soon as they arrive.

Quite frankly, if I were not an old guy living on my Social Security pension, I would rather have a pair of the beautiful Salk WOW's on my desk rather than my very good sounding, but ugly black Q-Acoustics 3010i's.

The Song3 BeAT is available with either front or rear ports - which did you order, Lonestar? And what veneer/finish? I am really looking forward to your BeATs being measured by Amir, but will not be disappointed if they do not measure perfectly. The big question for me is whether these 3-way ported towers (not listed as a transmission line like many other Salk models) with the 7.5" Satori woofer can truly reach down to 33Hz at claimed -3dB point.

Speaking of beauty, below is a photo of the Salk BeATs with an "exotic veneer finish" - in this instance, a bookmatched Carpathian Elm Burl with nicely rounded edges and the sprayed black edges that I believe is what Salk calls "Fireburst". This is fine woodworking and finishing, targeted at those who appreciate - and can afford it. I imagine that one of the reasons you rarely see Salk speakers with exotic wood veneers on the used market is that they are custom products, and not clones from a production line. Salk loudspeakers are like other pieces of fine, custom made furniture where customers put a lot of time and effort into working with the shop owner on the design and details, and then wait patiently while their works of art are produced and finished by real craftsmen - not production line workers. Many people simply cannot appreciate artisan craftsmanship like this, and will put down those who do. As a former hobbyist fine woodworker who has participated in the annual "Artistry in Wood" exhibit and juried competition at the Sonoma County Museum in Northern California, I seek accurate and natural sound in my audio system, but also consider appearance - based on my personal and subjective sense of aesthetics. (I could also be happy with a pair of Revel Performa F206s in the walnut finish.)

Notice that each side of the above speakers is individually bookmatched veneer, and that the fronts are book-matched from speaker to speaker. Below is a short video that demonstrates the process of two-way bookmatching of veneers.

 

[Xulonn]

Lots of discussion popping up about speakers other than Salk, the subject of this thread.

 

[beefkabob]

Three points...

First, I’m pretty sure Jim and Dennis took measurements when this speaker was designed.

Two... I’m pretty sure this speaker exceeded their goals for the size, budget and application for a small computer type monitor.

Third and most important.... the key “clue” about this speaker is that for 7 years people keep ordering them and the almost never come up for resale.

This may suggest that in people’s home systems, these speakers sound a lot more satisfying than what the measurements imply.... so the interesting question is what are the measurements missing.... or not measuring?

In normal room measurements are a problem. The room interacts too much with speakers. I'm sure some measurements were taken.

It may have exceeded their goals, but then their goals were moderate and their budget was high. There are small speakers that are just plain better for the price, and not by a small amount.

Popular had little to do with good. McDonald's hamburgers are popular. Hitler was popular. I am not comparing theses speakers to either. I'm just saying that your argument is utterly wrong. People hold on to all kinds of junk. Just look in my garage for proof.

I had my mediocre audiophile stereo for 20 years before I replaced it. It was mediocre then and mediocre now. They're in my garage, not up for sale.