PMC vs. Salk Sound Speakers. Which is better?

Seriously, you're judging the quality of the crossovers based on the number of components? What does a "generous amount of parts" even mean?

Audiozen,

Perhaps you are confused in regards to number of parts and sound quality. Some of the world's most highly-regarded speakers have very few parts. Take Fried speakers, for example. Their designer, Bud Fried, used anywhere from 6-10 parts p/crossover and achieved miraculous results. Or take a pair of Spendor SP1/2s. Derek Hughes used 12 parts p/board and created one of the all-time classics. Yes, there are designers who use more parts and also get superb results, but to say that there is always a positive parts/sound correlation is simply not accurate.

You can't judge the quality of a crossover by the quantity of its components. Many times, simpler is better, and that simplicity is most likely driven by the choice of drivers in the speaker.

IMO: As far as quality of parts in Salk crossovers, he uses whatever it takes to satisfy his customers. If the customer desires different/better parts than his standard crossover he will accommodate them with anything they want, the sky's the limit. At some point he will tell them they're wasting their money though.

Rja, very true. I just ordered a pair of Soundscape 8's from Jim, and was thinking of upgrading the capacitors in the tweeter position. Jim told me he thought it would be a waste of money to upgrade the other caps in the crossover (mids and woofers). And I had asked him to cost out Duelund VSF Copper vs. Mundorf Silver In Oil. We settled on the Mundorfs primarily due to cost as the Duelunds may be a little bit better in sound quality but not at three times the cost of the Mundorfs. Dennis Murphy is recognized as being an expert in crossover design and I believe his ethos is simpler is better(he designs the crossovers in the Salks). Having not heard any PMC's I can't comment on them vs. Salk.