That's too bad, if that's the case. It's easy enought to match levels of speakers using zone 2 with my prepro, but the subwoofer gets lost in translation.
I have read that it is best to level match before the amp...just not an easy way to do it.

I have read that it is best to level match before the amp...just not an easy way to do it.

When I use Zone 2, I'm using a totally different amp altogether. Probably not the best scenario, particularly if you believe that amps sound different.

When I use Zone 2, I'm using a totally different amp altogether. Probably not the best scenario, particularly if you believe that amps sound different.
But if you just compare single speakers, you could use the same amp and a mono signal. That should work quite well.

But if you just compare single speakers, you could use the same amp and a mono signal. That should work quite well.

Although it wouldn't give me a sense for things like center fill, imaging, soundstage, etc.

Axiom did build a speaker switcher for me in 2005 when they were building several for their own use.

Radio Shack sells a Sima speaker switcher for $230, which allows individual volume controls for level matching and is rated to 100 Watts per speaker.

It does not have a remote, but will allow for instant, level matched A-B switching.

It can be ordered here: Link to Switcher (http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?parentPage=family&summary=summary&techSpecs=techSpecs&currentTab=features&cp=2032057.2032187.2032193.2032223&custRatings=custRatings&features=features&accessories=accessories&productId=2362068&support=support&tab=summary)

Axiom did build a speaker switcher for me in 2005 when they were building several for their own use.

Radio Shack sells a Sima speaker switcher for $230, which allows individual volume controls for level matching and is rated to 100 Watts per speaker.

It does not have a remote, but will allow for instant, level matched A-B switching.

It can be ordered here: Link to Switcher (http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?parentPage=family&summary=summary&techSpecs=techSpecs&currentTab=features&cp=2032057.2032187.2032193.2032223&custRatings=custRatings&features=features&accessories=accessories&productId=2362068&support=support&tab=summary)

Thanks.

Although it wouldn't give me a sense for things like center fill, imaging, soundstage, etc.
True, but those things can be placement sensitive as well.

yeah somewhat of an issue also is just that, placement... often, speakers have different ideal placement, one might be closer to back wall, other farther... some might like to get placed closer together.. with toe in, without toe in... some might sound better in small rooms, other medium, etc.. so many things!

btw, craig, don't cancel you GTG because of this post :p

The worst speakers to compare are the Linns, someone was once told that the Linns were very critical to other speakers being in the room, because the other drivers might negatively affect the sound (even if the other speakers weren't plugged.. just being in the room was bad, lol) Supposedly, you could hear easily the difference if another speaker was IN the room. lol

The worst speakers to compare are the Linns, someone was once told that the Linns were very critical to other speakers being in the room, because the other drivers might negatively affect the sound (even if the other speakers weren't plugged.. just being in the room was bad, lol) Supposedly, you could hear easily the difference if another speaker was IN the room. lol
Actually, I have been told this before, and actually read it somewhere too....but not in respect to Linn speakers, but speakers in general. Something to the effect that the other speakers in the room absorb energy/reflections.

As I understand it, extra speakers act as simple helmholtz resonators, and muddy the sound.

The only real issue I see, is the placement issue, which thankfully, I read more before pointing it out.
We all know placement is important, run an REW sweep, it'll show up.

I also understand that it's almost unavoidable, unless ya have a concert hall- with all in the center.
Maybe positioning can be swapped a couple of times..

I dunno.....

Have Fun Craig- You guys are gonna have a good time for sure!!

As I understand it, extra speakers act as simple helmholtz resonators, and muddy the sound.

And this is why no audio store ever has speakers next to each other in a demo room, right ? ;)

Our basement theater is a very dead room, and the speakers will be in an ABAB position, level matched, and behind a screen of 70 inch tall speaker grill material.

I really cannot do more than this to make sure this comparison is fair to all "competing" speakers.

I will also not be participating in any of the listening tests, nor will any speaker company representative be permitted to be in the room.

This is being called the "Schifter Rule", as it is possible he will be there. :D

Because Best Buy and Magnolia are my references for how to set up speakers :p

I really cannot do more than this to make sure this comparison is fair to all "competing" speakers.

To eliminate placement issues, you could make sure that each pair gets listened to in both the A and B spots for each comparison. While doubling the effort involved, that's one less issue that will be brought up later. You'll probably hate me for suggesting this... but eh... oh well. :D

To eliminate placement issues, you could make sure that each pair gets listened to in both the A and B spots for each comparison. While doubling the effort involved, that's one less issue that will be brought up later. You'll probably hate me for suggesting this... but eh... oh well. :D
I wouldn't bother, because that doesn't even guarantee the "best" placement for either speaker. If there isn't anything really obviously different between the two placements, I think it is OK.

I recently heard the Dali Ikon 1's and Helicon 300's, neither of which I liked...in the same position as other speakers. After reading about a lot of people liking these speaekers, along with agreeing on other speakers I like, I begin to wonder about placement for the Dalis....and apparently they are fairly placement sensitive, so I can't say if I gave them a fair shake.

To eliminate placement issues, you could make sure that each pair gets listened to in both the A and B spots for each comparison. While doubling the effort involved, that's one less issue that will be brought up later. You'll probably hate me for suggesting this... but eh... oh well. :D

I never hate over anything, and it is a good suggestion. It also will only take about 1 minute to accomplish per AB session, so I don't think this will be difficult.

People are missing the obvious here, though: Keeping this group sober for the first 4 hours ... :eek:

People are missing the obvious here, though: Keeping this group sober for the first 4 hours ... :eek:
I am betting against it. Will there be a breathalyzer there? :D

I am betting against it. Will there be a breathalyzer there? :D

No ... But the booze and beer will be hidden. Jack is bringing Green Tea, the guys will have to get through on that until after the critical listening is done.

Except, of course, for the moderator. He can get hammered. :cool:

I wouldn't bother, because that doesn't even guarantee the "best" placement for either speaker. If there isn't anything really obviously different between the two placements, I think it is OK.

12" can make a big difference in bass performance. But yeah, if measurements are taken to determine that both positions offer decent bass performance, things are good.

12" can make a big difference in bass performance. But yeah, if measurements are taken to determine that both positions offer decent bass performance, things are good.

We will be crossing all speakers at 60 Hz, so the bass performance will be constant. We could just as easily use the nominal 80 Hz crossover, which will make bass issues due to placement even less of an issue.

We will be crossing all speakers at 60 Hz, so the bass performance will be constant. We could just as easily use the nominal 80 Hz crossover, which will make bass issues due to placement even less of an issue.

You could do this(80hz), but it would hamper the qualities of the lower reaching Bookselves in the meantime.
The same price range should equal the same abuse paramaters, and since the Sierra is rated far below the 60HZ XO, it would be a decent XO of 60.
I think 60hz XO is a reasonable XO for speakers in this pricerange as well.

JMO

We will be crossing all speakers at 60 Hz, so the bass performance will be constant. We could just as easily use the nominal 80 Hz crossover, which will make bass issues due to placement even less of an issue.
Well, I realize time may be an issue, but heck, most of us are impressed with the bass performance of the Sierra, try it that way too.

Then again, that can be done after drinks and not blind as well.

Well, I realize time may be an issue, but heck, most of us are impressed with the bass performance of the Sierra, try it that way too.

Then again, that can be done after drinks and not blind as well.
Curtis, surely you're aware that everything sounds better after a few drinks? :p

someone was once told that the Linns were very critical to other speakers being in the room, because the other drivers might negatively affect the sound (even if the other speakers weren't plugged.. just being in the room was bad, lol) Supposedly, you could hear easily the difference if another speaker was IN the room. lolThat was a story propagated by Ivor Tiefenbrun (founder of Linn), however he failed to prove it in a blind test run by the Boston Audio Society. You can read about it here (http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/bas_speaker/abx_testing2.htm), if you're into that sort of thing.

Edit: oh, great. 15 posts...I'm a "member" now. How should I start my first flame war? ;-)

Ivor also claimed he could tell when a digital watch was near his head while speakers were playing. I think Stereophile did a little expose on that bit of lunacy.

Edit: Looks like that same article had the digital watch test. At least he had enough chops (or stupdity) to submit himself to the tests.

And this is why no audio store ever has speakers next to each other in a demo room, right ?

It's a catch 22 situation, many people want a few speakers set up so they can quickly switch between a/b/c without time in between, because this compromises ideal placement and may negatively impact SQ with all the additional product in the room, but I'd rather take switchers out of the loop and place one speaker in it's predetermined ideal spot , then move it out of the room and hook up another in it's own best spot having already determined level matching points on the volume. The problem comes when the decision is close and people want instant a/b, then that too must be accomadated.

I really cannot do more than this to make sure this comparison is fair to all "competing" speakers.

I think you should build a separate room onto your house where the front third of the room can be rotated to present individual rooms with stages so that each speaker will be in identical positions for each test. It should be able to perform this switch in an almost instantaneous manner without making any noise that would pollute the auditory palette of the listeners.

It's the only way to be fair.




(What do I care what is costs? I'm not paying for it.) ;)

It would be easier to build an addition with rooms in a circle, with the listening position in the center. The listening position would be built on a turntable that would rotate the listener to the next audition room, with a different set of speakers in each room, set up exactly the same. A few trips to Home Depot should cover it........

I think that as long as you try the best you can to make sure placement isn't a HUGE advantage/Disadvantage for any one speaker, it should be fine.

This IS just a subjective test, and under these restrictions, it never could be a "This one is better" scenario anyway (even if ya WANTED it to be- which isn't the idea anyway).
Maybe include some footnotes in regard to placement MAYBE being an issue in regards to great/subpar results from said speaker being discussed(IE: "This speaker sounded really great- but the bass was a tad boomy in the low end, this MAY be attributed to the fact that it was the closest to the right corner wall, which has had the same boundary affect in past speaker listening, with other speakers at that position- this was simply unavoidable with the space and time restraints").

I just think every effort must be afforded to each speaker within reason, because ALOT of folks are REALLY paying attention to this GTG(as they do for ALL- this one being a bit higher due to personell involved I think), and some WILL base their purchase on THIS alone(which shouldn't be the case- but it is, as we all know- not everyone has the resources, or the TIME to do this many quality speakers- just the way it is).

In an ideal world, there wouldn't be this discussion, but lets face it, ya do with what ya have.

Just my .02

Don't want to come off as ruffling feathers, but is there a reason why @ 75% of the speakers in this test are ID? If it's just that many people don't get to hear these speakers as opposed to store brands, and this is a chance to compare many of them against each other because most won't buy more than one pair at a time , then I get it, but has anyone done such a GTG where there was a higher proportion of store bought brands? I wouldn't want to displace any of the ID brands, but I am more familiar with many of the store bought brands and it might be easier for me to correlate and of more value personally if I had more referance points to the tested equipment.

The ratio of ID to store brands may be a sign of the times. I find it very difficult to find many store brands, let alone find them where I can audition them. I can find Klipsch and B&W easily. A store that used to carry Paradigm closed recently. The "Authorized Dealers" for almost all the other major store brands in my area are custom installers that do not carry stock in a store front. I don't know how they handle auditions.

Jim

Don't want to come off as ruffling feathers, but is there a reason why @ 75% of the speakers in this test are ID? If it's just that many people don't get to hear these speakers as opposed to store brands, and this is a chance to compare many of them against each other because most won't buy more than one pair at a time , then I get it, but has anyone done such a GTG where there was a higher proportion of store bought brands? I wouldn't want to displace any of the ID brands, but I am more familiar with many of the store bought brands and it might be easier for me to correlate and of more value personally if I had more referance points to the tested equipment.

I auditioned several Brick and Mortar speakers from companies such as Paradigm, Klipsch, PSB, NHT, B&W, Def Tech and Kef before settling on what I bought for this test.

The bookshelf speakers from stores are the best value speakers (PSB, NHT) or best overall performers (B&W) based on my opinion and that of the speaker sales people in each store. I estimate that I listened to about 40 pairs of B&M speakers over a 3 month period.

I auditioned several Brick and Mortar speakers from companies such as Paradigm, Klipsch, PSB, NHT, B&W, Def Tech and Kef before settling on what I bought for this test.
That's fine, but did you whittle down the ID field, personally, in the same way? And, if so, the ratio still seems odd.

The bookshelf speakers from stores are the best value speakers (PSB, NHT) or best overall performers (B&W) based on my opinion and that of the speaker sales people in each store. I estimate that I listened to about 40 pairs of B&M speakers over a 3 month period.
How many ID did you demo during that period, and were the criteria the same?
If you whittled 40 down to 3 for store brands, then did you listen to 111 ID models in the same time period, and what , if any, role did price point play in the decision?

That's fine, but did you whittle down the ID field, personally, in the same way? And, if so, the ratio still seems odd.


How many ID did you demo during that period, and were the criteria the same?
If you whittled 40 down to 3 for store brands, then did you listen to 111 ID models in the same time period, and what , if any, role did price point play in the decision?

I see you are going to be a real pleasure on this. Yes, I ordered 111 ID speakers and had them all delivered to my home, and returned 102 of them.

It was the only way I could avoid questioning like this.

The above, by the way, was sarcasm.

Now, back to the real world. It costs money to audition speakers, in terms of both time and real cash.

I spent time in audio stores in Toronto, Buffalo and Cleveland in order to narrow things down to 3 of the best value or performance B&M speakers.

The only way to audition ID speakers is to have them here.

I narrowed the ID speakers based on research and personal experience.

I also purchased all of these speakers.

If you want to run a test of your own, please, do so.

I won't even complain about how you spent your own money.

Fair enough ? :)

...is it really an issue when running this speaker full-range?

There are some specs presented in this thread that gave me pause:

http://forum.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?1/382724

Sorry, just trying to get an idea where the breakdown came from with regards to numbers and choice....I had , incorrectly, thought that you had already listened and compared the ID brands as you seem, from previous post history, to be very familiar with the ID selections. Have there been many ID brands that "didn't make the cut" for this GTG that you had previously heard before? Is anyone bringing their own speakers , or is this just a matter of what you decided to buy to date?

Also, kudos for the charitable aspect to this event.

...is it really an issue when running this speaker full-range?

There are some specs presented in this thread that gave me pause:

http://forum.ecoustics.com/cgi-bin/bbs/show.pl?1/382724

Here's what Ascend had to say couple of pages back

"And yes, as you well know --- I am a strong proponent for proper bass management. For loud listening levels, crossing over at 60Hz is definitely recommended."

However, the level at I listen to, I prefer them at full range while listening to music. I cross them at 60 for movies... Many folks on ecoustics will pass the judgment on the speaker without ever listening to them :p

I will have Sierras L/C/R, and HTM-200s as side and back surrounds. If I cross the Sierras at 60 Hz, what should I crose the 200's at? 80 or 100 Hz? And then what should I set for the LPF, that attenuates LFE of the sub? Still 80 ( the THX value)?

Yes, only folks at ecoustics do that :p

You don't believe in measurements Sam? Do you think the NRC is falsifying their data? I'll certainly agree that measurements don't always tell the whole story. But if a speaker has a 10dB down point of ~50Hz anechoic, and they're straining and distorting at far less than window shattering volumes at that point, it doesn't strike me as a particularly great "full range" speaker.

As I stated over at ecoustics, if you listen at reasonably low levels, then you can probably get away without using a subwoofer. I would still note in that case, a quality subwoofer can still provide deeper response with less distortion. I presume that the readers of these forums with $800 to spend on a bookshelf speaker can afford such a subwoofer.

If you use a subwoofer, than it takes a lot of strain off the Sierras and puts it on to a speaker that is specifically designed to handle bass (and presuming that you have a balanced system, it should handle bass far better than a 5.25" woofer in a small bamboo box).

Now, if you listen at fairly high volumes (say musical peaks of 95dB or more), or if you happen to like deep bass, I'd really suggest using a subwoofer, and not abusing the heck out of your shiny new bookshelf speakers.

And PS: This isn't meant to be a "Sierra hater" argument. It'd just be helpful if some folks were a little more realistic about the capabilities of these speakers, instead of saying "for music, you don't need a subwoofer".

I think you should build a separate room onto your house where the front third of the room can be rotated to present individual rooms with stages so that each speaker will be in identical positions for each test. It should be able to perform this switch in an almost instantaneous manner without making any noise that would pollute the auditory palette of the listeners.

It's the only way to be fair.




(What do I care what is costs? I'm not paying for it.) ;)

This is funny enough, it is tempting to add it to my signature ... :D

As all the reviewers have said, the bass capability is excellent with the Sierras, and I enjoy running mine full range when I can, and quite loud. That said, as mentioned, they benefit from using a crossover at 60hz, especially at louder levels....many speakers do. I actually cross at 60hz because it is easier for me to set and forget rather than switching back and forth.

But I think what is more important is the quality of the bass, the Sierra's are excellent, so make sure you have a sub with excellent sound quality. I believe xcjago crosses his Sierras at 80hz, but he also has an excellent JL Audio F112.

And PS: This isn't meant to be a "Sierra hater" argument. It'd just be helpful if some folks were a little more realistic about the capabilities of these speakers, instead of saying "for music, you don't need a subwoofer".
Stefano, that is fair, but you really need to hear what the speaker is capable of to know what is "realistic". Not meant as an arguement, because I do agree, but the Sierra can get quite loud on its own.

As all the reviewers have said, the bass capability is excellent with the Sierras, and I enjoy running mine full range when I can, and quite loud. That said, as mentioned, they benefit from using a crossover at 60hz, especially at louder levels....many speakers do. I actually cross at 60hz because it is easier for me to set and forget rather than switching back and forth.

But I think what is more important is the quality of the bass, the Sierra's are excellent, so make sure you have a sub with excellent sound quality. I believe xcjago crosses his Sierras at 80hz, but he also has an excellent JL Audio F112.


Stafano, that is fair, but you really need to hear what the speaker is capable of to know what is "realistic". Not meant as an arguement, because I do agree, but the Sierra can get quite loud on its own.

A less expensive option to something like the Fathom 112 is the Dana 600 ... it uses a Peerless 8 inch driver, and is seamless with the Sierras ... it may seem a little costly for an 8 inch sub, but once you hear a pair of Sierras with 25 Hz bass, it suddenly seems pretty reasonable ... and one of my personal favorites for 2 channel (along with 630's and 600).

A less expensive option to something like the Fathom 112 is the Dana 600 ... it uses a Peerless 8 inch driver, and is seamless with the Sierras ... it may seem a little costly for an 8 inch sub, but once you hear a pair of Sierras with 25 Hz bass, it suddenly seems pretty reasonable ... and one of my personal favorites for 2 channel (along with 630's and 600).
Yeah...would love to hear one, but what if you need a multipurpose sub? You have many excellent subwoofers at your disposal....another interesting test. :)

Stefano, that is fair, but you really need to hear what the speaker is capable of to know what is "realistic". Not meant as an arguement, because I do agree, but the Sierra can get quite loud on its own.

True enough. I don't doubt the ability of a bookshelf to put out fairly impressive bass. I've got a pair that do just fine in that regard. But I'm not making these statements for seasoned veterans who know how not to strain a speaker; I'm making them for new members like Timbo so they get a little balance to what they hear about these speakers, such that they can make a better informed decision. I would also note that "quite loud" is a relative term.

I would also note that "quite loud" is a relative term.
Exactly....and so is saying your speakers do "fine in that regard". :)

Fortunately, Dave has now stepped up and gave a solid explanation for why the results at the NRC are so far off over at ecoustics. Definitely worth a read, and definitely worth knowing when evaluating other results from them.

Here is the explanation from DaveF that Stefano is referring to:


You bring up a good point here but there are a few things worth mentioning.

First off, the graph that you refer to is 90dB spl at 2 meters in an anechoic chamber from a single loudspeaker. This is easily equivalent to about 100dB output from a single loudspeaker in-room at 1 meter away, or 103dB output from a pair of speakers. It is also a swept sine wave source, in other words, about as abusive to a loudspeaker as you can get - and not reflective of actual music listening. (far too loud for most people)

Additionally, the graph posted is misleading and requires explanation... Because these measurements are taken in a true anechoic chamber and this is a rear ported loudspeaker, bass response in the port range is not correctly reflected in the frequency response measurement. Much of the bass output of the port is actually absorbed in the wall treatments. THD measurement techniques at the NRC have also changed since the B&W CM1 was tested (about 3 or 4 speakers ago) They did not inform me exactly what changed so I am not sure if comparing newer graphs to older ones is valid.

If you look at any recent measurements of rear ported speakers, you will see that the low end response does not match manufacturers specifications (usually not even close). For example, look at the B&W CM1 (http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/bw_cm1/) B&W's spec is -3dB at 55Hz while the graph indicates about -12, -13dB down at 55 Hz. A 10Hz difference. You will also notice that same huge jump in distortion at this frequency, the same with our Sierra-1 and also about the same level of discrepancy in the low frequency response compared to our published spec...

There is a very real explanation why the distortion measurement is so high at this frequency and why it increases so dramatically. As I am sure you know, as you approach the port tune frequency, less output is produced by the woofer and more is produced from the port. In fact, at port tune frequency, the woofer is barely even moving -- with almost 100% of output being produced from the port. As mentioned above, because this is a rear ported speaker and being tested in a true anechoic chamber (I believe tuned to about 50Hz) -- the majority of the output of the rear port is being absorbed in the 3-4 foot thick foam wedges behind the speaker and since there is barely any output from the woofer at all, all that is left to measure is pure noise (the graph is THD + noise). Try placing 5-6 pillows directly behind the port of a rear ported speaker --- where’d the bass go?

I have had a few discussions with some of the people over there regarding this, especially when it comes to including the output of the port in the frequency response measurements (simply a matter of turning the speaker around so the port faces the mic and then averaging this into the measurement) but their response was that since it is the same for all speakers, they are not willing to change. I don't agree with this though, as front ported speakers will provide better looking THD+noise graphs and deeper extension in the frequency response graph.

Here is a link to some deep bass torture tests of the Sierra-1 conducted by Craig Chase in a large room at 3 meters away:

http://img206.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sierra45hzox5.jpg

Craig measured 90dB of output at 45 Hz with 2nd order disortion at 7%. Which is much more reflective of how the speaker is truly performing.

While I am all for crossing over at around 60Hz and using a subwoofer, for music listening I think many (even most?) will find the bass of the Sierra-1 cleaner and tighter (more musical) than many subwoofers. I know I do, as do hundreds of Sierra-1 owners. Personally, I haven't used a subwoofer in quite some time. Although I felt a sub was missing when I watched 300 last night. Definitely consider adding a sub for home theater usage...

I am not here to "ruffle any feathers", but there is a reason those distortion measurements are high and they are certainly not reflective of actual performance. Note: The NHT classic 3 you mentioned is a sealed speaker so all bass response is being reproduced by the woofer in the front and the Paradigm Signature you mentioned is front ported (the majority of port output will reach the mic before it is absorbed by the wall treatments). I would say that the only fair way to compare distortion between all three of the speakers is in a frequency range where the port is producing minimal output, from 100Hz on up. Due to the measurement technique employed, distortion and response comparisons at frequencies where the port tube is contributing to output are simply not valid.

Believe me, I wish the NRC did things differently as I use there measurements as one point of reference for calibration of our own engineering gear...

Hope you find this useful...

Fortunately, Dave has now stepped up and gave a solid explanation for why the results at the NRC are so far off over at ecoustics. Definitely worth a read, and definitely worth knowing when evaluating other results from them.

Thanks Stefano-M,

Yes -- It is important when comparing measurement graphs like these to understand exactly what is being displayed. These types of graphs can be deceiving, make a loudspeaker look *worse* than another simply because the techniques being used to take the measurements work better for some and not others. That being said, the NRC measurements are still very valuable, once you are armed with the knowledge on how to interpret the data.

Further evaluation of the phenomenon discussed at Ecoustics can be examined here:

Comparing the on-axis graphs of the NHT classic 3 with the off-axis graphs. This is a sealed enclosure, no port.

Classic 3 On-axis:
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/nht_classic_three/frequency_on1530.gif

Classic 3 Off-axis
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/aci_sapphire_xl/frequency_456075.gif

Notice the bass extension at 50Hz between all the various measurements remains the same.

Now lets compare the bass extension of Paradigm Signature S2, a front ported loudspeaker.

Signature S2 On-axis
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_signature_s2/frequency_on1530.gif

Signature S2 Off-axis
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_signature_s2/frequency_456075.gif

Now let us compare to a rear ported speaker, the Sierra-1.

Sierra-1 On-axis
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/ascend_sierra1/frequency_on1530.gif

Sierra-1 Off-axis
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/speakers/ascend_sierra1/frequency_456075.gif


Examining the graphs more closely, you will notice that with the Paradigm, the bass extension begins to slightly decrease with the off-axis measurements. This is because the port tube, which is on the front baffle of the speaker, is now moving further away from the measurement microphone, subjecting the output of the port to more absorption, due to the effects of the chamber

Looking at the graph of the Sierra-1, on the off-axis measurements, you will notice that the bass extension actually increases the greater the off-axis angle. On the on-axis graph, 50Hz is 9.5 dB down. On the off-axis graph, at 75 degrees, 50Hz is now 6.5dB down, a difference of 3dB (considerable). This is because at 75 degrees off-axis, the mouth of the port is much closer to the microphone, resulting in more information from the port reaching the mic rather than being absorbed. Bass extension will continue to increase as the mouth of the port approaches on-axis (0 degrees)

The rather large "bump" at around 25Hz and then the dip at 35Hz is also an effect of a rear ported speaker being measured in an anechoic chamber. You will see something similar to this on the majority of rear-ported stand mounted speakers tested in the NRC chamber. According to this NRC graph, the Sierra-1 is -10dB at 25Hz, now THAT would really be something :p

Technically, if the speaker is -3dB at 44Hz (which is accurate), the speaker would be -27dB at 22Hz (anechoic). A ported loudspeaker rolls off at 24dB octave (there are minor exceptions to this but it holds true in general) With that in mind, the on-axis full-range graph posted on our website is far more accurate with regards to expected bass performance below 100Hz than is the measurement taken at the NRC. (our graph indicates -25dB at 22hz, very close to the -27dB I mentioned above)

Measurements are indeed an important aspect of performance, but they do require a complete understanding of exactly how the measurement was obtained and precisely what you are looking at. Much of what I do involves interpreting measurements; validating the results, evaluating potential problems and much more.

For example, just from the simple on-axis measurement of the Sierra-1, I know what the approximate width of the front baffle is. Look at the on-axis graph. Notice the dip at approximately 3.5kHz. Examine the off-axis graphs, notice that the same dip is not there. This tells me that the dip is not caused by the tweeter itself, it is a reflection and because the dip disappears at as little as 15 degrees off-axis, I know that it is not audible, even though it looks "ugly". Experience tells me that this is an edge reflection, an effect caused by diffraction. 3.5 kHz equals a wavelength of ~3.875 inches. So the output of the tweeter is reaching an edge at 3.875 inches, or in other words, the tweeter is spaced approximately 3.875 inches from an edge. Since the tweeter is in the middle of the baffle, 3.875 * 2 = 7.75 inches (the width of the front baffle). While not 100% precise, if we then subtract half of the 1/4" radiused edges on either both edges, which makes the front baffle appear larger than it is on measurements, we end up with precisely 7.5" Which is the precise width of the speaker :)

Again, there is much information that is revealed from measurements but you have to know how to evaluate it, how it was obtained and most importantly, a quick glance is not nearly enough time to draw any conclusions....

Hope some of you can find this at least somewhat interesting :)

Hope some of you can find this at least somewhat interesting :)

Wow, thanks for that post! That was interesting and very educational for me.

Bill

Stop Ascend, you're bringing back painful memories of engineering classes I'd much rather forget ;)

for music listening I think many (even most?) will find the bass of the Sierra-1 cleaner and tighter (more musical) than many subwoofers

cleaner, tighter, more musical?

Sorry..... ;) .....I know what your saying, but many people reject such statements when they come from others, thanks for speaking of "musical" bass.

Hello members of the avsforum and fans of Ascend Acoustics!

A little bird alerted me to this thread. After having read through page 25, I feel the need to address a few questions and help further explain how and why I ran into the results published in my evaluation of the Sierra 1. Before I get into the nitty gritty, I’d first like to thank everyone that took the time to read over the review and offer a bit of polite commentary. Feedback like this is extremely valuable to a greenhorn reviewer.

As a general rule of thumb, I only review products that I can comfortably accommodate in my main listening space. This sentiment is equally shared by most manufacturers. After all, if a reviewer is unable to successfully accommodate a products needs, the end result benefits absolutely no one. I try to avoid such situations by never getting into them in the first place.

As per part of my review process, I took the Sierra 1 to a few audiophile abodes to gather feedback from non bias ears. This opportunity gives me the chance to hear the speakers under very different circumstances. I use this experience to help affirm my own impressions and to also note if there are any inconsistencies in performance – which usually points towards potential problems with either the room or associated electronics.

Everyone who heard the Sierra 1’s enjoyed the sound and admired what the speaker could accomplish for such a low entry point. The only complaints registered mirrored my own; a slightly thin mid range with a high frequency response that tended to draw a lot of attention to itself at higher volumes (beaming, as I called it). I personally felt that this was a deviation from the otherwise smooth character of the Sierra 1.

That said, I will break out a dunce cap and go stand quietly in the corner of the classroom. In the review I failed to mention that I also used a powerful transistor amplifier during the evaluation process; the H2O Signature 150. During its development, this amplifier was used on the vaunted Apogee Scintilla, a speaker that presents a load that dips below 1ohm – which is damn near a short circuit. With nearly a KW worth of power on tap (100wpc into 8 ohms continuous) and a total of 400,000uf of capacitance – this amp never even broke a sweat powering the extremely load friendly Sierra 1. Failing to mention this was a critical oversight on my part.

At the end of the day, when we listen and assess a components performance, the question always is, as compared to what? During the whole evaluation process, the Sierra 1 was among esteemed company. They sat next to the; Apogee Stage, Totem Acoustic Sttaf, Mark and Daniel Topaz, Martin Logan Prodigy, Spendor SP 2/3P, among many others. All things considered – they held their own very well.

Pretentious though as this may sound – this is the very first time I’ve ever had a manufacturer disagree with an observation I’ve made on a product. I’d like to say this is due to the review being very unpolished and rushed, but sometimes – experiences are going to vary. David is of a rare breed – the kind of class act that will respect an observation even if it does not mirror his own. We need more people like him.

Ultimately, a review is nothing more than a synopsis of one man/woman’s experience. It ain't the gospel and never should be treated as such. The Sierra 1 is a wonderful accomplishment, one that I feel is well worth taking the time to experience.

Thanks all!

Sean,

Thanks for explaining the circumstances further.

The H20 amp, that uses ICEpower correct? I am a big fan of ICEpower....I am using one based on the 1000asp module.

Welcome to the forum.

Curtis,

You're spot on. H2O amplifiers use the B&O ICEpower modules. To my knowledge, the only amplifier they make that does not utilize the 1000ASP module is the aforementioned Signature 150. The circuit in an H2O amplifier is anything but off the shelf. Over-built is the call of the day. And the sound? Thats the thing objectivity is made of. While I tend to gravitate towards the inner warm glow of a class A valve amplifier, to these ears, ICEpower done right can sound pretty darned good!

Thanks for the warm welcome.

The Sig 150 does not appear on the H20 site any more....and it looks like the amps are derivatives of the 250 module, with one using 1000A module. The ASP modules have their own switching power supply, and I think H20 likes using their own transformers...and thus use modules without built-in switching power supplies.

Would love to check one out.

edit: Maybe they do use the ASP modules and bypass the power supply?

Hi Sean,

Thanks for that clarification. While I don't agree with the beaming issue I also don't agree that your review was "unpolished" and "rushed"... I thought it was a great read, well written and, as I mentioned -- I value it equally as much as any of the other reviews.

I guess that means we don't agree on two points :p ....

It is interesting when comparing all the different reviews though, each mention different characteristics of the speaker. I find that enjoyable and I hope to get many more professional reviews/opinons.

Thanks again!

OK guys, I have my Sierra Center and am waiting to for the L/R when Ascend has some more Natural B-stock cabinets.

I'm planning to cross the L/C/R Sierras at 60 Hz, and the HTM-200's that I have as side and rear surrounds at 100 Hz; seem reasonable? So then what should I set the Low Pass Filter (LPF) at on my sub (SVS PB10)? (Have a new Onkyo 805 AVR.)

It'd just be helpful if some folks were a little more realistic about the capabilities of these speakers, instead of saying "for music, you don't need a subwoofer".
There are many bookshelf style speakers that I have enjoyed over the years for music without feeling I needed a subwoofer. What is a bit more interesting, lately, is that some of them now are quite small.

While the Sierra-1's do very well w/out a sub, they would certainly benefit from a good one. I listen w/out a sub, and being in an apartment they produce very satisfying bass. Very articulate and tight. Sometimes it will hit you in the chest. I do think a sub crossed at 60hz would improve the midrange clarity, but it is excellent now.

As with any speaker, each person must decide what they prefer.

I actually have used Era's , as well as others, running full range and blended subs in with their natural rolloff and have had some fantastic results, but , as others have also mentioned, I am, usually, trying for one way of setting everything up that works best for most conditions.

Curtis,

You are correctly - H2O uses their own transformers and moreover; circuit. Henry informed me that the Signature 150 uses the A250 module, while the other amps use the A500.

David,

As always - big thanks to you sir! Now, take some time off will ya? :)

You are correctly - H2O uses their own transformers and moreover; circuit. Henry informed me that the Signature 150 uses the A250 module, while the other amps use the A500.

I've found, suprisingly, quite a bit of variability between many of the differant amps that are all using these modules, even amongst some of those using the same model module.

I've found, suprisingly, quite a bit of variability between many of the differant amps that are all using these modules, even amongst some of those using the same model module.
Interesting. Which ones? Have you compared the amps internally and how they have been implemented?

posted in the Ascend forum:

My stands from Jason were delivered on Monday, and I just had time to set them up and fill with sand!!

Fabulous!

I will post pics tomorrow when the living room is a little more presentable. :)

Thanks Jason!!

OK guys, I have my Sierra Center and am waiting to for the L/R when Ascend has some more Natural B-stock cabinets.

I'm planning to cross the L/C/R Sierras at 60 Hz, and the HTM-200's that I have as side and rear surrounds at 100 Hz; seem reasonable? So then what should I set the Low Pass Filter (LPF) at on my sub (SVS PB10)? (Have a new Onkyo 805 AVR.)
Leave the low pass filter completely off (bypassed). Your AVR will do the bass management and filtering, making it unnecessary to use the filter on the sub (you'd be doing the same job twice, and in fact you'd be messing with the blend between the sub and speakers because you'd be creating a much steeper rolloff slope between the two filters).

I don't have Sierras or HTM-200s, just a pair of CBM-170SEs. But I can tell you that my Swan D2.1SEs go deeper than the Sierras based on specs yet I have found I prefer crossing them at 80 Hz in my room (with my PB10-ISD sub). Just my preference... They sounded fine at 60 Hz too. The CBM-170SEs, which I believe play deeper than the HTM-200s, also sound good crossed at 80 Hz but not lower. I'd think you should try 80 and 100 for the 200s and see what you prefer.

My stands from Jason were delivered on Monday, and I just had time to set them up and fill with sand!!

Fabulous!

I will post pics tomorrow when the living room is a little more presentable. :)

Thanks Jason!!
Curtis-

That's great! Looking forward to the pics! :)

J.

Interesting. Which ones? Have you compared the amps internally and how they have been implemented?
Curtis, some time ago I actually took notes when trying to decide if I felt that Class D was going to be an acceptable replacement, sonicly, for other amps I have used and I did some comparisons (though brief and not terribly elaborate) between several model....strangely, as a coincidence, most were ICE module based units, and at first I wasn't terribly impressed, but some of the units I listened to later did make me feel that they were competoitive with many straight , traditional , designs, and infact, offered some advantages. At that point I stopped trying to decide if the whole concept of class D was good or not (as I had found some that were) and then I just became concerned with was any particular one a "good design".
Sadly , the only units I have ever really OPENED UP were some Roland's a while back , and Bel Cantos and Rotels. While I am aware of the improvements in the Ice modules that have occured over their evolution, I also found differances in the implementation of the same modules in differant amps. I have not done anything approaching a test that shows enough differant amps of the same manufacturer with successive incarnations of newer Ice modules side by side but I suspect that while some manufacturers may not have done a very good job with the earlier modules, they are benifiting from B&O's improvements.
I am considering Rotel Class D amp(s) for a system I may do in my Family room this winter, and I am always excited to see what some people can do with up and comming technology. I will see if I have any of the notes I took left around, but frankly , once I decided some were definately worth considering, and the catagory was "good enough" and improving, I didn't bother doing too much more.

Thanks Jake.

I know Roland, Bel Canto, and Rotel all have amps that use the 1000ASP module. Bel Canto and Roland also use other modules on other models.

As you know, the 1000ASP module is entirely self contained(as are other modules). To make a functional amp, all one needs to do is install it in a box and add the connectors for input, output, and power.

I know Roland uses some sort of proprietary circuit before the input to the module. Bel Canto just uses ferrite magnets on the input and output leads. I don't know Rotel does anything.

Your notes would be interesting. Maybe we can discuss in the old class D thread in the amps section....or send me a PM. Thanks!

Leave the low pass filter completely off (bypassed). Your AVR will do the bass management and filtering, making it unnecessary to use the filter on the sub (you'd be doing the same job twice, and in fact you'd be messing with the blend between the sub and speakers because you'd be creating a much steeper rolloff slope between the two filters).

I don't have Sierras or HTM-200s, just a pair of CBM-170SEs. But I can tell you that my Swan D2.1SEs go deeper than the Sierras based on specs yet I have found I prefer crossing them at 80 Hz in my room (with my PB10-ISD sub). Just my preference... They sounded fine at 60 Hz too. The CBM-170SEs, which I believe play deeper than the HTM-200s, also sound good crossed at 80 Hz but not lower. I'd think you should try 80 and 100 for the 200s and see what you prefer.

Thanks for the helpful remarks. The only thing that is still a puzzle is that my AVR, the new Onk 805, doesn't have the option for the LPF to be by-passed; it has to be set to 80, 90, ..., or 120. And it comments that it applies ONLY to the LFE channel, rolling off all input from the LFE channel above the LPF. So in a sense, I don't see why one shouldn't just set it at 120, i.e., taking everything the LFE channel has. The x-overs on all the other channels simply send WHAT IS IN THEM (that is below the x-over) also to the sub, but this is different material, presumably, than what is in the LFE channel.

So I'm open to more illumination!

Thanks for the helpful remarks. The only thing that is still a puzzle is that my AVR, the new Onk 805, doesn't have the option for the LPF to be by-passed; it has to be set to 80, 90, ..., or 120. And it comments that it applies ONLY to the LFE channel, rolling off all input from the LFE channel above the LPF. So in a sense, I don't see why one shouldn't just set it at 120, i.e., taking everything the LFE channel has. The x-overs on all the other channels simply send WHAT IS IN THEM (that is below the x-over) also to the sub, but this is different material, presumably, than what is in the LFE channel.

So I'm open to more illumination!
Ahhh..that is like my old HK 525. It is specific to LFE channel and the signal it carries. I believe the specs on the LFE channel is for signals at 120hz and below, so setting it LPF to 120hz will be the best.

millerwill: I believe that einsteinjb meant to bypass the base management on the sub. To do this with most subs, you simply turn the crossover knob all the way up. Then you set your AVR to whatever x-over you want. The sub will only be given the frequencies that the AVR wants to give it.

Some subs have a LFE input separate from the normal line level input. In this case, use the LFE input, because it is usually by-passing and is not affected by the crossover control knob on the sub.

Jim

millerwill: I believe that einsteinjb meant to bypass the base management on the sub. To do this with most subs, you simply turn the crossover knob all the way up. Then you set your AVR to whatever x-over you want. The sub will only be given the frequencies that the AVR wants to give it.

Some subs have a LFE input separate from the normal line level input. In this case, use the LFE input, because it is usually by-passing and is not affected by the crossover control knob on the sub.

Jim

Jim, Yes I think you're right, that this is what einsteinjb meant. However the LPF is not on the SUB (my sub, the SVS PB10 has no LPF setting, only a gain knob). The LPF setting is in the AVR, the new Onk 805 (my previous AVR, a Pio 1014, had no LPF setting), and the 805 REQUIRES that I make SOME choice for the LPF. My inclination is to go with what cschang suggested above, i.e., set it to its max value, 120 Hz, which is supposed to be the range of the LFE channel. All the LPF does is roll off the content of the LFE channel that lies above the LPF. Since the LFE channel is supposed to have content up to 120 Hz, I don't see why one would want to roll any of it off. (Note: if I set the x-over for the Sierra to be 60 Hz, only content below 60 Hz FROM THESE CHANNELS will be sent to the sub.)

Screw the technical discussion...where are the pics? :D :p


J.

Here you go....been a busy night!

http://changpics.smugmug.com/photos/195739210-M.jpg
http://changpics.smugmug.com/photos/195739214-M.jpg
http://changpics.smugmug.com/photos/195739213-M.jpg

Jim, Yes I think you're right, that this is what einsteinjb meant. However the LPF is not on the SUB (my sub, the SVS PB10 has no LPF setting, only a gain knob). The LPF setting is in the AVR, the new Onk 805 (my previous AVR, a Pio 1014, had no LPF setting), and the 805 REQUIRES that I make SOME choice for the LPF. My inclination is to go with what cschang suggested above, i.e., set it to its max value, 120 Hz, which is supposed to be the range of the LFE channel. All the LPF does is roll off the content of the LFE channel that lies above the LPF. Since the LFE channel is supposed to have content up to 120 Hz, I don't see why one would want to roll any of it off. (Note: if I set the x-over for the Sierra to be 60 Hz, only content below 60 Hz FROM THESE CHANNELS will be sent to the sub.)
You guys are right, I meant don't use a crossover on the sub. It's been a long time since I've looked in back of my PB10-ISD so I forgot it doesn't actually have a LPF on it. :o Yes, I'd agree to set the receiver's LPF to 120 for the LFE channel. :) I suspect it includes that feature in case you're using a sub whose output sounds bad at the top of its range, as some subs do. The PB10-ISD (and I'd say all of SVS's subs) do NOT suffer from this problem. :)

cschang: Wow, what beautiful woodwork! Looks like a labor of love.

cschang: Wow, what beautiful woodwork! Looks like a labor of love.
Yes! Jason did a great job.

Yes! Jason did a great job.

Aww...shucks! How was/is your listening party tonight? I'm sure it's still going on...remember...vikingdwarf@gmail.com...shameless, I know. Hope you're having a good time!

Jason

Aww...shucks! How was/is your listening party tonight? I'm sure it's still going on...remember...vikingdwarf@gmail.com...shameless, I know. Hope you're having a good time!

Jason
It's tomorrow...Sunday. :)

cschang, since you seem to be in the loop,

what are the chances of either a tower version and/or MTM centre channel version?

cschang, since you seem to be in the loop,

what are the chances of either a tower version and/or MTM centre channel version?
I have no idea.

I also see no reason for MTM center channel version of the Sierra. The current Sierra center is great.

aesthetics-symmetry with the grill off

aesthetics-symmetry with the grill off
I don't think that is a good reason unless there is an appreciable gain in performance, but that's just me.

what are the chances of ..................... MTM centre channel version?

I also see no reason for MTM center channel version of the Sierra. The current Sierra center is great.

aesthetics-symmetry with the grill off
/gulp :D

Recently, I was able to compare my Ascend Acoustics to the B&W 603 and Quad 22L. I must say, I preferred the sierra-1 much more. The sound from the b&w and quad were somewhat deeper but the clarity was not close the sierra-1. The sierra had a much smoother/listenable sound(which suites me perfect for light pop music). The imaging of the sierra were superior to the other two. Wish I had gotten the piano black finish before my 30 day expired, oh well. For those who have not listened to the sierra, it is an amazing speaker for it's price.

Recently, I was able to compare my Ascend Acoustics to the B&W 603 and Quad 22L. I must say, I preferred the sierra-1 much more. The sound from the b&w and quad were somewhat deeper but the clarity was not close the sierra-1. The sierra had a much smoother/listenable sound(which suites me perfect for light pop music). The imaging of the sierra were superior to the other two.
I have never heard the Quad, but the 603 is not even in the same ballpark as the Sierra, in fact the CBM-170SE outclasses the 601 in many ways IMO. The 603 of course is much larger (floorstander), and maybe deeper extensiion, but the bass is no where near as tight as the Sierra, which may give it the illusion of playing even deeper.

Wish I had gotten the piano black finish before my 30 day expired, oh well. For those who have not listened to the sierra, it is an amazing speaker for it's price.
I would call Ascend and see if there is anything they can do for you.

The big plus with the naturals is the ability to get matching stands from JasonColeman.

The big plus with the naturals is the ability to get matching stands from JasonColeman.
Nice plug! :D Actually, I'm doing a couple of pairs of black stands, too. One pair is semi-gloss black with plyboo accents and the other pair is flat black. I spoke with Dave about the Piano Gloss Black finish and process and I'm not touching that with a 10-foot pole...er, brush.

PM or email to vikingdwarf@gmail.com for prices.

J.

For those who have not listened to the sierra, it is an amazing speaker for it's price.
I recently did and it is , indeed , a nice speaker, but the B&W CM1's would have been a better comparison than the 603's, or if piano black is desired, the ERA D5's are also great competitors in a bookshelf style speaker.

The semi-gloss black with plyboo accents sounds real interesting.

I recently did and it is , indeed , a nice speaker, but the B&W CM1's would have been a better comparison than the 603's, or if piano black is desired, the ERA D5's are also great competitors in a bookshelf style speaker.
mziegler and I compared the CM1's with the Sierra...no comparison, the midrange of the CM1 leaves a lot to be desired IMO. I don't understand the praise for it.

On Monday evening we compared the D5 with the Sierras in my home. I was very surprised with the D5, an excellent speaker, but I felt the Sierra had more detail from top to bottom (you could simply hear more of the music), more bass extension, and it is also a tad bit more efficient. The D5 is built very well and the sycamore finish was very nice. We will probably do more listening before our time with the D5 is up if anyone in the area is interested.

Hey all,
OK this is my situation and question. My cousin is in the middle of a remodel and wants my help to set up an audio/video system. He has 2 rooms, one is a bar/entertaining area and the other in an adjacent room with a pool table. 2 plasma screens, one in each room. He wanted to go with inwall...I cringe....but the other consideration are wall mounted speakers. I really would like to get him a couple of pairs of Sierra 1's...but in his situation they would need to be wall mounted. Crutchfied has some wall mounts that will hold the speakers...swivel and so fourth...but would this type of setup be a total insult for these fine speakers? Thanks for any thoughts...
PS: his tastes are mostly Country and Rock. A sub will most likely enter the equation too.

mziegler and I compared the CM1's with the Sierra...no comparison, the midrange of the CM1 leaves a lot to be desired IMO. I don't understand the praise for it.

On Monday evening we compared the D5 with the Sierras in my home. I was very surprised with the D5, an excellent speaker, but I felt the Sierra had more detail from top to bottom (you could simply hear more of the music), more bass extension, and it is also a tad bit more efficient. The D5 is built very well and the sycamore finish was very nice. We will probably do more listening before our time with the D5 is up if anyone in the area is interested.

I'd say that it must be a taste issue as I found much to like in all three when we compared them, but I liked the Eras best of all (opinion shared by a few others as well).
While I prefer the D5's to the CM1's , the CM1's won the EISA award and tht's from many a european reviewer. I think people look at the FR issue and are predisposed not to like....I listened blind.

I have a question about detail. What measurable quality reveals this in a speaker? The reason I ask, is that that the Sierras do excel in this area in my opinion. More so than any other speaker I have heard, but then I don't listen at really loud levels (although the wife thinks I listen too loud) and it made me wonder whether I am hearing the detail as intended by the sound engineer. I assume that if I am hearing things as intended and everything was perfect (which I know isn't the case), I would hear the recording (at a certain spl level) exactly as the recording was mixed. My question is how do you know what that is? In other words, if I can hear a faint maracas or triangle, or what have you at a certain level but it is more up front on one speaker than another, is one more accurate than the other? I fine this one area that puzzles me mainly because the Sierras are so good at revealing "low level detail".

I guess what I am asking is does hearing detail mean the speaker is more accurate.

While I prefer the D5's to the CM1's , the CM1's won the EISA award and tht's from many a european reviewer. I think people look at the FR issue and are predisposed not to like....I listened blind.
Of course, it is a european speaker. What other speakers did they review?

Although I didn't listen blind, I didn't see an FR measurement of the CM1 until afterwards. I'd take the D5's over them as well and be very happy.

I guess what I am asking is does hearing detail mean the speaker is more accurate.
I would think the only way to know is to have the recording engineer listen to the speakers.

As for what to measure, I think it is a combination of things, but I would bet that decay is important.

I would think the only way to know is to have the recording engineer listen to the speakers.

As for what to measure, I think it is a combination of things, but I would bet that decay is important.
Do we have any of those that post here? That's actually a great idea. Sanjay do you have any connections that also are audio nuts?

Decay would seem logical since any "overhang" would obscure detail.

For third party, I have only seen decay measurements with Stereophile's reviews/measurements.....and other reports and studies.

For third party, I have only seen decay measurements with Stereophile's reviews/measurements.....and other reports and studies.
Agreed, they seem to be the only ones that publish those tests-I wish more of the other publications did.

That would depend upon the magnitude, decay time, and location of the resonances. Sometimes even when they're present, they can be relatively benign. Other factors to consider Randy would be the nature of the drivers with respect to break-up modes, driver interferences, and the broadband nature of the FR curve. Consider listening to solo pieces of musical instruments that have spectral energy in and around the crossover area.

That would depend upon the magnitude, decay time, and location of the resonances. Sometimes even when they're present, they can be relatively benign. Other factors to consider Randy would be the nature of the drivers with respect to break-up modes, driver interferences, and the broadband nature of the FR curve. Consider listening to solo pieces of musical instruments that have spectral energy in and around the crossover area.Thanks Chu-I will do that.

I have a question about detail. What measurable quality reveals this in a speaker? The reason I ask, is that that the Sierras do excel in this area in my opinion. More so than any other speaker I have heard, but then I don't listen at really loud levels...

Randy- Have you been able to audition the Sierra 1 with others speakers?

Randy- Have you been able to audition the Sierra 1 with others speakers?
Yes, a number of other speakers-I have owned and own or on loan-a lot of speakers. Brands are Aerial, Mackie and JBL pro, Salks (my personal and still favorite system), Outlaw, Swan DSE 2.1.

Yes, a number of other speakers-I have owned and own or on loan-a lot of speakers. Brands are Aerial, Mackie and JBL pro, Salks (my personal and still favorite system), Outlaw, Swan DSE 2.1.

Nice to see the Sierra stack up well against those speakers for details revealed.

Randybes,

^ I agree with Tex-amp that it is nice to see the Sierras stacking up well in such distinguished company.

I currently run Paradigm Studio 20s in a reasonably small apartment and have been considering a few of the brands you mention for my next upgrade. WIth all of the fantastic press the Sierras have been getting, they have certainly earned a spot on my short list. I was just hoping you might be able to elaborate a little bit on the comparison with a few of these other brands. I'm particularly interested in the Aerials (5Bs), as I have experience with the 7Bs, which to date are one of my favorite speakers. I was hoping you could comment a little bit on the sonic signature of these speakers vs. the Sierras (you don't mention what model of Aerials you have owned/auditioned, but I'm guessing as this is a discussion of stand-mounts that they are 5Bs).
After reading some feedback from Craigsub's gtg, I'm also very interested in the Swan d2.1se as it seems to have emerged the true audiophile choice from that event. Other speakers I have auditioned and really like are Dynaudio's Focus 110 and 140s, as well as Contour S1.4, to give you an idea of my preferences. The Swans certainly resemble the Dynaudios and users have commented that they may even perform favorably versus the Dyns (Tawaun Da Bomb has gone as far as to claim that they rival one of his personal favorite speakers, the Confidence C1).
The problem with most of these brands is the inability to audition without ordering a pair and making use of the return policies. I know the adage "let your ears decide" always applies, but I guess more than anything I'm curious about your impressions regarding the strengths and weakness you've identified with these models, in your opinion.
Lastly, I have no experiences with Salks, other than the many positive reviews I encounter on a daily basis in forums. How would you say the HT1s match up against any of the other contenders? (I see you run HT3's up front, but that's clearly a much more substantial speaker than I'm looking for.)
Sorry for the huge string of questions, but the quest for an upgrade, especially one which will really tax my bank account, seems worth putting in the time to get opinions from individuals more fortunate than myself who've had the opportunity to try out all of these speakers in their own systems.

Hey all,
OK this is my situation and question. My cousin is in the middle of a remodel and wants my help to set up an audio/video system. He has 2 rooms, one is a bar/entertaining area and the other in an adjacent room with a pool table. 2 plasma screens, one in each room. He wanted to go with inwall...I cringe....but the other consideration are wall mounted speakers. I really would like to get him a couple of pairs of Sierra 1's...but in his situation they would need to be wall mounted. Crutchfied has some wall mounts that will hold the speakers...swivel and so fourth...but would this type of setup be a total insult for these fine speakers? Thanks for any thoughts...
PS: his tastes are mostly Country and Rock. A sub will most likely enter the equation too.

The problem I see with this is that the Sierra is rear ported. Putting it too close to a wall will hurt the low frequency performance. If you have a sub, then you could set the crossover frequency higher, so it will come less into play, but it is still a compromise. But, I would think a compromised Sierra would still beat any in wall speakers.

I would advice giving David at Sierra a call. He is very helpfull at answering questions.

Randy

I would advice giving David at Sierra a call. He is very helpfull at answering questions.

Randy


I think you mean Dave at Ascend Acoustics.

I think you mean Dave at Ascend Acoustics.

I have been sick lately :)

Yes, I meant Dave at Ascend.

Randy

I have never heard the Quad, but the 603 is not even in the same ballpark as the Sierra, in fact the CBM-170SE outclasses the 601 in many ways IMO. The 603 of course is much larger (floorstander), and maybe deeper extensiion, but the bass is no where near as tight as the Sierra, which may give it the illusion of playing even deeper.


I would call Ascend and see if there is anything they can do for you.

The big plus with the naturals is the ability to get matching stands from JasonColeman.

Nah I prefer not to bother ascend if it is unnecessary, on the other hand if anybody decides to change to from piano black to bamboo, send me a pm. I'll pay the difference of course =).

Nah I prefer not to bother ascend if it is unnecessary, on the other hand if anybody decides to change to from piano black to bamboo, send me a pm.

Hi tangvtien,

It won't be a problem if you want to exchange your naturals for piano black... Send me an email and we can discuss the details.

The pioneer receivers match very well with the sierras. For those looking for a receiver to pair with ascend. Be sure to look at the vsx-1016. I preferred the 1016 over the rotel rmb-1095 amplifier and rc-1082 pre amp. I was able to bring the speakers to ken cranes to compare on the receiver/preamp and amp. To me, the pioneer had a much smoother sound as oppose to the rotel being a little bit deeper(vocal/instrument). It's difficult to describe the sound characteristics from the two. A listening session would definately be worth your while(and may suprise you). Your mileage may vary of course. :).

Edit: I've heard harman kardon receivers also pair very well with ascend, but unfortunately i've never had the chance to listen to hk.

Re interesting comparisons, I'd like to see a comparison between the Sierras and Outlaw Bookshelves. Also, Onix Ref 1s.

Tony,

A comparison between the Ref 1s and the Sierras would interest me as well. I had a pair of Ref 1s and 1.8s but like the 140s over both Refs.....

Sierras will be here today. Also have 170 classics, 340se, and onix ref1 that I will be comparing them to. I really love the refs and am looking forward to something new and hopefully better.

Will be interesting to hear how the comparison goes!

Hey bloodstone, have you listened to the Sierra-1a and the Ref-1s in the same room yet? I am curious to hear your opinions.

OK, so where did this guy up and run off to? :D

Add me to the backlog of interested parties. I've had both the Ref 1's and the 250MKII's and found that I prefer the 250MKII's. The extra touch of detail from the Ref1's was appreciated, and I always have told myself this was THE most important speaker performance attribute to me, but I ultimately determined that the 250MKII's were more versatile, sounding better with a larger cross section of recordings and they sounded better from more seating positions (better dispersion, or what have you).

Granted, the 250MKII's might be providing a slightly more colored sound whereas the Ref1's were revealing more of the naked truth of the recordings and front end equipment, however, I've learned that my value judgment tends towards the "I'd rather be able to enjoy the music under more circumstances" than adhering to a strict "must be subjected to hearing the truth at all times, even if it lessens my listening enjoyment".

Now, if I was financially able to front end the Ref1's with some really good equipment, I might have enjoyed them much more, as that seems to be a common refrain by those who have owned these speakers. But still there would always remain the issue of less-than-ideal musical recordings to contend with for which there is no cure (obviously, I'm not going to drop everything else in favor of only audiophile approved recordings).

I've often remarked that I would like to find a speaker that performs somewhere in between these two bookshelves, i.e., excellent detail but not too too unforgiving of less than the "best-est" of source equipment and content to feed them.

With this background in mind, in my cursory sampled reading of the Sierra's, it appears that these speakers might just fit the bill. That is, a speaker with outstanding detail but somewhat more forgiving or flexible under more listening circumstances. I certainly don't expect a definitive answer here.. all the usual "up to individual tastes", "must hear it for yourself" qualifications being understood, of course.. just looking to see if I am possibly on the right track to be considering the Sierra's?

The sierra is very detailed, but not harsh at all(somewhat of a conflict statement? :p) You should definately take advantage of their 30 days in home trial. Speakers are very subjective(mentioned so many times). Only you can decide :).

Although I hate to part with them, I posted a set of piano black sierras for sale in the marketplace section, if anyone is interested.

Although I hate to part with them, I posted a set of piano black sierras for sale in the marketplace section, if anyone is interested.
Getting Dana's?

I would think the only way to know is to have the recording engineer listen to the speakers.

As for what to measure, I think it is a combination of things, but I would bet that decay is important.

Excellent decay: (ignore the ridge above 10KHz, it is an artifact of the measuring equipment)
http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/907M10fig9.jpg

Better:
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Empfig7.jpg

Not so excellent decay:
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/theC24fig7.jpg

One is an upper-mid-fi brand, the other two are high-end boutique speakers. Which two do you think are the more expensive models?

Hi Cruel,

With this background in mind, in my cursory sampled reading of the Sierra's, it appears that these speakers might just fit the bill. That is, a speaker with outstanding detail but somewhat more forgiving or flexible under more listening circumstances. I certainly don't expect a definitive answer here.. all the usual "up to individual tastes", "must hear it for yourself" qualifications being understood, of course.. just looking to see if I am possibly on the right track to be considering the Sierra's?

From what you mentioned, I would say that the Sierra-1 might be the IDEAL speaker for you. Our design goals for this speaker were specifically a high-level of accurate detail while at the same time being extremely smooth and musical. You can read more about the technology and theory that went into the speaker on our website forum.

The pro-reviews on this speaker really say it all.

A quote from Doug Schneider, a highly regarded and experienced audiophile reviewer.

"From the very beginning, I could tell that the Sierra-1 had outstanding clarity, and was conveying much more low-level detail than any other under-$1000 two-way I’d ever heard -- qualities that became even more apparent when I sat down to do some critical listening. In fact, the Sierra-1’s ability to let me hear into recordings was right up there with Paradigm’s Signature S2 and PSB’s Platinum M2, two of the best two-way monitors on the market, and each of which sells for about two grand per pair. (I own a pair of Signature S2s.)

Some may think that all this detail I was hearing was simply a result of a tipped-up treble, something that’s done in some speaker designs to give the perception of heightened detail -- sort of like punching up the color and contrast on a video display to make the picture seem more alive. In fact, it was the opposite. The Sierra-1 sounded well balanced from top to bottom of the audioband....as far as a tipped-up top end, there wasn’t one. What I was hearing was more recorded detail -- something that’s often obscured by all but the best speakers, which are also often some of the most expensive. Nor was this clarity and detail in just one area of the audioband -- I heard it across the board, from the lowest points that the Sierra-1s could reach right up through the highs."

http://www.soundstageav.com/onhifi.html

While no speaker I know of is for everyone, from the description of what you are looking for, I feel this is THE loudspeaker for you :)

Please let me know if I can be of any additional assistance.

Hey guys, I just did a little in home comparison of my Ascend Sierras and a pair of Energy XL-250:

http://www.cinenow.com/us/materiel.php3/tid,4/id,1298/

The Energy's used to retail for $600 and I thought it would be an interesting comparison considering they are a tower speaker and the Sierras are bookshelf.

After an hour or so of comparison, I would have to say that I definitely still prefer my Sierras. The Energy's did not sound any larger and their bass was not any deeper or stronger (which was surprising). I fully expected the Energy's to have deeper bass.

The Sierras bass sounds deeper and punchier.

Imaging and mid range detail are also better on the Sierras. The highs on the Energys sound good. Not harsh or bright which you might think because of the metal tweeter. They are also a few dB more sensitive than the Sierras.

I'm probably a little biased towards the Sierras, but believe me, if I hear something better I will admit it.

Please let me know if I can be of any additional assistance.


Thanks for the feedback, David. :) I'll likely be making phone contact within the next month (or two) to pursue this possibility further.

Hey all,

Today I'm officially a new Ascend owner. I just placed an order for a piano black pair. I'm holding off on the matching center channel until I hear the pair. I'm coming from a Klipsch Reference setup (RF-7s, RC-7, RB-75s for those in the know) and my goals are smaller speakers that sound better for music. Very excited to hear these :).

-Ralph

I had been waiting on b-stock cabinets to become available for a pr Sierra's, to be the L/R speakers to go with the (b-stock) Sierra center I got several weeks ago. The cabinets finally became available last week, and the Sierra pr arrived Friday.

I was out of town through the weekend, but just got them connected up tonight--very pleased! Since they sit on 36" stands, I asked Dave F about mounting them upside-down so that the tweeters would then be on the bottom and thus right at ear level. He said no problem, and also offered to put full-size grills on them so that it wouldn't look strange with the extra wooden space showing at the top. Result is that they look great. And it's super having the L/C/R now fully 'Sierra'ed'. (Two pair of HTM 200's serve as side and rear surrounds.)

Hey guys, I just did a little in home comparison of my Ascend Sierras and a pair of Energy XL-250:

http://www.cinenow.com/us/materiel.php3/tid,4/id,1298/

The Energy's used to retail for $600 and I thought it would be an interesting comparison considering they are a tower speaker and the Sierras are bookshelf.

After an hour or so of comparison, I would have to say that I definitely still prefer my Sierras. The Energy's did not sound any larger and their bass was not any deeper or stronger (which was surprising). I fully expected the Energy's to have deeper bass.

The Sierras bass sounds deeper and punchier.

Imaging and mid range detail are also better on the Sierras. The highs on the Energys sound good. Not harsh or bright which you might think because of the metal tweeter. They are also a few dB more sensitive than the Sierras.

I'm probably a little biased towards the Sierras, but believe me, if I hear something better I will admit it.

That took you an hour ? I would think 12 seconds would have done it ... :D

I got 'b-stock' cabinets for my L/C/R Sierra's since I think I may decide to paint the cabinets a flat black to reduce reflections in my HT. (I wish they came in the same finish as the 340's, but it seems that bamboo precludes that.)

Question: I presume that I should use a flat black enamel paint--i.e., not a flat black wall paint. Is that correct? Also, do any of you have recommendations for a specific paint to use for this purpose? TIA, Bill

I got 'b-stock' cabinets for my L/C/R Sierra's since I think I may decide to paint the cabinets a flat black to reduce reflections in my HT. (I wish they came in the same finish as the 340's, but it seems that bamboo precludes that.)

Question: I presume that I should use a flat black enamel paint--i.e., not a flat black wall paint. Is that correct? Also, do any of you have recommendations for a specific paint to use for this purpose? TIA, Bill

Ask at better paint stores like Benjamin Moore and Pratt & Lambert what paint to use.

Ask at better paint stores like Benjamin Moore and Pratt & Lambert what paint to use.

I'd ask Ascend, they offer different finish options for the 170/340 I believe, maybe they could do the same for the Sierras.

I wouldn't paint them at all. Get 1000 grit sand paper and lightly sand them and just wipe them down and this might the finish your looking for.

I wouldn't paint them at all. Get 1000 grit sand paper and lightly sand them and just wipe them down and this might the finish your looking for.


Great idea. Should do just the trick.

Well at least try without the sanding... In my experience it'll work fine. If the speakers are toed in towards the listener, the reflection you get is the back of the room, which is pretty dark. For the side of the speakers, you don't get a reflection because of the toe in (unless you're not in the center and quite a bit to the side), but even then it really isn't dramatic in my experience.

Sanding wouldn't be great for resale value, if you ever want to sell them, and IMHO, would definitely not look as nice as the Piano black finish.

I responded over on the Ascend forum:

Before painting them, I would look at an alternative method to reducing the reflections.

How about using some kind material wrapped about the top and side surfaces? Some kind stretchable black material. Or just drape some black felt material over them. The grille will reduce the glare from the front baffle, and you don't need to worry about the back of the speaker

I concur. I can't imagine doing anything as horrendous as sanding or painting my beautiful Sierras!

I agree that the natural Sierra finish is beautiful, but I do definitely see it in my HT. I tried covering the sides in black fabric, but couldn't do a very neat job of this. So my inclination still is--as much as I hate to perturb the natural finish--to paint them a flat black. (I REALLY liked the finish on the 340's I had, though I love the sound of the Sierras!)

Paint a couple of pieces of cardboard flat black and lean them against the speaker when watching a movie.

I agree that the natural Sierra finish is beautiful, but I do definitely see it in my HT. I tried covering the sides in black fabric, but couldn't do a very neat job of this. So my inclination still is--as much as I hate to perturb the natural finish--to paint them a flat black. (I REALLY liked the finish on the 340's I had, though I love the sound of the Sierras!)You do or you "don't" see it in your HT? If you have the gloss black and want to tone it down, I would go in steps.

As deboman suggested, I'd start with sandpaper. 1000 grit won't do much, so you may need to go as low as 400. Buy 1000, 600 and 400 and start with the 1000. If you don't get there with 400 grit, your next step would be even coarser paper (perhaps 220). The surface would then be sufficiently prepared to hit it with a flat black paint, which would give it an industrial look but would definitely tone down the reflections. Plus, the flat paint will hide any imperfections of the paint job much better than paint with a sheen.

I just can't stomach it anymore...there's got to be a better solution.

J.

Thank you guys for various suggestions. Of the above ones, the idea of painting some cardboard pieces flat black sounds worth a try; I could use 2-way scotch tape to hold them snugly to the sides of the speakers. (This won't have any sonic effect, will it?)

I too am very reluctant to screw up the beautiful finish of these natural Sierra's and won't paint them until trying out anything else I (or you) can think of.

well, i don't see the reflection in mine... i'm gonna consider myself fortunate there... it would kill me to have to mess up that beautiful natural finish on the speakers...

I still say try a nicely cut piece of black felt draped over them when watching a movie.

I still say try a nicely cut piece of black felt draped over them when watching a movie.

That's the best suggestion yet. You can buy custom cut black velvet fabric at Hancock's. It would be a cold day in Hell before I'd mess w/slapping on a coat of paint on a new set of nice speakers, let alone the beautiful Sierras.

Hey Curtis, have you heard the Acculine A-1 speakers? If you have what are your thoughts comparing them to the 340se's?

Hey Curtis, have you heard the Acculine A-1 speakers? If you have what are your thoughts comparing them to the 340se's?
Nope, I haven't...but would like to.

I just ordered these for the front R/C/L but I am not sure what to do for the two rear surround speakers. My space configuration is attached (a 7.5'x12.5' space). The wall behind the couch is a bar (counter is 1" above the back of the couch). I would like to avoid speakers on the bar and also would prefer not having to move the couch off the back wall since it is already a small area as it is. Any suggestions, including in-ceilings, for rears that would (a) work well for the space and (b) match well with the Sierra's up front would be much appreciated.

Thanks, KAS

PS Majority of use will be for HT.

I have Sierra's L/C/R and use Ascend HTM-200's as side and rear surrounds. I find the latter perfectly adquate, at least for HT which is my primary use. The 200's are great wrt placement, since they are not ported; you can hand them on a picture hook on the wall. 170's could be noticeably better if your use is hi def music, but these are rear ported and thus need to have some space behind them.

PS It has been noted that Dr. Hsu, the sub guru, prefers to use HTM 200's for all 5 or 7 speakers in a 5.1 or 7.1 setup with one of his subs.

Thanks for the info. Are these stands available yet for the Sierras? I found them on the Ascend website, but do not see them for sale. Also, is it possible to wall mount these? KAS

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/images/products/speakers/SRM1/SR1PB_stand_hr.jpg

Thanks for the info. Are these stands available yet for the Sierras? I found them on the Ascend website, but do not see them for sale. Also, is it possible to wall mount these? KASIt is not a good idea to wall-mount a rear-ported speaker.

My Sierra's arrived today :D.

I got the piano black finish, as expected they are beautiful. So far I've been listening to a lot of music and watched some of the Matrix Reloaded HDDVD in stereo. I'm really impressed by their sound so far, especially for their small size. While waiting for their arrival I was using Klipsch RB-75s which have 8 inch woofers but are front ported and IMO the bass from the Sierras is better. I'm using a PB-12 NSD though and while the Sierras have good bass, even for music I'm crossing them over at 80Hz because I'm used to the different impact a subwoofer provides. Very precise imaging, the first few recordings I used were mainly vocal/acoustic and they shined in this aspect. I enjoy the midrange from the Sierras more than the RB-75s.

One awesome thing about the Sierras is without any Room EQ (from my Denon 2807) they are infinitely more pleasurable to listen to than my Klipsch, so for a situation where EQ is unavailable they would dominate. With EQ enabled, the sound quality gap is narrowed but still there, I'm just not sure if its enough of a difference to make the switch, as I'm financially tight right now. I really wish I had ordered the Sierra-1 center at the same time so I could get a better feel for dialogue performance compared to my previous setup (which used a Klipsch RC-7). So-so dialogue intelligibility in my room was one of the reasons I decided to audition Ascend.

For those on the fence, even after only a few hours of listening, I already feel confident that these speakers are well worth their price tag. I'll report back in a week or so after some extended listening.

-Ralph

Thanks for the info. Are these stands available yet for the Sierras? I found them on the Ascend website, but do not see them for sale. Also, is it possible to wall mount these? KAS

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/images/products/speakers/SRM1/SR1PB_stand_hr.jpg


Hi Kas,

We do have a limited number of these stands available (they are not yet listed on our website). If these interest you, please give us a call. Additionally, if you send me an email or PM, I can send you a link to wall mount brackets that work well with the Sierra-1.

i have a pair of the above stands that i use with the bamboo sierras and although the stands have cherry colored wood the contrast looks quite good and they are study as hell----purchased the stands through ascend

Or you could always get a pair of these...same material and finish as the natural Sierras...

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z285/vikingdwarf/BugsEyeView.jpg

Or if you're in the market for a Sierra CC stand...

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z285/vikingdwarf/DSC01170.jpg

J.

Just put in an order for sierras (L/C/R). Any recommendations on a sub-woofer that will complement the sierras?

Just put in an order for sierras (L/C/R). Any recommendations on a sub-woofer that will complement the sierras?

Interesting question. In the past some people here would have suggested a Hsu sub, but some now say that they won't keep up when it come to music. Since the Sierra does so well on the low end, you won't often need a sub with music. Somehow I think a Hsu is just fine for HT (I have the Hsu 3.2).

I like the JL f112, which I have heard. The new SVS Ultra is getting some serious rave reviews, and it costs a fraction of the JL. Some of us should have the opportunity to hear the SVS in action in a couple of weeks.

OK, guys, I didn't paint my Sierra's black! As a compromise with my wife, I agreed to tack up some light-weight black cotton fabric to the ceiling (out about 7 ft from the back wall) in stead of painting it black.

So I tried wrapping some of this fabric around the top and sides of the Sierra's, taping it on the rear as necessary, and tucking in the edges just inside the grills. Works very well, and the black covering makes them really 'disappear' in the HT. And the natural finish is not harmed!

So I tried wrapping some of this fabric around the top and sides of the Sierra's, taping it on the rear as necessary, and tucking in the edges just inside the grills. Works very well, and the black covering makes them really 'disappear' in the HT. And the natural finish is not harmed!

Sounds like an excellent solution. It was difficult reading your posts about sanding/stripping/painting that beautiful finish.

Jim

Just put in an order for sierras (L/C/R). Any recommendations on a sub-woofer that will complement the sierras?

the eD A5-350 $600 SHIPPED

i just got my sierra's today and they sound real good, plus the piano black finish is shinier than i could have ever imagined. the one problem is i can now hear the difference between cd's and mp3's ripped at 192 so i've got a lot of work cut out for me as i begin my quest for lossless files (or maybe v0, we will see)

Can anyone comment on these for 2 channel music? In particular rock/hard rock/metal etc. Having the ability to run without a sub is a plus and it seems these might fit the ticket. However reading in this thread it seems the midrange is clean compared to a pair of B&W's with a crunchy midrange which might present better acoustics for my type of music. Any thoughts?

Tool sounds amazing on my Sierras. They can play loud with tons of detail and very good bass for a bookshelf speaker. The midrange is fantastic.

They probably won't play as loud as a big floorstander but they make up for it in detail and clarity.

Agreed. For the size and the cost, you'd be hard pressed to find another speaker that can do what the Sierra can do. Fiercely dynamic, very detailed mids and highs, and impressively low extension for its size. I run mine without a sub and don't feel the need to add one at this point. I might consider a DIY (Rythmik?) down the road made with the Plyboo material, but the Sierras perform very well on their own with no sub.

J.

I might consider a DIY (Rythmik?) down the road made with the Plyboo material.....

Oh wow Jason....I would love to see that! Woould love to hear it too....but you live too far away.

I run mine without a sub and don't feel the need to add one at this point.

Being an Ascend owner and, thus, following Ascend threads, I keep seeing this and it raises questions in my mind. Folks seem to be saying this as if to suggest its a bad thing (to "have to" add the sub). Is it really bad? And if its not, what's the thought process behind trying to replace a low sound frequency producing specialist (a subwoofer) with just one pair of main speakers? I presume maybe its what one of the posters a few above me said; where his decorum or space just isn't allowing for a sub. And, of course, in an age of home theater and LFE channels, it would seem anyone (also) into home theater would have a sub anyway.

If it is bad, then how are subwoofers companies selling high end subs at and well passing 1K dollars even thriving? Are they just selling subs mainly for folks playing ONLY the LFE channel in home theater? If two speakers playing all the sound is inherently better than two (non-full range) speakers + sub, it would stand to reason one should just put the extra 1-3K into the two main channels to ensure that they are full range unless they're just buying one for LFE.

If its not "inferior" to add the sub to complete the sound range, then maybe it doesn't make much sense to state "not having to add the sub" as if its a virtue (for most people).

Being an Ascend owner and, thus, following Ascend threads, I keep seeing this and it raises questions in my mind. Folks seem to be saying this as if to suggest its a bad thing (to "have to" add the sub). Is it really bad?Subwoofers cost money and take up space.

As pointed out before, the sound quality from the Sierras is outstanding, and a subwoofer is not needed for most music.

But like most speakers, adding a sub frees the woofer in the Sierra of lower bass duties, which is a good thing, especially if you going to be playing your music at higher levels.

That said, the quality of the bass from the Sierra is excellent, and you would want an excellent sub from a sound quality standpoint as well.

...maybe it doesn't make much sense to state "not having to add the sub" as if its a virtue (for most people).
I was just simply saying that I don't use mine with a sub...no slant either way. I don't really have the space for one in my setup right now and there's not a matching sub for the Sierra, so I might consider a Plyboo DIY in the future.

J.

Jason, as you know I recently built a Rythmik Direct Servo 12" sub in a 2cu.ft. sealed enclosure. No plyboo, just 3/4" MDF. Paired with the Sierra-1's it is truly transparent, and keeps up with them. All told, it cost around $750-$800 with a custom-made enclosure from RAW Acoustics. If you build your own enclosure it will be material cost + your time. The Rythmik kit was $429+shipping. If you would like to hear the combo before diving in yourself let me know.

Ed

Ed-

I would be interested in hearing your sub at some point.

J.

Tool sounds amazing on my Sierras. They can play loud with tons of detail and very good bass for a bookshelf speaker. The midrange is fantastic.

They probably won't play as loud as a big floorstander but they make up for it in detail and clarity.
Haha I hate you... my favorite band is Tool and you've probably just made me $900 poorer. BTW I am going to see them in Saskatoon on November 27th. Flying down from the Yukon to Calgary to meet up with my brothers and a friend and we're gonna bus it. They've been touring for over a year straight now and I saw them August 2006 in Calgary. This time though the only stop in Canada is in Saskatoon because they missed it last time (my best guess). They aren't making a second stop to Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary which is unfortunate. But I'll do what I have to do to see my favorite band.

Anyone else have opinions on these speakers with hard rock/metal etc? Also, what about pop/dance/hip hop/electronica? I do lots of dancing and breaking so I need them to be able to jam some rhythm. Hard rock and metal come first though.

Just let me know Jason. I'd love to see those Plyboo stands in person.

You still have my PM & phone#, right?

Jason, as you know I recently built a Rythmik Direct Servo 12" sub in a 2cu.ft. sealed enclosure. No plyboo, just 3/4" MDF. Paired with the Sierra-1's it is truly transparent, and keeps up with them. All told, it cost around $750-$800 with a custom-made enclosure from RAW Acoustics. If you build your own enclosure it will be material cost + your time. The Rythmik kit was $429+shipping. If you would like to hear the combo before diving in yourself let me know.

Ed

Ed,

Can you write us a testimonial? :) BTW, Al had made a couple more of those enclosures. For those need good-looking premade enclosures, please contact Al.

Brian

Rythmik Audio

Being an Ascend owner and, thus, following Ascend threads, I keep seeing this and it raises questions in my mind. Folks seem to be saying this as if to suggest its a bad thing (to "have to" add the sub). Is it really bad? ............

If its not "inferior" to add the sub to complete the sound range, then maybe it doesn't make much sense to state "not having to add the sub" as if its a virtue (for most people).

Besides a couple of the other reasons already mentioned for not using a sub, some of which aren't for sound reasons (HA! apt doubling meaning! :cool:) but space/convenience/cost reasons, not needing to rely upon a sub to fill in the bottom end for music can also be beneficial to the extent that it eliminates the thorny complication of most processors/receivers having to re-digitize the sound in the process of re-directing the bass output to that sub.

So if you have a high quality cd player, DAC, etc., from which you may want all of your sound quality emanating from, not having the audio signal further manipulated and degraded by what your receiver is doing to the signal in the process of re-directing the low bass to the sub, is often preferable. At least theoretically, it will result in better sound.

Now, there are some ways around this problem, but your options are limited. Avoiding the issue altogether can be preferable, as long as your mains will provide deep enough bass for the types of music you listen to, which apparently the Sierras can do for the vast majority of us.

For example, I have a Panasonic xr55 digital receiver and there is no way for me to avoid having this receiver introduce it's own sound colorization in the process of re-directing the lower bass to my sub. So I'm never really hearing the full quality of my front end playback equipment, which is annoying.

So for me using a sub as I do now w/ my current bookshelf speakers, I must either go about finding another processor/receiver which would allow me to pass lower bass frequencies in the same 'already converted to' analog domain that is being provided by my playback equipment and not having it re-digitized, which isn't an option with this Panasonic receiver and most other receivers, for that matter. Or, I must "punt" from the beginning, i.e., using a digital cable to attach my front end equipment to the receiver, forgoing their own quality DACs since the Panasonic is going to have to use it's own DAC anyway in the process of separating the lower frequencies going to my sub. :mad:

For example, I have a Panasonic xr55 digital receiver and there is no way for me to avoid having this receiver introduce it's own sound colorization in the process of re-directing the lower bass to my sub. So I'm never really hearing the full quality of my front end playback equipment, which is annoying.


The other conversion, which is high pass the input signal and feed the front speakers, has far more coloration than this bass signal processing. That is why most audiophiles want to run their front speakers full range. For me, I modify my own Denon 4800 to have a 1st order RC highpass to front speaker when in "Direct CD" mode. When in HT mode, bass management takes over. My bro has a DIY preamp and amps. His solution is a bit different. In both cases, we avoid adding additional op amp and RC components to the signal between CD and front speakers. In the end, we only add one cap and one resistor. For subwoofers, it is less critical.

Brian

Rythmik Audio

Agreed. For the size and the cost, you'd be hard pressed to find another speaker that can do what the Sierra can do. Fiercely dynamic, very detailed mids and highs, and impressively low extension for its size. I run mine without a sub and don't feel the need to add one at this point. I might consider a DIY (Rythmik?) down the road made with the Plyboo material, but the Sierras perform very well on their own with no sub.

J.

I would have loved to do my Rythmik 12" in Plyboo, but it was just too expensive for me at the time I built mine...
Only so much cash available, and I've spent a fair amount(for my budget at least) on HT in the last year.
Maybe down the line I will build another one, and use the Plyboo.

My Rythmik sounds great with the Sierras.

Can anyone comment further on these speakers for rock music? The clean midrange has been the bump in the road for me. Some even have called it thin or recessed... not so good for energetic rock music. Anyone?

Can anyone comment further on these speakers for rock music? The clean midrange has been the bump in the road for me. Some even have called it thin or recessed... not so good for energetic rock music. Anyone?
Definitely not recessed by any means. Clean, yes, but for some people that translates into thin.

Those calling the mids recessed or thin, what are they comparing them to?

Whether they are good for anytype of music really had to do with preferences.

Ed,

Can you write us a testimonial? :) BTW, Al had made a couple more of those enclosures. For those need good-looking premade enclosures, please contact Al.

Brian

Rythmik Audio

Sure thing, Brian! I will try and send you something soon. Still getting used to the sub. It blends with the Sierras so well, it sounds like the speakers are simply extending deeper than by themselves. Very transparent.

............

So if you have a high quality cd player, DAC, etc., from which you may want all of your sound quality emanating from, not having the audio signal further manipulated and degraded by what your receiver is doing to the signal in the process of re-directing the low bass to the sub, is often preferable. At least theoretically, it will result in better sound.

...............

For example, I have a Panasonic xr55 digital receiver and there is no way for me to avoid having this receiver introduce it's own sound colorization in the process of re-directing the lower bass to my sub. So I'm never really hearing the full quality of my front end playback equipment, which is annoying.


I would think you're definitely the exception to the rule. I would think most people purchasing Sierra-1's are going to have a quality name receiver (or component amp) to provide the power and "colorization" and would only want their DVD passing the audio through unaffected. I'm running an Oppo DVD, and a H/K receiver (and HSU sub). H/K is quality, HSU is quality, and both should be equal (and probably better) at doing all the sound processing and/or powering over the Oppo.

I'll also note that the "degrading" done by the receiver is definitely opinion. I'm a fan of H/K sound, and really enjoy using logic 7.

...................

So, well ok. I figured (wrong, i guess) that most people had subs given the popularity of dolby digital/DTS. I've never heard bass from a Sierra, but I do know for fact bass from an HSU is awesome. Also, I think I would probably prefer having sound from 25-45hz too, even in music.

I don't think anyone is denying the value of subs for movies. Can't really do without them for that purpose. We're just saying that sometimes there are reasons why one might choose not to use a sub for music. And those reasons don't include a criticism that a quality sub, such as yours, can't be good for music. They can be VERY good, PROVIDED it's set up under optimal conditions, which is where things can get a bit hairy and why some people would prefer to go without one.

I would disagree with your comment that I am "definitely the exception to the rule. I would think most people purchasing Sierra-1's are going to have a quality name receiver (or component amp)". As far as your HK goes, it's a generally well-regarded receiver company, and my Panasonic is on roughly equal footing with it, reputation-wise. Some prefer the HK sound, some prefer Panasonic. Many consider the digital Panasonic receivers to be "giant killers" in the audio receiver market, competing favorably with models retailing up to $1K or more. Some have gotten rid of their HK receivers to "upgrade" to the Panasonics. But our level of receiver quality is not really what I'm talking about here anyway.

What I am talking about is front end equipment often considered to be superior to most of the receiver models from the likes of a HK, Denon, Pioneer, Panasonic, etc. Like dedicated DAC units which people use to supersede or circumvent the DACs internal to their receivers, cd players, dvd players, etc.

Now, perhaps the audio differences would be marginal, but nevertheless.. it would be nice to experience the full extent of those differences. Perhaps I'm overstating the extent of degradation that takes place when your HK or my Panasonic receiver does the DAC conversion, or a second DAC conversion for bass redistribution purposes.. I really don't have enough experience with it to know for sure. The super-audio geeks seem to always make a big deal about it being a negative though.

The other conversion, which is high pass the input signal and feed the front speakers, has far more coloration than this bass signal processing. That is why most audiophiles want to run their front speakers full range. For me, I modify my own Denon 4800 to have a 1st order RC highpass to front speaker when in "Direct CD" mode. When in HT mode, bass management takes over. My bro has a DIY preamp and amps. His solution is a bit different. In both cases, we avoid adding additional op amp and RC components to the signal between CD and front speakers. In the end, we only add one cap and one resistor. For subwoofers, it is less critical.

Brian

Rythmik Audio

I'd like to respond to your post, but I'm still remedial enough that I don't understand half of what you've described. I've seen the terminology tossed around plenty of times before, but I still haven't progressed enough where I can adequately comprehend it. :D

I am currently auditioning the Sierra's using my Yamaha RX V1400 as a preamp. Using the Direct mode that bypasses all procesing (and the ability to engage the sub woofer), the Sierra's project an incredible 3-D image and great clarity form the top to the bottom of it's frequency range. The bass is outstanding for a speaker its size and for most recordings a sub is not needed. However, there are some recordings that benefit. When I siwtch to 2-channel mode to engage the sub, it directs the signal through the pre-amp's processor. There's a clear audible difference: you get the extra bass and the sound stage gets wider, but you also lose some of the clear 3-D imaging that is one of the strongest features of the Sierra. I wrote to ask David F. about it and he suspects the processor is at fault. Also, he owns a Rotel preamp that allows the sub woofer to be engaged in the Direct mode. It sounds like the analogue-digital conversion process can really degrade the sounds of high quality speakers. If anyone has a solution, short of buying new equipment, I would love to hear it. Thanks.

When I siwtch to 2-channel mode to engage the sub, it directs the signal through the pre-amp's processor. There's a clear audible difference: you get the extra bass and the sound stage gets wider, but you also lose some of the clear 3-D imaging that is one of the strongest features of the Sierra.
Where are you crossing over? Have you tried a lower crossover point?

I crossed over at 80. Will 60 or lower make a difference in imaging? - I think my Yamaha can cross over as low as 50.

Thanks for demonstrating my point, Odd E Oh. Where should I send the check? ;)

Provided there isn't a simple modification you can make to your existing equipment (ala cschang's post above), one possible solution is to find one of the used Outlaw units which you can place in between your receiver and your cd/dvd/etc. players which will allow you to engage your sub in the direct mode w/o the receiver mucking things up.

It's discontinued but you can find them for around $250, I think. It doesn't take up too much space (approx. 2" tall), and it has individual crossover settings for each channel including sub, etc. I forget the name but I'm sure somebody here knows what I am talking about. That's probably the cheapest option if you want to keep your current receiver/preamp. Perhaps still more than you want to spend though.

I crossed over at 80. Will 60 or lower make a difference in imaging? - I think my Yamaha can cross over as low as 50.
I would try it to see if giving more back to the Sierra will make a difference. It might not since it is still being processed by the Yamaha, but it wouldn't hurt to try.

I know in my system, I like crossing over better at 60hz than 80hz.

I forget the name but I'm sure somebody here knows what I am talking about.
Outlaw ICBM

Yep, that's it!

Thank you Cruel and Curtis for the suggestions. I will try the lower crossover point. I don't want to add more equipment at this point and will probably stick to Direct for music and just use the sub for movies unless that crossover makes a difference, at least for now.

All that aside, the Sierra's are an amazing speaker. Vocals are as natural as anything I have heard. Instrument's sounds just hang in the air. I can't imagine anything better at $800.00 per pair. I will not be sending these back - keepers for sure!

I auditioned the Paradigm S2's a couple of years ago and was impressed, but they were 2 grand. It would be interesting to do a direct comparison with the Sierra.

Lowering the crossover to 60hz made a big difference. I never would have thought it would effect the imaging. Thanks Curtis!

Lowering the crossover to 60hz made a big difference. I never would have thought it would effect the imaging. Thanks Curtis!
Great! I'll PM you an invoice. :D

What sub do you have?

maybe I'll just forward the check I was supposed to send to him directly on to you. :D

SVS 25-31 Cylinder Sub - It's good enough for me in movies - I don't know how it compares to other subs in the music department.

SVS 25-31 Cylinder Sub - It's good enough for me in movies - I don't know how it compares to other subs in the music department.
To match the sound quality of the Sierras, I would look at a sound quality upgrade in the sub department.

Curtis, Any suggestions for good Sierra matches in the sub department? What are the qualities in the SVS 25-31 that make it a less than ideal match?

As an owner of Sierra-1's, and having just added a 12" Rythmik Direct Servo sub, I can highly recommend this combo. Keeping the crossover at 60hz, the sub simply adds extension and heft to material without muddying up the sound. The sub is transparent.

Prices on the Rythmik kits will be going up on Nov 3rd...I think by $30. I will probably be ordering one of the kits, but I'm not sure which one yet. I'm going to give them a call this afternoon.

J.

Everything I have read about the Rythmik kits have been great.....and as you see, there are a couple of Sierra owners with Rythmiks that are very happy.

I have also heard the JL Audio Fathom F112 with the Sierras, and that was great.

I own a Hsu VTF-3.3 and also think it is very good, but not quite as good as the Fathom.

The SVS Ultra13 is also getting great reviews for sound quality as well as output.

Everything I have read about the Rythmik kits have been great.....and as you see, there are a couple of Sierra owners with Rythmiks that are very happy.

I have also heard the JL Audio Fathom F112 with the Sierras, and that was great.

I own a Hsu VTF-3.3 and also think it is very good, but not quite as good as the Fathom.

The SVS Ultra13 is also getting great reviews for sound quality as well as output.

The unfinished MDF matches the color of the natural bamboo quite well...

Everything I have read about the Rythmik kits have been great.....and as you see, there are a couple of Sierra owners with Rythmiks that are very happy.

I have also heard the JL Audio Fathom F112 with the Sierras, and that was great.

I own a Hsu VTF-3.3 and also think it is very good, but not quite as good as the Fathom.

The SVS Ultra13 is also getting great reviews for sound quality as well as output.

Hi Curtis
I just finished building a Rythmik, the 12DS kit. It does not have much time on it yet, but maybe when it's broken in, I can bring it over? I was thinking about buying a Hsu, so I am curious to see how it compares.

BTW, I work in El Segundo.

Randy

Hi Curtis
I just finished building a Rythmik, the 12DS kit. It does not have much time on it yet, but maybe when it's broken in, I can bring it over? I was thinking about buying a Hsu, so I am curious to see how it compares.

BTW, I work in El Segundo.

Randy
Sweet!!!

Just let me know when! I am sure there will be others that will want to hear it too!

Cross-over question from the more experienced ones of you:

I have Sierras L/C/R, and HTM-200's as surrounds sides and rears, and a new Onkyo 805 AVR that allows individual x-overs for all speakers, and also a low pass filter (LPE) that rolls off the LFE channel at the value set for the LPF.

My present settings are 60Hz for the x-over of the Sierras, and 80Hz for the 200's, and 80Hz for the LPF of the LFE channel. Is it reasonable to set the x-over for the 200's this low, or should it be up to 90 or 100 Hz? And if so, I would presumably need to set the LPF up to this value so as not to loose any bass from the surrounds that is routed to the sub? But if I set the surrounds up at 100Hz, and the LPF thus at 100Hz, then the L/C/R Sierras and the sub are both putting out signals in the range 60 - 100Hz, with the possibility of interference between them, right?

Any thoughts and experiences would be appreciated.

Cross-over question from the more experienced ones of you:

I have Sierras L/C/R, and HTM-200's as surrounds sides and rears, and a new Onkyo 805 AVR that allows individual x-overs for all speakers, and also a low pass filter (LPE) that rolls off the LFE channel at the value set for the LPF.

My present settings are 60Hz for the x-over of the Sierras, and 80Hz for the 200's, and 80Hz for the LPF of the LFE channel. Is it reasonable to set the x-over for the 200's this low, or should it be up to 90 or 100 Hz? And if so, I would presumably need to set the LPF up to this value so as not to loose any bass from the surrounds that is routed to the sub? But if I set the surrounds up at 100Hz, and the LPF thus at 100Hz, then the L/C/R Sierras and the sub are both putting out signals in the range 60 - 100Hz, with the possibility of interference between them, right?

Any thoughts and experiences would be appreciated.

Other members can comment on the xover parts as it apprears to be very complicated and very much implementation-dependent. But one thing to notice is the xover control on the subwoofer plate serves as a fine-tuning tool. It can attenuate the overlapping range.

One of the most overlooked aspects of tuning is phase adjustment. For all Rythmik sub's customers, please try the phase adjustment to see if it improves the body of midbass sound. If you xover at 60-100hz, your usable adjustment range should not be more than 11'oclock range, and most likely in the 7-9'oclock range. If you use a HT receiver, the delay time adjustment is the same idea.

Brian

Rythmik Audio

Thanks for the comments, Brian. My sub is a SVS PB10, which has no xover control on it, but does have a phase control. I played with the phase a bit in conjunction with a BFD with a previous set of speakers and saw little effect. Perhaps, since the Sierras and the sub will both be putting out signal between 60 and 80 Hz (or 60 and 100 if I set the LFE to 100), I should investigate the effect of the sub's phase again. Thanks for the suggestion.

Cross-over question from the more experienced ones of you:

I have Sierras L/C/R, and HTM-200's as surrounds sides and rears, and a new Onkyo 805 AVR that allows individual x-overs for all speakers, and also a low pass filter (LPE) that rolls off the LFE channel at the value set for the LPF.

My present settings are 60Hz for the x-over of the Sierras, and 80Hz for the 200's, and 80Hz for the LPF of the LFE channel. Is it reasonable to set the x-over for the 200's this low, or should it be up to 90 or 100 Hz? And if so, I would presumably need to set the LPF up to this value so as not to loose any bass from the surrounds that is routed to the sub? But if I set the surrounds up at 100Hz, and the LPF thus at 100Hz, then the L/C/R Sierras and the sub are both putting out signals in the range 60 - 100Hz, with the possibility of interference between them, right?

Any thoughts and experiences would be appreciated.
This should only affect what is sent discretely to the LFE channel....which is only contained in DD, DTS, DVD-A, and SACD....anything with a discrete LFE signal.

I would set the LPF on the LFE channel to its highest setting.....120hz, and not pass anything meant for that channel to any other speaker.

This should only affect what is sent discretely to the LFE channel....which is only contained in DD, DTS, DVD-A, and SACD....anything with a discrete LFE signal.

I would set the LPF on the LFE channel to its highest setting.....120hz, and not pass anything meant for that channel to any other speaker.

Thanks, Chris. As you see, I'm still perplexed by all these choices! And as I recall, you have your Sierras x'ed at 60Hz, right? Do you have the 200's as surrounds, and if so, do you x them at 90, 100,..?

Thanks, Chris. As you see, I'm still perplexed by all these choices! And as I recall, you have your Sierras x'ed at 60Hz, right? Do you have the 200's as surrounds, and if so, do you x them at 90, 100,..?
Yeah....Sierras crossed at 60hz (actually have my center Sierra crossed at 80hz), and CBM-170SE surrounds crossed at 80hz.

You should try different settings to see what sounds best.

for what its worth i have a svs pb12/+ sub and with the bass mgt. feature of a outlaw 2150 it seems to me to be seemless intregration with the sierras in a 10 x 12 room----if i enable the sub crossover at 60 it doesnt appear to be as seemless-----i am a complete novice at this and only have limited experience so please take this into consideration, however it does sound good to me:)

Can anyone recommend something that is similar to the sierra but floorstanders? I am trying to get a pair for my living room as I have a pair of sierra already. after listening to many other speakers including the helicon 400, usher 718, revel f32. I keep wanting to go back to the sierras.

I have not heard the f32 Revel floorstander, but from what I have heard from Revel, I would think that their focus on accuracy/transparency would be similar to Ascend. How did the F32 compare to the Sierra?

Hi,
I'm trying to decide between a setup of L/C/R Sierra-1's and rear HTM-200's or a 5.1 set of SVS Sound SCS-01 speakers.

It will be used mostly for HT (75%) and some for music listening (25%). Are the Sierra-1's overkill for a primarily HT setup? Should I save some money and just get the SCS-01 setup?

I will be running the speakers through an Onkyo 805. I'm going to go with an SVS or HSU sub.

Thanks!

Hi,
I'm trying to decide between a setup of L/C/R Sierra-1's and rear HTM-200's or a 5.1 set of SVS Sound SCS-01 speakers.

It will be used mostly for HT (75%) and some for music listening (25%). Are the Sierra-1's overkill for a primarily HT setup? Should I save some money and just get the SCS-01 setup?

I will be running the speakers through an Onkyo 805. I'm going to go with an SVS or HSU sub.

Thanks!
I think many people start out thinking that they first get a good system they will use it more for HT...but then start listening to more and more music.

Have you thought about CMT-340SE/CBM-170SE setup?

All would suffice, but the best way to judge as to overkill or not would be to get a pair of each and compare.....or find some owners local to you.

Would I miss much going with the CMT-340SE L/C/R and HTM-200 setup? This is coming from a guy who has never really owned a good quality pair of speakers mind you (best I had was a Polk RM7200 set). I'm thinking I would be really impressed either way.

I could get the CMT-340SE L/C/R and HTM-200 setup with an HSU VTF-3 MK3 Sub for about the same price as the SVS SCS-01 5.1 setup with an SVS PB12-Plus Sub.

Any thoughts?

I think you could be right about the music. My wife listens to more than I do and she would enjoy some great speakers.

I have her seal of approval on getting a new speaker setup after we picked up a Samsung LNT5271F LCD last night. I already have the TV and a PS3 waiting for a sound system. :)

One more noob question. I was looking at the 340's and I'm wondering how you would hook them up. I noticed that they have a tweeter and a woofer input. I'm not really sharp when it comes to audio equipment. I'm used to just running the wire from the Left/Right on the receiver to the Left/Right on the speaker. Can I do this with the 340 or is there some other way I have to set it up?

I know you guys are waaaaay beyond me in speaker knowledge but I would appreciate the help.

Thanks again!

Would I miss much going with the CMT-340SE L/C/R and HTM-200 setup? This is coming from a guy who has never really owned a good quality pair of speakers mind you (best I had was a Polk RM7200 set). I'm thinking I would be really impressed either way.

I could get the CMT-340SE L/C/R and HTM-200 setup with an HSU VTF-3 MK3 Sub for about the same price as the SVS SCS-01 5.1 setup with an SVS PB12-Plus Sub.

Any thoughts?

I think you could be right about the music. My wife listens to more than I do and she would enjoy some great speakers.

I have her seal of approval on getting a new speaker setup after we picked up a Samsung LNT5271F LCD last night. I already have the TV and a PS3 waiting for a sound system. :)

I imagine you would be quite happy with the SCS-01 or an Ascend setup for HT, though I feel quite sure that 340SE's L/C/R and the new HTM-200ES's are a higher quality set than the SVS system. I have Sierra's L/C/R and am upgrading my HTM-200 surrounds to the new SE version, and I use it mainly for HT; yes, it's probably overkill, but boy does it sound nice!

One more noob question. I was looking at the 340's and I'm wondering how you would hook them up. I noticed that they have a tweeter and a woofer input. I'm not really sharp when it comes to audio equipment. I'm used to just running the wire from the Left/Right on the receiver to the Left/Right on the speaker. Can I do this with the 340 or is there some other way I have to set it up?

I know you guys are waaaaay beyond me in speaker knowledge but I would appreciate the help.

Thanks again!
You do not need to use the tweeter and woofer input seperately. The speakers come with jumper between the two sets of inputs, and you would just need to connect to one of those two sets.

I imagine you would be quite happy with the SCS-01 or an Ascend setup for HT, though I feel quite sure that 340SE's L/C/R and the new HTM-200SE's are a higher quality set than the SVS system.

That's what I'm thinking as well....thanks.

You do not need to use the tweeter and woofer input seperately. The speakers come with jumper between the two sets of inputs, and you would just need to connect to one of those two sets.

Ok cool. That sounds easy. Thanks for the info.

I plan on making a purchase in the next few months. I want to WOW everyone at my Superbowl party this year with the new TV and speakers.....especially a few of my buddies who swear that Bose is the best. I've heard their systems and think they suck! They get loud but that's about it. Loud, crappy sound. :p

I think anything you get from Ascend or SVS will be better than the Bose systems...no worries there.

On the Ascends, the biggest advantage the HTM-200SE's have over the CBM-170SE, CMT-340SE, and Sierra is the fact that they are sealed and can be mounted flush against a wall. The others need some breathing room.

Well I talked it over with the wife and I think we're going with the Ascend CMT-340SE L/C/R and HTM-200 rear setup. I'm going to get the matching stands for the CMT-340SE's and the stands that Ascend offers for the HTM-200's.

Now I'm just down to the Sub. What Sub do people use most with Ascend speakers? What mates well with them? I'm kind of leaning twoards the SVS PB12-Plus Sub. Do you guys think that will work well with the Ascend speakers?

Congrats on your choice! I think any good sub will work for you; it primarily depends on the size of your room. I have had a SVS PB 10 (the 'baby' sized SVS) for several yrs, and it's great in my room of just over 2000 cu ft. Many people here also like Hsu subs. These two sub vendors seem to be the most popular.

i love my siearra's but unlike many others i enjoy having a sub--- having the bass management of the outlaw rr2150 with a svs pb12/+ just seems to be a natural fit---one mans opinion:)

Now I'm just down to the Sub. What Sub do people use most with Ascend speakers? What mates well with them? I'm kind of leaning twoards the SVS PB12-Plus Sub. Do you guys think that will work well with the Ascend speakers?
How large is your room?

Dolllar for dollar, for sound quality, I think it is tough to beat the Hsu VTF-3MK3.

I've attached a picture of my floor plan. The living room has a vaulted ceiling which is about 20' at the peak. The living room is open to the dining room/kitchen.

Thanks for the help. :cool:

I've attached a picture of my floor plan. The living room has a vaulted ceiling which is about 20' at the peak. The living room is open to the dining room/kitchen.

Thanks for the help. :cool:
For output, the Hsu VTF-3MK3 or SVS PB12/+ should be fine.

Alright, we're moving this week and I think I'm going to order the speakers in December if all goes well. Here is my dilema. Which of these setups should I go with. Both have the wife's approval.

Sierra-1 L/C/R and HTM-200SE Rears with Hsu VTF3-MK3 Sub = $2,273 Shipped

CMT-340SE L/C/R and HTM-200SE Rears with SVS PB12-Plus Sub = $1,893 Shipped

For $380 more should I go with the Sierra-1 setup? I'm thinking I could go with the less powerful subwoofer because the Sierrra-1's should put out a little more bass than the CMT-340SE's. I don't really need HUGE bass. We are in a Condo but we have an end unit and there is no one below or above us. The living room is on the side of the Condo that does not butt up to another unit. I just want tight, clean bass.

Do you think I would notice that much difference if I spent the extra $380 for the Sierra-1 setup? What is the main advantage of the Sierra-1 over the CMT-340SE?

I really appreciate all the help. One of the reasons I decided to go with Ascend speakers, besides all the rave reviews, is because they seem to have a good following and supportive owners. Thanks!

The Sierras are worth $380 more. The 340SE is great, but the Sierra has is more revealing of details in music and even movies. Nothing wrong with going to the HSU sub. It is just as good as the SVS in my opinion.

grab the sierra's then get a svs pb12/+ b-stock or an outlaw lfm 1/plus ( same design as the hsu) and you will save a little money ---i have all b-stock items including the 3 products above and have found absolutely nothing wrong with any of them----plus they have great hassle free 30 day return policies if you are not happy with them:)

Sweet! I will check out the B Stock subs. Thanks guys!

Do you guys have any suggestions on stands for the Sierra-1's? I need something about 30"-31" high and around $100 or less. Black would be great.

Thanks for the help again.

Would the TP-24 stands that Ascend sells work? I think they are to short but I'm not sure. It would put the speakers at about shoulder height. I'll be sitting about 10' away from the Sierra's. Is that a bad combo?

check the ascend web page----they show the sierra's sitting on two tone cherry(wood)/black(metal) stands---i bought 2 and they look great---solid construction---they special ordered them for me at about $100 ea.

Dave at Ascend told me the TP-24 stands are the correct height for the Sierra's, and I believe they have the exact same footprint as the 340's so they should be a perfect fit.

They look like these...

http://www.racksandstands.com/StudioTech-US-30-B-SO0091.html

http://www.racksandstands.com/StudioTech-US-30-RW-B-SO0139.html

Dave at Ascend told me the TP-24 stands are the correct height for the Sierra's, and I believe they have the exact same footprint as the 340's so they should be a perfect fit.

Cool. They do have the same footprint as the 340's and will fit perfectly. That will save me some money since the TP-24 stands are only $126 shipped. Thanks.

Well I'm moving this weekend so hopefully I can order these in early December.

I can't wait. I'm 31 and this will be the first time I've had a really good audio system in my home. :D

If you want to go the custom route, contact JasonColeman on this forum...he does excellent work. I had custom bamboo stands made for my Sierras, 31" high.

http://changpics.smugmug.com/photos/195739210-L.jpg

Do you mind if I ask how much? Those look sweet.

Do you mind if I ask how much? Those look sweet.
Contact Jason.....the cost depends on what you want. He is a great to work with.

Thanks, Curtis! :) Anyone interested can contact me at vikingdwarf@gmail.com. Price depends on size and finish, though I wouldn't consider painting the Plyboo black! :eek: Gloss black stands are 3/4" MDF.

J.

Thanks, Curtis! :)
If I get my way next year.....I will be ordering a center channel stand from you!

If I get my way next year.....I will be ordering a center channel stand from you!
Sounds good! Just let me know, and I will make it so...you can put your CC on it. :)

J.

Jason,
Sent you an e-mail.

So these are my choices for a Sub....

Outlaw LFM-1 Plus B-Stock = $500 Shipped
Hsu VTF3-MK3 B-Stock = $660 Shipped
SVS PB12-Plus in Rosenut B-Stock = $800 Shipped

I never really heard of Outlaw before but it has some good reviews and it looks like a great deal. My check book says Outlaw but my heart says SVS. HaHaHaHa..

i have both the svs and outlaw and love them both---they are both large units and if it comes down to visual impressions the svs is just a plain beautiful piece of craftmanship--- if i had your choice i would buy the outlaw and add a velodyne sms1 unit---its a magical piece of equipment and outlaw sometimes runs a special with the two pieces----this forum is great because i learned everthing about these products here, the downside being it becomes an expensive lifestyle---however it has been worth every penny:)

All good choices. The LFM-1plus with and SMS-1 is a great recommendation from greenhouseman.

Another great an option...VTF-3MK3 with a Behringer BFD.

the svs is just a plain beautiful piece of craftmanship---this forum is great because i learned everthing about these products here, the downside being it becomes an expensive lifestyle---however it has been worth every penny:)

I agree on all.

That's a little more than I want to get in to. I think I will stick to just a sub right now.

The WAF will be a factor. I think she likes the SVS in Rosenut. It will be in a corner on the side of the sofa so it won't be visible all the time. You know how women are though. If it looks pretty....:rolleyes:

This is the response I got back from Dave at Ascend about which sub I should go with....

These are very different subwoofers... If you want massive output and exceptionally deep bass, go with the VTF-3. If you want more controlled and tighter bass (more musical) at the sacrifice of output and extension, go with the SB-12 plus. From your attached drawing, it appears that the living room and dining room are open to each other -- if this is the case, this would be considered a very large room and I am not sure that the SB-12 would offer enough output to fill the room. If it were me, I would go with the VTF-3 MK3.

Looks like I might go with the VTF-3 MK3.....

This is the response I got back from Dave at Ascend about which sub I should go with....

These are very different subwoofers... If you want massive output and exceptionally deep bass, go with the VTF-3. If you want more controlled and tighter bass (more musical) at the sacrifice of output and extension, go with the SB-12 plus. From your attached drawing, it appears that the living room and dining room are open to each other -- if this is the case, this would be considered a very large room and I am not sure that the SB-12 would offer enough output to fill the room. If it were me, I would go with the VTF-3 MK3.

Looks like I might go with the VTF-3 MK3.....

My bad... In your email to me, for some reason I thought you were comparing the SVS SB-12 plus to the VTF-3 MK 3. After reading your posts, you appear to be considering the PB-12 to the VTF-3 MK 3. This is a much fairer comparison. I think either of these subwoofers will work well for you :)

Sorry for my mistake...

For any of you looking to upgrade to Sierra's, I am looking for a pair of 340's. Can be SE's or classics. PM if you have any you want to sell.

I am considering Sierra's LRC. I currently have Paradigm 90's, and 110C (in drawer/grill). Picture attached. Will the Sierra LR be too close to walls here, and will the center be OK in a drawer (can the rear port be plugged?). Am buying an Onkyo 805 this week and want to upgrade to something "worthy".

well... they might be too close to the walls, but that room (at from what i can tell from the picture) has so many problems, i doubt that the closeness to the walls could make it much worse...

you can plug any speaker, but it remains to be seen what kind of effect that would have... probably not so good in this case, but ymmv...

Not a glowing room comment, but my thoughts exactly. It's 13' to the TV front from my main viewing chair, 5-6' to the letf wall, 6-7' behind the chair, and 35' to the right wall (open to dining then kitchen). Only good seat is my seat, all other seating is immediate right). So am I throwing money away with Sierra's, should I opt for something like Aperion?

Whatever you wind up doing I would mount a shelf above your TV, put your center there and angle it downward. You don't want to put a Sierra in a drawer.

Not a glowing room comment, but my thoughts exactly. It's 13' to the TV front from my main viewing chair, 5-6' to the letf wall, 6-7' behind the chair, and 35' to the right wall (open to dining then kitchen). Only good seat is my seat, all other seating is immediate right). So am I throwing money away with Sierra's, should I opt for something like Aperion?
With its symmetrical horizontal and vertical dispersion patterns, I am told that the Sierras actually work well in a room with a lot of reflections. I would call Ascend to confirm.

In that room, I would also look at the HTM-200SE.

I also agree with Russ....don't put any speaker in a drawer.

What's the "SE" stand for? I only see the HTM-200 on their site.