Hi all. I just purchased a set of Quads (22L L2x2, L2 Centrex1, 12L L2x2) to replace my Ascend Acoustics (340mx2, 340cx1 and CBM-170x4).

Anyone know what the differences in sound will be? I really liked the Ascend sound, but I also really want a change in my speakers (mainly I had upgradeitis). I have heard great things about Quads, so I hope they compete favorably with the Ascends (as I loved them).

Anyone?

From what I have read about Quads, I am willing to bet you will be pleased with the sound.

Are your 340s and 170s SE's or classics?

I have had original Ascends since the origination of the 340 line. I have loved the Ascends and yap about them rather incessantly in this and other forums. Just wanted to give a new set of speakers a try and the Siennas were a bit pricey atm.

Will be excited to see what happens :D

--TDA

While the Ascend is a great speaker for the money, I think you will be thrilled with the Quads. Not only is your new system going to do movies justice, those 22L's are going to improve you two channel enjoyment by an order of magnitude.

Be sure to run the new speakers in for about 100 hours before you pass judgement on them. Congrats and enjoy. What finish did you pick btw?

I picked the Bird's Eye maple. Have always wanted speakers in that finish! :D

Received the Quads last night. Have not attached the 22L's to their platforms and haven't calibrated the speakers, but the sound is still incredible. The first thing we listened to was Norah Jones on DVD and it was like a new recording. Her voice was completely different--you could hear all the slight changes in her voice, we heard her tapping her feet, breathing, breath catching a couple of times... it was really quite amazing. The percussion was outstanding--every strike on a wood block was deep and resonant... the bass drum/ bass (string) were absolutely incredible.

Movies, on the other hand, showed only subtle improvements. I think once these have broken in a little bit and have been calibrated, the improvements should be more noticeable. I will write more as time goes on, but initial impressions are extremely positive.

As others have said, if I had to choose a weakness in the set, it would be the center channel. It's not bad, it's actually quite good, but compared to the other 4 speakers, it would need some work. We'll see how that changes as they break in a bit more.

--TDA

Agreed. Quad should offer two centers, one with 2 6 1/2's.

Funny - I found the same thing with my new Energy RC-70 speakers. Totally different league from the original Ascends (and this is not a put down on Ascend by any means). The Ascends are fine, but cannot do music with any real depth to them. Sounds like the Quads are doing that for you too.

I don't think you'll find a huge improvement with movies though - as you already noted. Most movies have the music (if any) in the background and is more about affects and dialogue - which by nature of design the Ascends do quite well.

That being said - I still like the richness of the RC's, even for movies, better than the Ascends.

Enjoy the new speakers!

Really efficient, bombastic speakers sound great with movies. If you're like me, you like a speaker that resolves more detail and images better for 2 channel. A loudspeaker that please me for music may not knock my socks off for home theater, but I will still give up a little fireworks to get the details you miss with more obvious loudspeakers.

Pardon me for butting in. I'm considering the Ascends as RLC fronts. Are the 22L's floorstanding? MSRP? I really need a bookshelf type speaker but it can be a large set (say 24"tall, 12" wide, 10 deep). You guys seem to have listened to a bunch of speakers. Any suggestions?

Really efficient, bombastic speakers sound great with movies. If you're like me, you like a speaker that resolves more detail and images better for 2 channel. A loudspeaker that please me for music may not knock my socks off for home theater, but I will still give up a little fireworks to get the details you miss with more obvious loudspeakers.

Is the detail experienced with the Quad's then related to it's low efficiency? Do more efficient speakers lack detail?

Is the detail experienced with the Quad's then related to it's low efficiency? Do more efficient speakers lack detail?

Low efficiency is usually intended to lower the midrange and highend relative to the bass. Creating a smoother response from the bass up to the high end and a speaker that has great bass for a small speaker. That is why many of the best small speakers that boast great bass are in the 82-86 efficiency range. Ultimately they cannot play earsplitting loud, but do sound great getting there.

Having both forward sounding speakers and imaging/holographic sounding speakers and having placed them and rotated them in my HT system and my 2.0/2.1 music system, have a few observations.

Speakers that image well and present a holographic sound stage, transport me to the recording session. The imaging speaker will suck you into it's world of 3D sound where you get entranced listening to music. The midrange on my imaging speakers has a syrupy sweet sound that is difficult to describe. I cannot image how a designer designs a sweet midrange! How a holographic sounding speaker can be more revealing than a forward sounding speaker sounds like a paradox.

Speakers that are more forward sounding bring the musicians into my room rather than send me there. For Rock or other intense music I prefer the forward sounding speakers. I was listening the the Who's Quadrophenia recently on my imaging speakers and the music didn't have the force that it should have and that I've heard before. Not enought bite from the guitars and vocals.

Imaging speakers.....HT, vocals, jazz, acoustic, soft rock, classical, reggae, new age, movie music.

Forward speakers.....HT, hard rock, reggae, movie music.

Other forms of music like country, hip hop, world music I'm not familiar with.
For HT, I find that both types of speakers work for me. :)

Pardon me for butting in. I'm considering the Ascends as RLC fronts. Are the 22L's floorstanding? MSRP? I really need a bookshelf type speaker but it can be a large set (say 24"tall, 12" wide, 10 deep). You guys seem to have listened to a bunch of speakers. Any suggestions?

The 22Ls are >2000$ in Canada (Shipped 340SEs+Stands after brokerage & all end up around 850$ maybe). And yeah, 22L are floorstanding, nice looking speakers with a nice finish http://www.quad-hifi.co.uk/model.php?sector_id=2&range_id=11&model_id=37 so in once sens the Sierra-1 with its piano black finish might be a somewhat better comparison. Quad has the 11L/12L which are bookshelves, think the 11L are >1000$ which makes them a little more expensive than the shipped Sierras.

Long time ago I auditioned 11L/12L, but went with Totems which I preferred, then upgraded to another Totem, then a bit later bought Ascend 340SE for a 2nd system but I preferred them to the Totems and ended up selling the Totems, then bought the Sierras. I wouldn't trade the Sierras for Quads 11L/12L that's for sure :p

The 22L's are floorstanding. They sit at about 33-35 inches high. The 12L's are bookshelves/ monitors and are about a foot high... I find the sound coming from the 12L's to be rather remarkable for their size. If you were to go Quads, I'd suggest just getting the center and 12L's. I think the center would sound better paired with 4-6 12L's than 22L's in the front and 12L's as surround/ rear.

However, if you're just looking for speakers across the front, matching them all is an excellent idea--which Ascend allows you to do.

Your answer basically depends upon how much you would like to spend and what you're going to use them for (my Quad package retails around $4000--I found them for significantly cheaper), they are great for music, but don't offer a HUGE difference (although there is a noticeable difference) in sound for HT.

Ascends are decent performers across the board. They are excellent for HT and perform nicely with music, though not nearly as well as the Quads (Quads were designed for music first, so this is not surprising). As the above poster suggests, the Sierras are a far more "fair" comparison to the Quads.

If you want to spend $800 on LCR, Ascends, no question. If you listen to a lot of music and have some more change to throw around, the Quads are a nice option.

Other places to look:
www.aperionaudio.com
www.theaudioinsider.com
www.**********
www.ascendacoustics.com
www.axiomaudio.com

Also, you could look into Totem acoustics, monitor audio and a few other retail options, like Paradigm... it just depends on how much you're looking to spend.

For the money and the price I paid, I can't personally begin to imagine a better value than the set I bought however... that's for my tastes though. It's always best to take a listen and compare!

Aperion audio offers free shipping in both directions, by the way, and they make some really nice speakers!

--TDA