AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › 3 x ascend sierras 1 OR 3 x Arx A1b ????
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

3 x ascend sierras 1 OR 3 x Arx A1b ???? - Page 3

post #61 of 109
3/4/13 at 7:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicardoJoa View Post

I honestly have not heard a review that says like, these speaker bass is awefull or the highs are so fatiguing, that sort of negativity. I guess, most writer will mellow their writing so they dont appear to be as negative as one might think.

True as they try to stay objective & impartial but I gotta say that certain speakers whom advertised on their site always to seem get a mulligan...unless of course they pull their advertiseing campaign and the gloves come off....wink.gif
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #62 of 109
3/4/13 at 7:55pm
Who is the most objective review site?
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 109
3/4/13 at 8:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by csgamer View Post

Who is the most objective review site?

Well... they most likely are... especially when it comes to subs because of Data Bass...Speakers OTOH...I've read and owned speakers from their glossed over reviews and I'll leave it at that...smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 109
3/4/13 at 8:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Curtis, I don't think you want to go down this road.

The Audax woofer in the CBM isn't exactly a spring chicken...neither is the Tang Band in the Sierra-1. I don't think "newness" is a good metric for somebody to determine what speaker is best for them.

The only way for the OP to know is to compare in his own room.
Didn't I say that they aren't new? You need to read Chad's post that I was responding to.

I know you are just "looking" at the drivers and trying to derive who made them, but remember that the polygel woofer is fully designed by Ascend. While the cone of the Sierra woofer resembles a Tang Band, my understanding is the woofer's parts and assembly are a result of different OEMs....and is not a product available to the public.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 109
3/4/13 at 8:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy p View Post

True as they try to stay objective & impartial but I gotta say that certain speakers whom advertised on their site always to seem get a mulligan...unless of course they pull their advertiseing campaign and the gloves come off....wink.gif
Yes...but you have to pay close attention to who is advertising.

There has been more than one product that has gotten a great review, and then began to advertise on the site. Also, conversely, there have been products that have gotten good reviews, only to be sort of dissed in comparisons once advertising stopped.

Quote:
Originally Posted by csgamer View Post

Who is the most objective review site?

I like the Soundstage Network and the reviews by the editor, Doug Schneider.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 109
3/4/13 at 8:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

Didn't I say that they aren't new? You need to read Chad's post that I was responding to.

I know you are just "looking" at the drivers and trying to derive who made them, but remember that the polygel woofer is fully designed by Ascend. While the cone of the Sierra woofer resembles a Tang Band, my understanding is the woofer's parts and assembly are a result of different OEMs....and is not a product available to the public.

You should know better then us, The woofer on the sierra is likely a custom tangband. Tangband makes great small suwoofer as reference, thats probably why the sierra bass is so strong.
Reply
Reply
post #67 of 109
3/4/13 at 9:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicardoJoa View Post

You should know better then us, The woofer on the sierra is likely a custom tangband. Tangband makes great small suwoofer as reference, thats probably why the sierra bass is so strong.
I worded that funny....perhaps Tang Band is one of the OEMs that are involved in the making of the driver.
Reply
Reply
post #68 of 109
3/4/13 at 10:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Curtis, I don't think you want to go down this road.

The Audax woofer in the CBM isn't exactly a spring chicken...neither is the Tang Band in the Sierra-1. I don't think "newness" is a good metric for somebody to determine what speaker is best for them.

The only way for the OP to know is to compare in his own room.
Didn't I say that they aren't new? You need to read Chad's post that I was responding to.

I know you are just "looking" at the drivers and trying to derive who made them, but remember that the polygel woofer is fully designed by Ascend. While the cone of the Sierra woofer resembles a Tang Band, my understanding is the woofer's parts and assembly are a result of different OEMs....and is not a product available to the public.

Again, in post #31 of this thread you stated:

"Can you point me to an respected publication with a review of the Arx's that confirm they are high quality drivers via measurements or inspection? Is there a picture of the crossover you can point me to as well? You know how old XBL^2 technology is, right?"

That is the comment I'm addressing.

Well, "Polygel" and "Aerogel" are trademarked by Audax. Can't use it without their permission. They also (used to) make woofers that appear identical to the current CBM woofer. You also noted here:

http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?145-Ascend-Audax-Drivers

Thread title "Ascend=Audax"

"Even though the pictures and specs match, my understanding is the drivers are actually custom to Ascend....so there are probably some small differences."

So, custom number of voice coil windings, gap dimensions, etc. Seeing that Dave is a perfectionist and won't stop till he's happy, I don't doubt that he kept tweaking until the design fit his parameters and was to his liking. But it went uncorrected on the Ascend forum that it's an Audax product.


Or perhaps the Sierra-1 woofer could be a Peerless 830860?
http://www.avsforum.com/t/849859/the-official-ascend-acoustics-sierra-thread/390#post_11158132

Regardless,



At this price, suffice it to say that both Jon at TAI and Dave at Ascend have risen above just picking std parts from OEM vendors' shelves and slapping them into boxes. They are BOTH tweaking existing loudspeaker-driver designs to specifically work in the projects they begin at their respective companies. Both of them. This is normal, and a good thing since they don't bear the burden of R&D for the naked drivers and the technologies used. They simply license at a nominal fee the expertise of OEM's. This is a model where customers win.

Yet another thread where aspersions have been cast about Arx quality by people who have not heard or touched one. This is getting old. Can't the OP just conduct his experiment without Arx being the butt of "preemptive doubts" cast by people who also advocate another brand? Maybe I'm asking too much?
Edited by BufordTJustice - 3/4/13 at 10:31pm
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 109
3/4/13 at 10:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Well, "Polygel" is trademarked by Audax. Can't use it without their permission. They also (used to) make woofers that appear identical to the current CBM woofer. You also noted here:

http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?145-Ascend-Audax-Drivers

Thread title "Ascend=Audax"

"Even though the pictures and specs match, my understanding is the drivers are actually custom to Ascend....so there are probably some small differences."

So, custom number of voice coil windings, gap dimensions, etc. Seeing that Dave is a perfectionist and won't stop till he's happy, I don't doubt that he kept tweaking until the design fit his parameters and was to his liking. But it went uncorrected on the Ascend forum that it's an Audax product.
You do realize the thread you are quoting is from 2003....almost ten years ago. Back then, Ascend did use Aerogel, but I think that changed in 2005.

Polygel is not an Audax trademark...Aerogel is. Current SE drivers use Polygel. You need to do your homework better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post


Or perhaps the Sierra-1 woofer could be a Peerless 830860?
http://www.avsforum.com/t/849859/the-official-ascend-acoustics-sierra-thread/390#post_11158132

Buford, you need to read the thread better. Those posts are pointing out that the baskets look entirely different. I realize you didn't get that because the link for the picture to the Peerless is no longer valid. In fact, the post above the one you referenced, also mentions the multi-vendor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Regardless,

At this price, suffice it to say that both Jon at TAI and Dave at Ascend have risen above just picking std parts from OEM vendors' shelves and slapping them into boxes. They are BOTH tweaking existing loudspeaker-driver designs to specifically work in the projects they begin at their respective companies. Both of them. This is normal, and a good thing since they don't bear the burden of R&D for the naked drivers and the technologies used. They simply license at a nominal fee the expertise of OEM's. This is a model where customers win.

Yet another thread where aspersions have been cast about Arx quality by people who have not heard or touched one. This is getting old. Can't the OP just conduct his experiment without Arx being the butt of "preemptive doubts" cast by people who also advocate another brand? Maybe I'm asking too much?

Edit: Dave's and Jon's approaches/abilities are not the same as you make out. That is in plain site in the information they reveal on their products.

Aspersions? Advocate? You realize that works both ways, right?

Look at what you are trying to do with no credibility...I just showed you have erroneous information/implication...twice! Some googling would have helped you. Man up to your mistakes.
Edited by cschang - 3/5/13 at 9:01am
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 109
3/4/13 at 11:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Well, "Polygel" is trademarked by Audax. Can't use it without their permission. They also (used to) make woofers that appear identical to the current CBM woofer. You also noted here:

http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?145-Ascend-Audax-Drivers

Thread title "Ascend=Audax"

"Even though the pictures and specs match, my understanding is the drivers are actually custom to Ascend....so there are probably some small differences."

So, custom number of voice coil windings, gap dimensions, etc. Seeing that Dave is a perfectionist and won't stop till he's happy, I don't doubt that he kept tweaking until the design fit his parameters and was to his liking. But it went uncorrected on the Ascend forum that it's an Audax product.
You do realize the thread you are quoting is from 2003....almost ten years ago.

Polygel is not an Audax trademark...Aerogel is. Current SE drivers use Polygel. You need to do your homework better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post


Or perhaps the Sierra-1 woofer could be a Peerless 830860?
http://www.avsforum.com/t/849859/the-official-ascend-acoustics-sierra-thread/390#post_11158132

Buford, you need to read the thread better. Those posts are pointing out that the baskets look entirely different. I realize you didn't get that because the link for the picture to the Peerless is no longer valid. In fact, the post above the one you referenced, also mentions the multi-vendor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Regardless,

At this price, suffice it to say that both Jon at TAI and Dave at Ascend have risen above just picking std parts from OEM vendors' shelves and slapping them into boxes. They are BOTH tweaking existing loudspeaker-driver designs to specifically work in the projects they begin at their respective companies. Both of them. This is normal, and a good thing since they don't bear the burden of R&D for the naked drivers and the technologies used. They simply license at a nominal fee the expertise of OEM's. This is a model where customers win.

Yet another thread where aspersions have been cast about Arx quality by people who have not heard or touched one. This is getting old. Can't the OP just conduct his experiment without Arx being the butt of "preemptive doubts" cast by people who also advocate another brand? Maybe I'm asking too much?

Aspersions? Advocate? You realize that works both ways, right?

Look at what you are trying to do with no credibility...I just showed you have erroneous information...twice! Some googling would have helped you. Man up to your mistakes.

Done all the homework I need to. If Audax does not make the Polygel woofer, who does? Multiple posts on Ascend Forums about the "Polygel" being a refinement of the "Aerogel". Is this not accurate? It sure didn't get corrected at Ascend forums. I'm just taking info at face-value here. And then there is this thread:

http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?1584-CBM-170-Signature-Edition-%28SE%29

Dave states:

"Next up on the CBM-170 SE.. Woofer Improvements:

While not nearly as dramatic a change as the tweeter, we have incorporated a few improvements to the CBM-170 woofers.

We have reformulated the cone material changing one of the components of the original aerogel. We have found over the years that while aerogel offers excellent detail, at loud volumes it becomes a bit “edgy” sounding and we determined that this was due to aerogel being a bit too brittle, corresponding to large cone-breakup modes at medium to loud volumes.

The new woofer sounds and looks the same but the modified cone material is more durable which subsequently allowed us to increase excursion and utilize a more powerful magnet, thus improving bass response and impact."


Seeing that I highly doubt Audax simply relinquished their recipe for the Aerogel woofer to Dave for him to modify as he saw fit, it would seem that he is working with some entity who has knowledge and the rights to "modify" a pre-existing Audax design, no? With words like "we", "reformulate", "sounds and looks the same", and acknowledgments that changes were made to the motor structure ("more powerful magnet", etc.), it would seem that the original design was used and modified, and a new woofer was not constructed for the SE. I have read no information to contradict this.

So, maybe Audax doesn't currently manufacture the SE's woofer, but it is plain to see that it is a modified Audax product design regardless of who currently builds the thing.

NOW, would you like to correct me or does this info stand? Or are we talking about an orthopedic product that just so happens to have a majestic ability to perform as a speaker cone material? http://www.polygel.com/


Dave states here that the OEM for the Classic is Audax, but that they are special runs to his specs:
http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?146-Acend-Drivers-and-Crossovers&p=883#post883


Further, since you speak on behalf of Ascend, are a forum moderator at Ascend Forum, and generally opine in favor of Ascend products, how are we supposed to interpret what you said about an Arx product that you have not seen, measured, or heard if not less-than-complimentary? All of my comments are focused on YOUR assertions beginning in post # 31. You have cast aspersions on Arx "quality", yet how am I the one poking the tiger with a stick? Post #31 Curtis. It's there forever. I didn't make you write it.

As for the bolded parts in your quote, substantially similar motor structures can be seen on several peerless drivers and on various tang band drivers. Would you like to clarify who makes the superior Sierra-1 driver, or are you going to leave us guessing?

I haven't said one foul thing about the Sierra-1 (I mean, honestly, what foul thing is there to say? It's a great speaker.)....and between the two of us, there's only one who's listened to the Arx line and the Sierra-1. And that person is not you Curtis. It's no secret that I am an Arx fan and helped Jon design and test the A5 towers (and soon some new models)....but I didn't enter into this thread casting doubt on anybody else's product. That's where you came in, friend.

If I am guessing incorrectly about an Ascend product, please feel free to set the record straight right here in this thread. No better time than now, no?
Edited by BufordTJustice - 3/5/13 at 12:20am
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 109
3/4/13 at 11:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cschang View Post


Look at what you are trying to do with no credibility...


Thanks for the compliment. This benefits the thread, the OP, and the forum immensely. rolleyes.gif
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 109
3/5/13 at 12:22am
OP, I do not currently have a pair of A1b's, but I do have a pair of A3 towers in a back room. I'm in the Orlando metro area (zip 32829) and would be more than happy to have you over for a listen if you are ever in the area. The midrange of the A3's is voiced substantially similarly to the A1b's. I can cross them at 80hz to give you an idea of the character of the sound. It's an open offer.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 109
3/5/13 at 1:29am
Buford,

It was widely known in the loudspeaker industry that Audax was taken over by Harman International nearly a decade ago. Unfortunately, Harman only kept the car audio division of Audax functioning and even that ended quite quickly. Sadly, Audax hasn't produced anything in a very long time. Some of the key engineers there purchased some of the toolings and have attempted a come back under a company called AAC. I conversed with them a while back but at that time, they were not quite ready for prime time.

The Aerogel woofers were great, and way ahead of their time -- very low mass, very stiff but I found that they became harsh sounding at louder volumes and the cones were a bit brittle. With the assistance of Matt Daigler (US Audax rep at the time), one of the Audax engineers and I started to experiment with increased mass cones combined with different suspension compliances -- with the goal being a more durable cone that could handle louder volumes. Unfortunately, I still remember the sad phone call from Matt explaining to me that he would soon be out of a job and that Harman was taking over and they would be shutting down the home audio products division.

I was frustrated with this so I designed a replacement woofer from the ground up, including the basket frame and cone material. The basket looks the same because we designed it to fit in the same cutout and after much trial and error, we came up with our own blend of materials for the woofer cone which solved some of the limitations of the Audax Aerogel. Polygel is our own term for the cone and the basket tooling, suspension system and former / voice coil design is ours as well. We don't have the manufacturing capabilities to build this woofer at our facility, nor would I want to -- but since Ascend fully owns the design, we often have it sampled at different factories to try and receive better pricing and/or reliability. We have a great OEM factory making them for us in multi-thousand piece runs and I feel the quality is fantastic; we will likely stick with them for many years. That said, we haven't had anything to do with Audax / AAC in a very long time. I think you might have misinterpreted that post from 2006 that you referenced. No where does it say Audax was making the new woofers for us. Since it is fully our design, who makes it is not important – provided it is manufactured to our specifications.

Believe me, I wish Audax was still a manufacturing company (now it is just a brand name) as I lost some close acquaintances and they were an extremely passionate bunch of engineers, truly passionate towards high performance.

The original CBM-170/HTM-200 tweeter was also a custom Audax design. For this one we worked with SEAS to come up with our own design. It is also not available to the public as we own the tooling.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 109
3/5/13 at 1:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascend View Post

Buford,

It was widely known in the loudspeaker industry that Audax was taken over by Harman International nearly a decade ago. Unfortunately, Harman only kept the car audio division of Audax functioning and even that ended quite quickly. Sadly, Audax hasn't produced anything in a very long time. Some of the key engineers there purchased some of the toolings and have attempted a come back under a company called AAC. I conversed with them a while back but at that time, they were not quite ready for prime time.

The Aerogel woofers were great, and way ahead of their time -- very low mass, very stiff but I found that they became harsh sounding at louder volumes and the cones were a bit brittle. With the assistance of Matt Daigler (US Audax rep at the time), one of the Audax engineers and I started to experiment with increased mass cones combined with different suspension compliances -- with the goal being a more durable cone that could handle louder volumes. Unfortunately, I still remember the sad phone call from Matt explaining to me that he would soon be out of a job and that Harman was taking over and they would be shutting down the home audio products division.

I was frustrated with this so I designed a replacement woofer from the ground up, including the basket frame and cone material. The basket looks the same because we designed it to fit in the same cutout and after much trial and error, we came up with our own blend of materials for the woofer cone which solved some of the limitations of the Audax Aerogel. Polygel is our own term for the cone and the basket tooling, suspension system and former / voice coil design is ours as well. We don't have the manufacturing capabilities to build this woofer at our facility, nor would I want to -- but since Ascend fully owns the design, we often have it sampled at different factories to try and receive better pricing and/or reliability. We have a great OEM factory making them for us in multi-thousand piece runs and I feel the quality is fantastic; we will likely stick with them for many years. That said, we haven't had anything to do with Audax / AAC in a very long time. I think you might have misinterpreted that post from 2006 that you referenced. No where does it say Audax was making the new woofers for us. Since it is fully our design, who makes it is not important – provided it is manufactured to our specifications.

Believe me, I wish Audax was still a manufacturing company (now it is just a brand name) as I lost some close acquaintances and they were an extremely passionate bunch of engineers, truly passionate towards high performance.

The original CBM-170/HTM-200 tweeter was also a custom Audax design. For this one we worked with SEAS to come up with our own design. It is also not available to the public as we own the tooling.

Now THAT makes perfect sense and is good info. Thank you.

I'll add that I bet it took you quite a few hours for all that driver work. There's a lot more to it than it seems to most folks. I bet it gave you a few grey hairs, as well. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 109
3/5/13 at 2:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Now THAT makes perfect sense and is good info. Thank you.

Most welcome smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

I'll add that I bet it took you quite a few hours for all that driver work. There's a lot more to it than it seems to most folks. I bet it gave you a few grey hairs, as well. smile.gif

You have no idea wink.gif -- and it still continues today. Intellectual Property is a constant battle these days.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 109
3/5/13 at 2:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ascend View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Now THAT makes perfect sense and is good info. Thank you.

Most welcome smile.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

I'll add that I bet it took you quite a few hours for all that driver work. There's a lot more to it than it seems to most folks. I bet it gave you a few grey hairs, as well. smile.gif

You have no idea wink.gif -- and it still continues today. Intellectual Property is a constant battle these days.

Hard to create yet easy to steal. I'm glad I don't have to deal with stuff like that. I've read repeated threads on your forum of people actually asking you to help them duplicate your designs in DIY. Even though most were polite, I found it kind of crass that they would even ask.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 109
3/5/13 at 6:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by csgamer View Post

Well, that is a risk that a brand may have to take. Of course nobody wants to pay for a negative review. In fact, if a company has a bad product I would recommend to not have a review. However, not having any pro reviews decreases credibility and leaves a customer to having to trust other customers' opinions. Also, there are many existing speaker brands that seem to avoid reviews, who knows, they may be selling a lot and doing financially great, and that is there choice to make. But if there product is really good for the money, I think companies are missing out by not having more reviews out there. Just my opinion.
.

Trusting another customer's opinion is much better than trusting a review publication that gets PAID to give good reviews. If theres money to be made do you really think they will turn down a product(s)? Like Billy I too bought into the hype of a certain brand that received rave reviews, only to be beaten down and disected as "barely above white van speakers". So which is it? Are they the best bang for the buck, as good as it gets speakers or are they worthless and should be avoided like the plague? At least with customer reviews you get a kind of 50-50 opinion on them.

What makes them a "professional"? What is it about their single opinion that makes it so much better than a mass of customer/owners opinions? Its not that they do measurements, because they can make them show what ever they want and they aren't any better than manufacturer measurements.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 109
3/5/13 at 6:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtpsuper24 View Post

.

Trusting another customer's opinion is much better than trusting a review publication that gets PAID to give good reviews.

What makes them a "professional"? What is it about their single opinion that makes it so much better than a mass of customer/owners opinions? Its not that they do measurements, because they can make them show what ever they want and they aren't any better than manufacturer measurements.

^ This. The only thing that should count as "professional" should be some arrangement of graphs (FR on and off axis, waterfall plot, etc etc) and even then it's just another person. It's nice that they've likely heard many more speakers than the average joe, but doesn't mean it's 100% correct. Good basis to go off of, but it's not 100% true if it's like most reviews....paid. Every persons ears are different, their goals are different, their budgets are different, their overall "diminishing returns" point is different...and you can keep going on. That's too many factors to judge something on. No 1 person knows "what's better". No 1 person can say speaker A is better than speaker B, because there are WAAY too many factors that might lead someone in the opposite form of thinking.
Reply
Reply
post #79 of 109
3/5/13 at 6:45am
The problem with many customer reviews is most want to validate their purchase or they might be a fanboy of a certain brand. Not all of course, but many are, and it's difficult to get an objective opinion. Others will just say this sounds great just because it is what they have. Also, most customer reviews don't go as in-depth as a pro review. But yeah, I get your point. If a pro review is paid off, then it is useless. But the pro review is also more visible and can be scrutinized if it comes off too fake by those that listened to the reviewed speakers. My purpose for looking at reviews is to just narrow the field down, too many brands to audition.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 109
3/5/13 at 7:56am
Funny how threads wander off to unrelated areas. Still, it's all good if it stays civil.

As the the OP's original question, I have three regular Sierra 1s across the front and they sound fantastic without the NrT upgrade. I play these little beauties in a relatively large room with an Epik sealed subwoofer and they lack for very little. There have been discussions regarding the Sierra 1s with and without the NrT tweeters and opinions have been mixed, tilting toward the NrT. But for comparison's sake, the Arx would be better compared to the standard Sierra1 and, even then, I suspect it will come up a little short. Not denigrating the Arx, just saying it's at a very different price point. If I lived in a small apartment like the OP's, I'd go for the ARX pair, given the terrific price.

As for buying based on reviews, nothing wrong with that, as long as it's taken with a grain of salt. Pro reviews have always been suspect and when reading forums such as this beware of statements like, "different as night and day" or "no comparison" or "I've never heard it but I don't like......". In the end, if enough folks have heard a particular speaker, rate it highly and give good, solid reasons for their opinions, it's likely a relatively safe purchase (though even then you, personally, might not like it). I returned two pairs of speakers during a thirty day trial period before buying the Sierras, one was free return and the other I ate the shipping both ways. A bit hard to swallow but better than keeping a speaker I'd soon learn to dislike.

By the way, I envy you guys who can walk into several B&M shops in a day and listen to a variety of speakers. Out here on the frontier in central Arkansas I don't have that luxury so ID is almost the only way I can go. Buying from Dave at Ascend was a very good experience and, if I could afford it, I upgrade to his Sierra towers. I also talked to Jim Salk before I bought the Sierras and I found him a terrific guy. Wheneveer I can talk to the owner of the company I'm impressed. Doesn't happen very often.

Good listening to all!

old arkiedan
Reply
Reply
post #81 of 109
3/5/13 at 8:32am
^^^^^ arkiedan, the backwaters of East Central Illinois aren't any better for listening to speakers in B&M shops................


cub4bearin, the gist of all of these posts is..........you can't go wrong with either of your choices..........it is up to YOU, and your listening preference, to decide...........

It sounds like Dave at Ascend would be willing to send you the CBM-170SEs for 30 day trial and pay the return shipping cost if you did not prefer them............a very fine offer.........he might be willing to reduce or eliminate the return shipping charges on the Sierra-1s IF YOU PRIVATELY ASK HIM...........

I'm sure Jon at TAI would be willing to send you the Arx A1bs for 30 day trial and pay the return shipping cost as well, if necessary, IF YOU PRIVATELY ASK HIM.........

I am in an informed position to respond, as I have BOTH the 170SEs and the Arx A1bs............and still have both, as I enjoy both for different use purposes ( sometimes at the same time)...........and I have found both Dave and Dina at Ascend and Jon at TAI to be both responsive and informative and enthusiastic about their products..............

Sounds to me as if you just need to make some phone calls...................
Reply
Reply
post #82 of 109
3/5/13 at 8:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by padgman1 View Post


I am in an informed position to respond, as I have BOTH the 170SEs and the Arx A1bs............and still have both, as I enjoy both for different use purposes ( sometimes at the same time)...........and I have found both Dave and Dina at Ascend and Jon at TAI to be both responsive and informative and enthusiastic about their products..............
.

So what are your thoughts on each? Of course, they are just that....YOUR thoughts/opinions and are purely subjective, but maybe it will get the ball rolling in another direction in this thread. smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #83 of 109
3/5/13 at 12:49pm
My thoughts are in the previously mentioned thread.............................


http://www.avsforum.com/t/1446006/ascend-acoustics-cbm-170-se-vs-arx-a1b
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 109
3/5/13 at 1:33pm
Thread Starter 
Ordered 3 x sierras 1 NrT. Wish I was able do the Raal upgrade but per advice from Dave, I'm more HT guy than music wink.gif so, for now ill hold with Raal and enjoy it.

This thread took interesting turn, which I wouldn't expect. But a lot of good reading for sure wink.gif
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 109
3/5/13 at 1:44pm
Congrats on the new speakers.
Reply
Reply
post #86 of 109
3/5/13 at 1:56pm
I think you will enjoy them immensely..........

Please give us lurkers here at AVS some comments on them when you've had time to put them through the paces..........
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 109
3/5/13 at 2:04pm
Thread Starter 
I will. I'm not any pro in any mean. Used to Bose system. Will try do my best.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 109
3/5/13 at 2:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by cub4bearin View Post

Ordered 3 x sierras 1 NrT. Wish I was able do the Raal upgrade but per advice from Dave, I'm more HT guy than music wink.gif so, for now ill hold with Raal and enjoy it.

This thread took interesting turn, which I wouldn't expect. But a lot of good reading for sure wink.gif


Well my first Ascend speakers were the Sierra 1 NrTs.... I hope you really enjoy them...I can tell you they'll sound a lot different then what you've been used too...cool.gif.

Good luck and tell us what you think....Bill...smile.gif
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 109
3/12/13 at 11:46am
Thread Starter 
All I can say: WOW!

Speechless. The sound is simply stunning. No subwoofer here at this point and music simply sounds amazing! For my apartment and small space this is all I need!

I have had time to run any settings on my pioneer yet. Only set front speakers to LARGE and removed subwoofer.

I got more than I expected. Thank you all for your input.

uzynavyb.jpg
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 109
3/12/13 at 12:10pm
Looks awesome! What's also cool with your setup is that your tweets are not too far off for all three across the front stage. I'm sure it sounds awesome!
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › 3 x ascend sierras 1 OR 3 x Arx A1b ????