$700 Bookshelves - Page 6

Well, perhaps "consensus" wasn't the best word, as very few people have actually had both the Sierras and Swan D2.1SEs in their rooms at the same time (or even heard both of them at different times for that matter). The fact is, I own both Swan and Ascend speakers and love both for what they are (my Swans being huge towers and my Ascends being the smallish 170SE). I like, respect, and trust both David Fabrikant and Jon Lane very much and I know they both offer outstanding products.

I'm mainly going on the few opinions I've read from those few who have had both, including Craigsub, who's given me excellent advice in the past. He seems to feel strongly that while the Sierras are truly excellent speakers, the Swans are a major step or two above them in performance. He even seems to prefer them over his beloved $2000 Strata Minis, or at least he says they do many things better than the Stratas (I don't want to speak for him). I know I've seen a couple other posts on here from other users who agree, though I don't recall the usernames at the moment.

So my bottom line is, I'm sure from past experience that I'd love either set of speakers but I'm going with the Swans purely because they're a higher end relative of the floorstanders I already love, plus some folks feel they're better, I love the way they look, and I like the idea of the bigger woofer too. I'm sure if anyone can make a 5.25" midwoofer sing it's David Fabrikant, but I just get that warm fuzzy feeling in my heart thinking about the nice 6.5" woofer in the Swans. Not to mention they're likely to be an excellent timbre match for my front 3 Swans in case I decide to use them as surrounds (and the rosewood will match my rosewood Swan towers better, even though the D2.1SEs are glossier, hehe).

Make sense?

I think Craig is the only one who has had both so far. But I know where you are coming from.

Didn't Tawaun da Bomb (spelling?) have them at the same time too? I think he was one of the people who had both, and he definitely preferred the Swans. But as I said, it was a combination of things that made my decision, with Craig's opinion sealing the deal as it were. I'd LOVE to hear the Sierras at some point... I've been wondering how a set of 340SEs would sound here in my little room compared to the Swan 5.2s, and now that the Sierra is supposed to improve upon the 340... Yum... Actually I'm surprised Dave priced the Sierras as low as he did. At that price point they're only a bit more than the 340s so I believe it's going to hurt his 340SE sales.

Tawaun has not heard the Sierras.

I think the Sierras are great...but I have not heard the D2.1SE.

Ooo, right you are Curtis, my bad. It's the Sapphire XLs he's heard and the Strata Minis and a few others, so I was confused. Still, it seems that everyone who gets these Swans gets wet between the legs over them so my curiosity must be satisfied!!! hehe. Shame you live on the other side of the country. I'd love to get together and compare speakers with you (plus you could introduce me to Dave F, lol).

Not a lot of people have heard the latest Swans though, craig, Tawaun.. Others? What, maybe... 3-4?

Also, as much as I (and many others I'm sure ) have to admit, a lot of what Ali said was true. People have different criterias for judging speakers and sadly, even if one speaker was 'better' (in terms of being a more accurate transducer), it might not even be speaker which most listeners would prefer... So you have to be careful to select a speaker that YOU like and not one which others like...

You also can't really base yourself in 5 inch woofer vs 6 inch = 6 inch is 'better'. Both have advantages/disadvantages, plus speakers are a lot more than just one woofer, and it also depends on what woofer vs what woofer.... But yeah, the Swans seems a good competitor. Just a little more expensive (no piano black though...) and from what was said just a touch warmer which I'm sure would please some.

As someone who owned Classic 3's and now Sierra's, I'd have to agree. While the design of the 3's and materials used in construction may be considered more cutting edge' I found the sound (at least to me) to be missing something. I was originally impressed with their detail, soundstage, and imaging, but the longer I listened the more I felt the sound was almost clinical'. They didn't really draw me into the musicI heard' great detail and precise imaging in the music, but they never got me to the point of the emotional attachment to the music I was looking forI guess they just didn't draw me in, and that's what I wanted. While many may be looking for the kind of sound they offer I wanted something more engaging'. The 3's are certainly a great speaker and a great bargain at less than $800 a pair, especially for the technology they offer, but they just weren't what I wanted. Ironically one of the things that drew me to the Classic series was their design and technology (and my previous ownership of NHT). That (for me anyway) didn't translate into the sound I wanted to hear.

oldgoalie: interesting, how would you compare the Sierras to the Classic 3? The NHT C.3 is one I'd like to hear

Grandarf:
I think they are close in imaging and detail...perhaps the edge goes to the 3's, but not by a significant amount, though you'd expect more midrance detail due to the midrange driver that the 3 has. There is certainly a perception of a fuller bass sound with the Sierra's, though the 3's are no slouch there either. The Sierra's seem (to me) to have more of a presence, probably a slight bit more forward sounding than the 3's. I think the soft dome in the Sierra's is much more to my preference than the aluminum tweeter in the 3. I was listening to a male vocalist the other day with the Sierra's and I could visualize his smile as he sang a certain part of the song (which is meant to be humorous)....listening with the 3's I never got that impression from the same piece of music. The sense of 'space' around the music is more noticeable with the Sierra's. I've not spent as much time listening as I'd like since I got them due to outside commitments, but these are my limited impressions so far.

This illustrates my original point ^

We also had a customer that bought the tower version of the Threess because they sounded fabulous to him in the showroom, but his room really wasn't very good, so we switched him to NHT T5s which are designed to work in difficult rooms and he's really really happy. No matter how good a speaker is, the environment can really be a huge deciding factor, as can be the music and personal taste. And, really, the closer you get to a perfect transducer, the more acoustics conspire to make it or break it. You don't cover up anything with a really accurate speaker, including your room. I have Fours in my bedroom where I know they'll sound good and L5s in the much worse living room where I know they'll sound at least decent.

FWIW, I think what's wrong with audio is that so many people *desperately* want to believe that one company has all the answers and all the rest are full of it. As Bill Bush, I believe, told me about NHT once "it's not that we do things no one else can do, it's just that we bother to do it". I don't think NHT has any magic secrets either, they just do good engineering that makes a lot of sense. Audio really got screwed up when people got into brand/hero worship.

oldgoalie: thanks for the writeup


Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Ali, did we read the same post? The one goalie wrote?


Did you read that correctly? He's not saying that NHT's mid driver was better by a significant amount, he's saying that PERHAPS it was, and if it was, it was NOT by a a SIGNIFICANT amount. Are we both reading english here? What happened to the 2 way can't do mids and bass as well, can't image as well, blah blah blah


Again, a 5.25 mid woofer having a fuller sound than the C3's 6.5 inch? UNpossible!


omg, preferring a soft dome to NHT's aluminum tweeter?! BLASPHEMY!

Impossible! NHT's is a 3 way, with a sealed design and aluminum tweeter! It's a marvel of engineering! 3 way! Sealed! Aluminum drivers! Like the 50000$ BW Nautilus! How could a puny 2 way ported with soft dome do anything like that!


Which was what? That 2 way > 3 way, ported < sealed and alu tweet > soft dome? That people don't know how to listen? That NHT is the best? What was your original point exactly?


I just want to reiterate this as it's so ironic coming from you (and NHT). I think what's wrong with audio is that so many people *desperately* want to believe that one company has all the answers and all the rest are full of it. I think it's beautiful. It almost seems like there was some account hijacking lately. PULLIAMM ditched his BW 705s for monitors which costs a fraction of the 705's... Wow! Alimental saying that he thinks that what is wrong with audio is that so many *desperately* want to believe that one company has all the answers and the rest are full of it...

Actually, besides you Ali... I couldn't think of many who would fit that profile. A LOT of companies do good engineering and a lot are making a lot of sense too, not just NHT.

No, I think you're struggling with the English for some reason. Most good speakers are only better than another speaker by a little bit. Of course, what is "insignificant" to one person is "huge" to another person.
I never said that, only that they have a hard time doing all of it as well as a 3-way at the same time.
It all depends on how you tune it.
Preference is one thing, but I haven't heard a single soft dome that is as good as the affordable tweeter on an NHT or PSB, let alone something more exotic. At least, so far. Cymbals are actually supposed to go "ding, ding, ding" not "pthing, pthing, pthing"
You can still get good sound from a less exotic design. I would bet that he would like the Era D5s better than the Threes as well as they are very similar in design to the Sierra, but I wouldn't. The Era is a great *sounding* speaker, but the Three is more faithful. But that's why there are different designs, to achieve different effects.
My original point remains, that subjective opinions on the internet are meaningless unless they're very specific and have some general agreement. And that you have to listen for yourself to know what you're like. I'm sorry you can't understand that after about the 10th time I've said it.
I like good design. I also don't like soft dome tweeters as they are euphonic at best and ugly sounding at worst. I also prefer acoustic suspension/sealed speakers because I don't like the sound of ports. Push a ported speaker, especially a small one and you're going to hear noise you won't hear out of a sealed speaker. In any case, Revel, Vivid Audio, etc. I don't like 95% of B&W speakers much at all, but the original Nautilus was state of the art in design. If I had to pick the best overall designed analog speaker on the market, it would have to be the new Revel Studio2. But you can't have that for anything close to $700/pr.

Besides, you can ask NHT how much I "worship" them. If I don't like a product's design, I won't sell it, such as the SC1 and SC2 centers, unless I get an irresistible deal I can pass on. I constantly complain about their ported subs and push them to move to all sealed models. The soft tweeter on the Verve speakers doesn't sound that good to me. I grumble that the Four has a ported woofer. I was probably the first dealer to bitch a little about the Threes and nitpick them.
Pulliamm could be learning something. And I don't do hero worship. I do get close to it if the product itself is truly well engineered though.
I beg to differ. Most speakers are pretty piss poor in design and are designed to make them easy to get past your wife, not past your ears. And NHT very well knows that I wouldn't be dealer if at least half their products weren't exceptional and out of the ordinary. But even if you build an exceptional product, not everyone likes it. There are two different reactions to the Three - either it's the best bookshelf they've ever heard under a very large sum of money or "eh, I don't get it". The fact that opinions on high-end is never universal and often *opposite* is why you should only care about what your ears tell you.

Grandarf, maybe this will help you understand.

If I were to make a 2-way speaker, it would use a 5.25" magnesium, ceramic or titanium midrange with a 1" Be, diamond or ceramic tweeter, crossed over at under 2khz with a 4th order crossover and in a sealed box. To my knowledge, this speaker, doesn't exist.

If I were to make a 3-way speaker, it would very much resemble the NHT Three or Revel Gem2.

If I were to make a 4-way, well, it would be very similar to the NHT Four, Revel Studio2, B&W Nautilus or the upcoming Vivid Audio tower (except there wouldn't be ports involved).

If I were to make center/rears, it would be like an NHT or Revel center. It's not that I like one brand or another, it's that I like what they design because that's how I firmly believe it should be designed. You can struggle to overcome limitations of ports or soft domes or 2-ways or whatever, but it makes more sense to simply leapfrog them.

Here in the US the street price of the Classic 3 is the cheapest by far of the brands being mentioned.

Tawaun, I read a post of yours from a few months back where you raved about the Rockets 450's and I had been considering those also - can you compare the sound of the 450's to the D2.1SE's?

Thanks,
Ross

Grandarf,
I know where John is coming from since I bought my 3's from him! I respect his opinion about the 3's and in my experience, he's probably right about the 3's being a 'better' design (as I mentioned their design/technology was one of things that drew me to them)...but for me (and in my room) the Sierra's work better. I would wager a guess that in a dedicated theater room with acoustic treatments the 3's may be the superior speaker, but in my current room, to my ears, the Sierra's are the superior speaker. I also understand John's opinion regarding sealed vs. ported and aluminum vs. soft dome, and in a treated room the 3's may provide the sound I 'wanted' them to, but I don't have that option now...maybe some day when I do have a dedicated room an acoustic suspension design with aluminum drivers will be the better choice. Right now, the way I'm set up, the Sierra's are the winner for me.

Ali: You're looking at it from a theoretical stand point and not realizing that the end performance will not correlate to your assertions.

In practice, pit the two way Sierra-1 vs the NHT Classic three, and even though by your reasoning the Classic 3 should DESTROY the Sierra-1 (since it's so flawed in its design), it seems like the Sierra-1's are clearly holding their own. With many people preferring the Ascends/Swans to NHT Classic 3. That's the real world result.


So let me ask you, which speakers DID you design? What speaker of yours can I hear which will give me a good idea of your speaker design abilities? I was not aware that you were a speaker designer, I thought you were an NHT dealer. I think it would be interesting and a real eye opener to pit one of your commercial designs against the Sierra-1.

Oh no wait, you have not designed any speakers. In contrast, someone like David Fabrikant has many successful and renowned designs under his belt. So I just find it more than a little obnoxious that you act like you had all the answers. It's EASY to critique someone else's work and say that you would have done it better, different thing when you have to do it. Just like many told Andy, if you can really make speakers which would be better than everything else, THEN DO IT and become rich in the process!

In the end, it's about choosing a speaker which is right for you. For some reason, NHT's classic 3 doesn't seem to be the speaker of choice for countless amount of people. Some even preferred the 340SE to the Classic 3... Is the Classic 3 too good for them? Whatever makes you feel better. But I'll say it for the last time. It's all about implementation. You can't judge two speakers abilities by just a few design choices. You HAVE to hear them both to be able to judge them.

A two way could sound incredibly good, or it could sound incredibly bad. Same for a 3 way. When you're comparing two speakers, you have to compare their sound quality, not their components, their costs, or their design. What you're saying isn't necessarily false, you're just telling a small part of the story so that it fits with your agenda.

And to be clearer.


So he's not sure that there IS a difference in detail. **IF** there is, he's saying that it's by an INSIGNIFICANT amount. He's also saying that he'd have expected MORE from the NHT midrange...

Which was exactly MY point, not yours, that you CAN'T judge performance from design. NHT & Sierra, by that one listener, seems to be nearly identical to the NHT's, eventhough the NHT is a 3 way with a dedicated mid and the Sierra is a 2 way.

Grandarf,
Not to beat this to death, but what I meant is if the 3 has an edge in detail (and IMO if it does it's slight) it's due to the midrange driver. What I'm saying is that for a 2 way design the Sierra's come real close (again IMO) to the midrange performance of the 3's. In a different room the 3's might be the better speaker to some (maybe even to me). It is a very good design and it's a great speaker. The Sierra just happens to be the one I prefer in my setup. It flat out sounds better to me.

Yeah that's what I'm saying. And the other advantages of the Sierras over the 3's make it the preferred speaker, even though according to Alimental the 3's should just flat out outperform the Sierras. From the mids, highs to lows.

To me the Sierra's tweet outperforms A LOT of metal designs. It doesn't go phting phting or whatever ali said it does. The mids are better than on a ton of 3 way designs I've heard and/or metal drivers. The bass response is impressive, deep, very punchy and tight, again, far better than you'd expect from a 5.25 inch driver.

That's the bottom line. Saying it can't be good, or can't be as good as this other because its 2 way and not 3 way, it has a port and is not using metal drivers is idiotic. That's my point. It's implementation.

oldgoalie, do you have both speakers in house right now? Are you A/Bing them?

We agree on that...the design implementation of the Sierra's is impressive even versus a speaker that is a 3 way design. I'm at home today (awaiting delivery of a new sub) and going through my music collection...the Sierra's are really outstanding speakers.

Curtis,
No....the 3's are gone....

Ahh...I was just wondering if you could satisfy John's A/B critieria.

In my room, which is fairly dead, mziegler and I thought the CMT-340SE had better detail and presence from top to bottom. At his place, which is more reflective, mziegler felt it was closer.

The Sierras actually make a bigger difference in his room than in mine.

Curtis,
My room is actually pretty reflective too. In fact, John asked me to send him pictures of my room when I told him that I felt I was 'missing' something with the 3's. I'd been listening to some PSB's and thought perhaps I'd go that route. John offered to help me out, but by then I'd already sold them and had the Sierra's.

This brings up a very good point - some speakers just flat out work better in different rooms than others.

Not even accounting for personal taste and preference (for example, I personally still like the NHT Evolution M5 better than the Classic Three regardless of room, which I might add, the five or six year old M5 measured better than the Three in the exact same set of measurements in HTM ), even someone who in general likes the sound of the Threes better than the M5s in a well damped, wide room will prolly agree that the M5 sounds better in a bright/reflective, narrow room.

Trying to choose speakers that "fix" a bad room, or act like an EQ is a terribly dubious proposition , and might only work with even a mild degree of predictabilty when dealing with certain rooms with fairly serious problems, my advice would be to always try to tame the serious room problems somewhat by using passive room treatments. If you are unable or unwilling to change the room at all, then ask yourself how long before the room conditions, etc will change for various unforseen reasons (move, decor, placement, etc). Buying a speaker that sounds good in a decent room and electronicly correcting (as much as I dislike the overuse of EQ) may be more likely to produce reasonable results.