Ascend Sierra-B&W 805S-Swan D2.1SE-Tyler Acoustics Ref Monitor  

Interesting results Craig. Looks like they had similar output, except for the Swan leading by 4dB at 36hz.

The B&W looks to have the lowest THD. I'm guessing the reason the B&W couldn't go higher was port noise?

The one place I heard the 805S had them priced at $2500. I wasn't buying them, so I don't know what kind of negotiations were available. The store guys were actually more favorable to the Dynaudio Focus 140's at $1800.

Don't forget, with shipping the natural Sierras are "only" $825 shipped. How much was shipping on the D2.1SE's to Erie?

Do you have a picture with them all next to each other so we can get an idea of relative size?

Wow, the B&Ws are much more forward. Interesting.

That was my experience as well. The B&Ws are also more efficient.

Ahh....got it, I was thinking more "now" pricing of $824/pr for naturals and $884/pr for piano blacks. If I remember correctly, the introductory pricing on on the 340's never changed until the 340SE's came out.

I just checked, shipped to me (I think it varies per location), the D2.1SE's are $973/pr. Shipping was only $24.

edit: Craig....just read your post above..works for me.

For kicks...take a picture of the three speakers on that ED sub!

Ooooo....the weather must have let up! Get out there!

I was with Curtis at the session, and I totally agree with him in terms of them being forward.

One would have to be deaf to be unable to hear the difference between B&W and Sierra.

craigsub: what is the time difference between switching speakers and level matching?

Correct; quotes vary per location and are fed direct from the shipper in real time based on our intentionally underestimated product weights.

Well I hope the Swans do well because I already drank the kool aid ordered a pair one week ago. This should be fun test.

Craig, forgive me if you've mentioned this somewhere before and I missed it, but what amp are you using to power the speakers in this comparison? And while I'm asking, what pre-pro?

Thanks for your efforts!

My boys! That's what I have (as you know). Well that puts a lil cream in my coffee doesn't it!

Could someone please delight me how to read the graphs? The Verticle is sound level in dB (loudless) it seems like, but what is the horizontal? And what do people mean by "forward" or "flat"?

Thanks much for the help!

!!!!

Very cool.

Craig,
Awesome tests as usual. I, as well as many others I am sure, appreciate the time and effort it takes to put this sort of thing together but I see you are testing some $2000.00 monitors as well.

I wondered if the Revel M22 would be good fit in your testing? They can be had for $995.00 plus shipping here

Again, thanks for the effort

Horizontal is the frequency. The main peak is the frequency of the test tone, either 45hz or 36hz.

You're right, vertical is dB (loudNESS, or volume). And as xcjago said, horizontal is the frequency of the tone being tested. Someone else pointed out that the B&Ws seem to have less THD, or Total Harmonic Distortion, at these frequencies than the other two. In the graphs you'll notice the peak is at the fundamental frequency, or in other words the frequency of the tone Craig played to test the bass response. But you'll also see a smaller peak in each graph at double the test tone's frequency, which is musically speaking one octave higher. So in the 36 Hz graphs, there's a smaller peak at twice that, or 72 Hz. That's because the speaker's cones are resonating at not only the fundamental frequency, but also at harmonics of that frequency, starting with one octave up. If the graphs showed a wider frequency response, you'd probably also see smaller and smaller peaks at regular intervals going up.

(It's also possible that some of these harmonic resonances are room interactions and not just speaker cone resonance, right Craig? Please correct me if I'm wrong about that... I'm fairly sure you don't have an anechoic chamber in your house... YET. )

In a perfect world, a perfect driver would only show a peak at exactly the frequency of the test tone, assuming Craig is using pure sine wave tones. The rest of the graph would show a flat line at 0 Hz.

The definitions of "forward" can be interpreted different ways... Sometimes people mean the speaker has an emphasis in the upper midrange frequencies, which make them sound brighter, bringing out vocals and similar stuff. But I believe the term is really more about the presentation of the material... So a speaker that's described as more "forward" would make it seem as though the vocals and other midrange instruments are more forward in your room, and you're closer to the performers. Whereas a more "laid back" presentation would make it seem like the singers and performers are farther away from you in your soundstage. In other words, a more forward set of speakers places you in the front rows, where a more laid back set of speakers places you several rows back.

Everyone agree with this description? These can be fuzzy terms as they're bandied about in these parts...

Oh, and "flat" simply refers to the speakers' measured frequency response. A flat response, shown by a flat graph in a pink noise test, means the speaker reproduces all frequencies within the audible range at the same volume. In the real world, this is almost never the case, and truly "flat" speakers don't always sound good to everyone. There are many other factors involved, but the frequency response is a commonly used test to get an idea of how a speaker should sound and perform.

LHawes, seriously, your "suggestion" reeks of a classless upbringing

With all the time and money Craigsub spends testing audio equipment and people like you have the nerve to "suggest" what to purchase.....

I still can't believe some of the audio companies aren't comping him properly (although I would hope some are)

also, the revel has reviews all over the place, google is your friend

Craigsub is venturing into unchartered waters so let him do his thing

Well I must be classless too because I've also wondered how the Revel M22 would hold up in Craig's tests. I've never heard it but it gets excellent reviews. Nice attitude you've got there, BTW.

I can't speak for Craig but it seems he does this because he LIKES doing it, not because he thinks he owes us anything, and he seems to appreciate getting suggestions for his next comparison adventure. LHawes thanked Craig at least twice for his efforts! That shows more class than coming in here and insulting someone for participating in this thread with courtesy!

dfrom,

Lighten up, it was just a suggestion - like all the other 'suggestions' on what might be appropriate to test.

Didn't mean to offend your classy upbringing, and it seems a bit more classless of you to suggest I was somehow out of line - again it seems as though it was you who is way more out of line than I.

I 'll again thank Craig for his effort and try and ignore your pointless attack.

Craig,

When the Tyler's arrive I hope you also post on the finish, and build quality's of all these speakers. Will you be opening them up, and looking inside? Photo's maybe?

Not sure if this matters, but I understand the B&W 805s to be front ported. Are the other speakers front ported as well? The 36 hz test tone would probably be mostly port contribution as, at least the B&W, is supposed to be tuned to roughly 42hz. (I believe that below 60hz the port is doing most of the output rather than the mid-woofer, but this is from my experience with the N805, not the 805s)

If the other speaker's ports are facing backwards, is there a chance that their output would register as lower due to your mic being 2m from the front baffle (regardless of port location?)

Or, maybe you are your measurements just getting a somewhat "realistic expectation" of bass from the standmounted speakers as a listener might perceive them?