AVS Forum banner
1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,065 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hey all, a few questions! Very randomly worded



I have a pair of Studio 20 v2s laying around and have been toying with the notion of using them for a 2ch setup. The only thing is I've had them 7 years and they're getting old to me. Looks and listening wise.


I'm really liking the looks of the NHT Classic 3s. Plus they're pretty well regarded for SQ. haven't heard them yet, but they are around. Before wasting time on them...


Would they be compairable to the 20s? Maybe even an updgrade?


I'm willing to give up a little SQ for some fresh eye candy. Any other recommendations that might be worth looking at in the $7-900 range?


I may go also with the NHTs and a CC for the front L/C/R of my HT and move my Studio 40s to 2ch duty and sell the 20s... But again, I'm getting bored with them and have an itch for something new and exiting!!


Also, i'm looking at a Rotel RB-1080 or a RB-1075 that's on closeout, $600 for each. Any thoughts? I could have a great amp for 2ch or a good amp for 5ch. Ideally I'd like 200w per ch in the HT, but I don't have the money to swing it. I'm currently using a Elite 45tx for HT. But I really don't push it much when watching movies. So the 2ch may be the way to go??? Hmmm.


Ideas and input welcome!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,955 Posts
Ascend Sierras. They've been compared favorably pretty much to every speaker in their price range, Dynaudio Focus, ACI Sapphire XL, Paradigm Sigs 2, etc... They sell for like 850-950 depending on finish.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1155870


Anyhow, I haven't heard bad things about the NHT Classic 3, but they're not exactly in the same price league at 350$, not that this is really a factor, but imho, if you can fork a little extra for the Sierras you shouldn't be disappointed...


Quick search:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1004283
Quote:
Quote:

Originally Posted by rnatalli View Post

Yes. I find the Ascends a little too neutral and laid back which I personally don't like.

Neutral and laid back are two entirely different descriptions of sound.


I preferred the Ascends over the NHT's. The Sierra's are a neutral speakers with a wide sound strange and an overall very smooth, engaging sound. The NHT's are very mechanical sounding and just aren't very engaging. I've never heard the RBH's, so...


That's just my $0.02.

__________________

My journey to find the "perfect" speaker
http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?t=2795
Quote:
I used one of the many bookshelf speakers that I own, the new NHT Model 3s, to do extensive A/B comparisons at the exact same sound level with the same songs. Every time the Sierra-1 speakers reproduced the music with greater detail and less distortion. Some very important aspects to me, the mid-base and base, are extraordinary in these speakers. When the tom toms become muddied in a speaker in any way, then you know the sound is not accurate. But the Sierra-1s reproduce mid-bass and bass more accurately than any bookshelf speaker I've heard to date.


3 aspects of the Sierra-1s that stand out in my perception; Smoothness, Clarity, and Detail... everything that I'm looking for in a fantastic bookshelf speaker! The dynamics, recovery, and placement are all outstanding.

And I can also vouch too for the Sierras, fabulous speakers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,955 Posts
Swans... Well... That would depend on what you like in speakers, I'm guessing that if the Digms Studios were purchased, Swans might not be the ideal choice:

http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?t=2992
Quote:
Hi all. Big thanks to Curtis for opening his home to us. I had a great time. Here are my impressions:



D2.1se: Much larger in size compared to Sierras. The bass is more prominent. Some would say too prominent. The sound beams high and wide, as well as in your face. I was sure this set's volume was slightly louder. However, I don't think my impression would be too far off. It reminds me of my Rockets when I first got them. Piano seems to be behind a wall of curtains. Vocal was spot on and pleasant. Warmish sound. Pretty impressive indeed. Drop dead gorgeous Piano Rosewood veneer.


Sierras: Definitely more articulate and more separation. My whole family plays piano, and I always listen for the piano. The Sierras deliver here. It also has more transparency. Sound beam floats more. Everyone thought we had visitors outside during a specific track. It was life-like. None of the other speakers had the same effect. I thought the horns were a bit too much (I never listen that loud in my own room though). Overall, I am EXTREMELY impressed.


Acculine A1: Not my cup of tea. Too metallic and too local. The mids seem to break up. I don't know for sure, but I didn't like it right off the bat. I didn't think this was a fair comparison at all.


340se: Full sound and transparent. Judging by my ears, this set was A LOT more sensitive than the A1s, but the measurements only show roughly 1db more. There was no comparison here, the 340s walks all over the A1s. Even though I thought the 340s were a bit bright sounding, it was not metallic bright.
Quote:
These are just my impressions and are not meant to be anything more than that.


The Swan D2.1SE are very nice speakers. They are physically larger than the Sierras and they play a little deeper in the bass. As openwheelracing mentioned the bass seemed a little too prominent and it wasn't as punchy as the Sierras. The highs were nice, very neutral. We took some frequency response measurements by placing my mic about one foot in front of each speaker. The Swans measured very flat, except for a dip around 6hz and a rising response around 18khz (probably not noticeable). One area where they seemed to lag behind the Sierras was the midrange detail. Things like drums and stringed instruments just didn't seem to have the same snap or clarity as the Sierras. If I get a chance I would like to listen to these some more.


The Sierras sounded good as always. Fantastic detail especially in the the Tori Amos track Somewhere Over the Rainbow. Although not measuring quite as flat as the Swans, they are still fairly neutral. For whatever reason (my room, receiver, ears...) I prefer to run my Sierras at -2dB treble. It makes the highs a little more subdued but still retains all the detail.


The Acculines sounded good for the money, but I certainly preferred the 340SE. Acculines sounded thin with not much bass. If you crossed them over to a sub around 100hz that would probably help.


I was glad to hear the 340SE again. I never got a chance to hear them with the Sierras. They sounded very good, but not as good as the Sierras. I think the biggest difference is the in the detail and punchiness of the bass of the Sierras. In comparison to the Acculines, however, they certainly sounded more full and solid. The highs were definitely clear and strong but certainly not bright or subdued at all.
Quote:
You guess correct on the Swan and Sierras for my viewpoint...pretty much inline with Mike's and openwheel.

Or, actually, you could also consider the Ascend 340SEs, they're having a special, 518$ shipped , or you might even actually consider the complete 5.1 speakers for 1000$...

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages...S340Ascend.pdf
Quote:
Pitting Ascend's SE against the speakers in my reference theater was hardly fair, but I did it anyway. My main reference speakers are the Paradigm Studio 100 v3s, which at $2100/pair cost more than three times as much as the CMT-340SEs with stands. You'd expect a sonic leap that corresponded with such a huge gap in price, but I heard more similarities than differences. In fact, the Ascends surprised me by producing a slightly deeper soundstage than the Paradigms. The Ascends fell slightly short in detail, at which the 100s excels. Also the Paradigms handle dynamics somewhat better-to be expected, considering that they have twice the number of woofer.

Again, it depends what you're after, if detail/resolution are important to you, than going with the Sierras would be a good idea imho, also the Sierras have better bass and imaging.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf /forum/post/16964723


Swans... Well... That would depend on what you like in speakers, I'm guessing that if the Digms Studios were purchased, Swans might not be the ideal choice:

http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?t=2992

Well the poster is looking for "another" set of speakers so one can not assume this poster is locked in to any particular audio signature of a speaker.


The Swan 2.1SE did outscore the Sierra's in Affordable Audio's blind bookshelf shootout using

Dr. Floyd Toole's speaker evaluation criteria. There were 18 people evaluating the speakers.
Affordable Audio blind bookshelf shootout

Swan D2.1 SE vs. Ascend Sierra:

Swan D2.1 SE: The group thought the Swan D2.1

to be very neutral, with a slight tendency towards

being laid back. Vocals were excellent, both male

and female, with female vocals being presented

with a smooth presence and no harshness. Instruments,

including horns and drums, had a palpable

feel to them, with no sense of compression.

Micro and macro dynamics were as good as any

in the group. Sound staging and imaging were the

widest and deepest of any speaker. Bass was very

full, losing only to the tightness of the Sierras. The

overall impression of the Swans was excellent.



Ascend Sierra: The Sierra was considered to be

very close to the Swans. Other than a slight hint of

harshness in the treble, and a smaller, narrower

soundstage, the panel gave the Sierras high

marks, again. The Sierra’s were also a little tighter

in the bass than the Swan’s, according to about

half the panel. Once again, the panel was quite

impressed with the Sierra’s.




And Enjoy The Music's review of the Swan 2.1SE makes several refererences to the Sierra's preferring particular attributes of each speaker for different music.
Enjoy The Music's review of the Swan 2.1SE


The Sierra's are a fine speaker but if the poster is budget conscious the Elemental Designs W6-6TC's which are a front ported design of the Swan 2.1SE's are available for 475 to the door in rosewood. That would be 500 less than the Sierra's in a premium finish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,955 Posts
But there was some significantly wrong things about that blind test...


And from your link:
Quote:
Comparisons

I ran the D2.1SEs against my benchmark for the breed/price range, the Ascend Acoustics Sierra-1. In my review of the Sierra-1 last year, I characterized the Sierra as "the least compromised speaker currently available under $1000". There aren't many sub-$1k speakers that can deliver a wholly satisfying musical package all by themselves, but I'd say the Sierra now have some company. Beyond that, however, the two speakers are very different. The Swans had the Sierra beat on bass extension, but lag behind them in bass tightness and control. This continued, to a degree, up into the midrange: the Sierra's mids are crisp and detailed while the Swans' are plummy and romantic. The opposite is true for the highs, where the Sierra is natural & uncolored, but the Swans slightly spitty treble continued to pull subtle details out of my recordings that the musicians, I expect, would have rather kept hidden.

(EM)


Again, it depends of the listener, but for me, "bass tightness and control" is more important than ~5hz bass extension... Mids, "crisp and detailed", to me, is again far better than "plummy and romantic".
And highs: " natural & uncolored, but the Swans slightly spitty treble", anyhow, again, I'd much rather have natural and uncolored highs than spitty highs... But I guess that could depend on the listener.


Anyhow, someone compared them on another instance:
http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?t=3978
Quote:
I compared them and I will say it was close. The Swan's had bigger bass but the bass was tighter on the Sierra. I also think I preferred the tweeter on the Sierra. I went with the Swans because they dropped in price and came in at about $300 less than the Sierra. Not to mention that the finish is AMAZING on the Swans.

But that poster purchased Sierras in Espresso after though... Anyhow, to me, it's obvious that the attributes of the Sierras vs Swans would make the Sierras a much more desirable speaker for me... But I can't speak for everyone, if you think Swans sound better to you, go for them and save the $!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,791 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgferg67 /forum/post/16965403


The Sierra's are a fine speaker but if the poster is budget conscious the Elemental Designs W6-6TC's which are a front ported design of the Swan 2.1SE's are available for 475 to the door in rosewood. That would be 500 less than the Sierra's in a premium finish.

I see the price as $650.00 not $475.00 for the W6-6TCs on the ED site.

http://www.edesignaudio.com/product_...roducts_id=767


Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf /forum/post/16965584


But there was some significantly wrong things about that blind test...

Since the speakers scored so close in the shootout, and the reviewer from Enjoy The Music stated which speaker they preferred varied by recording, I am going to have to dismiss the "switching box" as having a significant or even audible effect on the shootout. Also The Swan's and Sierra's are within 1.5 db

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf /forum/post/0


Again, it depends of the listener, but for me, "bass tightness and control" is more important than ~5hz bass extension... Mids, "crisp and detailed", to me, is again far better than "plummy and romantic".
And highs: " natural & uncolored, but the Swans slightly spitty treble", anyhow, again, I'd much rather have natural and uncolored highs than spitty highs... But I guess that could depend on the listener.

And the reviewer later in the summary stated, "When it came to simple listening enjoyment, which speaker I preferred varied from recording to recording." Also of note, in the in Affordable Audio shootout harshness was mentioned in the Sierra's not the Swans. The switch issue was supposedly to make speakers sound duller and lacking detail not harsh as noted in the Sierras. No harshness or "spitty treble" was noted in the Swans at the shootout or the individual Jan 08 review.


Some will prefer the Swans greater depth/richness of sound and a larger soundstage.


The speakers are very close and will appeal depending on audio signature taste.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,791 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgferg67 /forum/post/16965838


"w6sale" coupon code is required

How do you get the coupon? If the W6-6TC sounds close to the 2.1 at $475.00 that would be an excellent deal
.


Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,791 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgferg67 /forum/post/16966447



Some will prefer the Swans greater depth/richness of sound and a larger soundstage.


The speakers are very close and will appeal depending on audio signature taste.

I have never heard the Swans but from all the reviews I have read they vary on whether the 2.1 or the Sierra-1 have a richer sound or larger soundstage. To make the statement above is somewhat inaccurate as each review I read did not come out and say hands down that the 2.1s or the Sierra-1s were the best at one specific quality.


Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,955 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgferg67 /forum/post/16966447


Since the speakers scored so close in the shootout

Which you shouldn't attribute any value anyhow... The 'scores' are largely irrelevant, even if a switcher which altered the crossover behavior was not used, you can't really put a numerical value to determine the performance of a loudspeaker which averages a subjective scores of multiple listeners, many of which were sitting in what was considered bad listening position... But I digress...

Quote:
and the reviewer from Enjoy The Music stated which speaker they preferred varied by recording

Sure, many people consider speakers subjective. And some might prefer speakers which are in fact a worst transducer than another... For example, one might prefer BOSE to either...

Quote:
I am going to have to dismiss the "switching box" as having a significant or even audible effect on the shootout.

Why would you do that when Ascend has posted measurements of the effect and shown them to be quite audible? Also craig's own measurements showed that there was a significant effect? And that wasn't just for 2 speakers... For all the speakers tested. Have you even read the post? I don't think so, if you did, you should reread, because it doesn't appear like you've gotten the gist of it.

Quote:
And the reviewer later in the summary stated, "When it came to simple listening enjoyment, which speaker I preferred varied from recording to recording."

It's not impossible that a speaker with flaw, for example, recessed treble, might sound more pleasant on many recordings, for example, music recorded very hot. But anyhow, as I stated, many find speakers subjective and actually prefer things which others might consider a weakness, for example, bloated, excessive bass... Personally, I absolutely hate it, but I know for a fact others like it. But even I'd have to admit that it might not be annoying 100% of the time, in some instances, with some recordings, it might sound good...


Anyhow, so far I've seen about 2-3 people going from Swans to Sierras, but not yet one going from Sierras to Swans... Another purchased 1800$ ACI Sapphires XL, later heard the Sierras but thought the ACIs were slightly ahead, and later decided to return the ACIs and purchased the Ascends... The only instance where some seemed to prefer the Swans seemed to be that one instance with the switch, and that seems to also be your source for saying that they have a deeper soundstage...


Sadly, you tend to get some contradicting opinions on anything audio. I can tell you, 100% from experience, that a lot said in that affordable blind test was bogus, ex: 340SE laid back, aka, like listening from 50th row?! My god... Many found it extremely strange that so many 'weird' things seem to happen in that GTG, well at least one of the cause was put in evidence, and people who compared the speakers themselves arrived to very different conclusions.

Quote:
The speakers are very close in will appeal depending on audio signature taste.

Sometimes it's just the little things which bugs you to no end. I recall another poster selling the Swans because he found the bass emphasis annoying... Anyhow, you'd probably lose about 100$ in shipping to order the two pairs and comparing them together and to return the loser...


In the affordable blind test, they compare a 350$ speaker to B&W's 805S, and they have the 350$ come out well ahead, the 805s coming out uninvolving, laid back, lacking detail, etc... Again some time ago in these forums, someone ordered some Sierras and wasn't 100% satisfied, and ended up purchasing the 805s instead... Maybe he could have saved some cash and simply bought the 350$ speakers instead?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,791 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgferg67 /forum/post/16966762






I guess I'm partial to them because I own a pair.

Man those are good looking speakers
! Did you ever compare the W6 to the 2.1? How do you like the VTI stands? I was looking at them today as the Sanus Steel foundation stands I have are not very solid. No problem with being partial to your speakers, I know I am as well
. Bottom line is both speakers are excellent speakers in the under 1k price range.


Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac /forum/post/16966693


I have never heard the Swans but from all the reviews I have read they vary on whether the 2.1 or the Sierra-1 have a richer sound or larger soundstage. To make the statement above is somewhat inaccurate as each review I read did not come out and say hands down that the 2.1s or the Sierra-1s were the best at one specific quality.


Bill

The Swans is this review were differentiated from the Sierra's by stating that offer a rich sumptuous sound, no matter what the room size. Sierra's were recommended for "normal" room sizes not any. Also mentioned was the orchestra seeming larger.
http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazin...wans_d21se.htm


The Affordable Audio shootout mentions a smaller narrower soundstage for the Sierra's. The individual review from Affordable Audio describes the Swans as offering a rich full sound.


Rich, Plummy, romantic, sumptous were are used in these reviews to describe the Swans in the Affordable Audio and Enjoy the Music reviews. I have not seen such terms used to describe the Sierra's, and thats ok because they are a fine speaker and have other attributes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Mac /forum/post/16966833


Man those are good looking speakers
! Did you ever compare the W6 to the 2.1? How do you like the VTI stands? I was looking at them today as the Sanus Steel foundation stands I have are not very solid. No problem with being partial to your speakers, I know I am as well
. Bottom line is both speakers are excellent speakers in the under 1k price range.


Bill

I saw a comparison in the AV123 forums from a user(Thorcorps) who owns both the Swan 2.1SE and W6-6TC.
"The eD does not have as prominent a bottom end as the Swan does (since the highs are similar between the two, it looks like they tweaked that by the cabinet/port geometry instead of by crossover changes)"

There is a more in depth comparison but the link is not allowed here.


I bought the stands because they have a very large area(tube) for mass loading. I ended up replacing the top plates with wood because the steel top plates were causing resonation. These are my first bookshelf speakers and am kind of surprised the difference a stand can make with spikes, different materials for mass loading(hated sand, settle on landscaping rocks), mounting bumpers and numbers of mounting bumpers/span of those bumpers affect on sound. I tried the Blu-tack clay to mount my speakers and hated it also. I ended up with 3 bumpers about a third of the way in from the speakers, this gave me a larger soudstage for some reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
725 Posts
Well returning to the original topic the OP was asking about the NHT measures better than the Studio 20. While I haven't heard the v2 Studio 20's and only the v4 and v5 I found their low end to be overpronounced which caused the mids to suffer whereas the Classic 3 does not have this problem. All in all I consider to the C3 to be a better speaker overall over the Studio 20. The highs are definitely a lot crisper and more detailed than the 20 but honestly there is no way to know unless you audition them for yourself and listen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf /forum/post/16966813


Which you shouldn't attribute any value anyhow... The 'scores' are largely irrelevant, even if a switcher which altered the crossover behavior was not used, you can't really put a numerical value to determine the performance of a loudspeaker which averages a subjective scores of multiple listeners, many of which were sitting in what was considered bad listening position... But I digress...

The results were close and there was an hour discussion of 20(described audiophiles) after scoring, and these results coincided with the Enjoy The Music comparisons - the speakers are close. This is the best information available through review publications despite perceived flaws. If the Sierra was a noticeably better speaker it would be apparent through these publication reviews and the 20 people in the shootout who heard the speakers and discussed what they heard afterwards.

Quote:
Sure, many people consider speakers subjective. And some might prefer speakers which are in fact a worst transducer than another... For example, one might prefer BOSE to either...

It's a review from a professional publication that reviews equipment not a random internet forum post.

Quote:
Why would you do that when Ascend has posted measurements of the effect and shown them to be quite audible? Also craig's own measurements showed that there was a significant effect? And that wasn't just for 2 speakers... For all the speakers tested. Have you even read the post? I don't think so, if you did, you should reread, because it doesn't appear like you've gotten the gist of it.

A 4 db example was given as the example(complaint) but it was found none of the speakers varied more that 1 db. The claim that the most efficient speaker won every time was not true. The complaint was originally about the 340's, come to find out they were not even attenuated. The switch in question was tested for audible differences of attentuated speakers versus not and none was found. Harshness was noted in the Sierra's in the shootout and this conflicts with the supposed result of the switch making speakers sound dull and lifeless. I can connect the dots...


Quote:
Anyhow, so far I've seen about 2-3 people going from Swans to Sierras, but not yet one going from Sierras to Swans... Another purchased 1800$ ACI Sapphires XL, later heard the Sierras but thought the ACIs were slightly ahead, and later decided to return the ACIs and purchased the Ascends... The only instance where some seemed to prefer the Swans seemed to be that one instance with the switch, and that seems to also be your source for saying that they have a deeper soundstage...

Again the said switch was tested with no noted audible differences.

On the larger soundstage, read the reviews again. Enjoy The Music states the Swans are recommended versus the Sierrras "for those who need to fill a large space with a lot of gorgeous sound".


It's unbelievable how one tries to discredit publications/people who review things on a regular basis and tries to split hairs in the process trying to discredit but will then use a random internet post with zero information as some kind of proof because it's supports their bias. I see you were also trying to discredit the testing because of the type of veil they were using in the shootout.


The speakers are very close and each has atttributes that will appeal to different people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,955 Posts
Arguing for the sake of arguing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgferg67 /forum/post/16968194


The results were close and there was an hour discussion of 20(described audiophiles) after scoring, and these results coincided with the Enjoy The Music comparisons

'Close'? What do you mean by 'close'? 5 pts?
Or, as I said, 340SE being described as 50th row is how they really sound? Oh really? And 350$ speakers besting B&W's 2500$ 805s? And that 350$ was easily bested by the Swans and Sierras... So that means that 805s
Quote:
the speakers are close.

Close how? I think reviews have been cited enough. As I said, depending on listener preference, there seems to be significant differences, in both bass, mid and treble presentation. Personally, a speaker with bloated bass will never be close to neutral speakers in my eyes, because personally, I dislike bloated bass. But if you don't care about tight vs bloated bass, then yeah, I guess you could say that they're close, because they're in similar price ranges and might appeal to different type of listeners... I guess you could say that...

Quote:
This is the best information available through review publications despite perceived flaws.

There's different ways of reading reviews. If you'll notice, the majority are very positive. Even when a product isn't anything special, reviews will usually be all praise. You usually have to read between lines to get the real story. Usually, when you read things like 'bloated bass', there's really something to it... But anyhow. As I mentioned, to some, that might be a strength and not a weakness. YMMV.

Quote:
If the Sierra was a noticeably better speaker

Better to who? Better how? A better transducer you mean?
Quote:
it would be apparent through these publication reviews and the 20 people in the shootout who heard the speakers and discussed what they heard afterwards.

Except that 1) a switcher was used which has a significant influences crossover behavior (the way the speaker will sound) 2) can't average 20 different subjective scores where maybe 50% or more of listening positions weren't ideal, 3) "I see you were also trying to discredit the testing because of the type of veil they were using in the shootout." The veil did in fact have an effect, craig actually posted measurements demonstrating it... But again, old news. Add everything together, what do you get? Something that makes very little sens in the end.


You ignored the 350$ vs Swan/Sierra vs 2500$ B&W 805s. LOL If that review is valid, as I said, 805s

Oh no wait, something was wrong with that review as the 340SEs really don't sound like they were described in that 'review'!
I can tell you also that the Sierras don't ridiculously outperform the 805s like that review indicated... And I'd bet my shirt that neither do the Swans... And neither would the 350$ speakers either... If it was the case, howcome nobody ever mentions them here or anywhere else then? Anyhow, believe what you want.

Quote:
A 4 db example was given as the example(complaint) but it was found none of the speakers varied more that 1 db. The claim that the most efficient speaker won every time was not true. The complaint was originally about the 340's, come to find out they were not even attenuated. The switch in question was tested for audible differences of attentuated speakers versus not and none was found. Harshness was noted in the Sierra's in the shootout and this conflicts with the supposed result of the switch making speakers sound dull and lifeless. I can connect the dots...


Again the said switch was tested with no noted audible differences.

Jeeze, where did you get your info from?
Anyhow, it's old news, again, believe what you want, I don't care.


Quote:
On the larger soundstage, read the reviews again. Enjoy The Music states the Swans are recommended versus the Sierrras "for those who need to fill a large space with a lot of gorgeous sound".

That's not soundstage... SS is the ability of a speaker to reproduce space & instrument placement. Filling a large space with sound isn't soundstage...

Quote:
It's unbelievable how one tries to discredit publications/people who review things on a regular basis and tries to split hairs in the process trying to discredit but will then use a random internet post with zero information as some kind of proof because it's supports their bias.

I don't see what you base yourself on for these comments. Maybe the BOSE comment. I guess that if I had to write a positive review on BOSE speakers, I'd make some type of comment on how they made some music/recordings sound great... Maybe these would be very poor recordings where recording quality was really low, and so these BOSE might not so evidently display the fact that the music is of very bad quality...


But hey, if you want to really read and interpret what's written...
Quote:
Okay, so I wouldn't recommend the Swans as studio monitors. I probably wouldn't recommend the Sierra-1 for studio use either, but more importantly, I don't want a sonic microscope in my home system. I was something that delivers music in an emotional, involving way, and this the Swans have in spades[Guess he means v type speakers, or warm speakers, or speakers with recessed treble, etc. Not everyone agrees with this]. When it came to simple listening enjoyment, which speaker I preferred varied from recording to recording. On Saudades by Trio Beyond [ECM, 2006]; Jack DeJohnette, Larry Goldings, and John Scofield's modern tribute to Lifetime (Tony Williams' fiery late '60s power trio); the Sierra brought a little more edgy grit out of Scofield's guitar tone, while the Swans made more seductive listening out of the proceedings.[more seductive listening? Meaning? The Swans couldn't reproduce teh grit of Scofield's guitar?] Winner: the Sierra-1. Lush & seductive can be nice, but it doesn't work for everything.[Right, IMHO, doesn't work for a lot of material] In this case, the Sierra's presentation held me on the edge of my seat more effectively. [As per usual, good recordings sound great on good gear, don't need speakers acting like EQ to make music sound good]


On the previously mentioned Renée Fleming recording, the brass sounded more lifelike on the Ascends, but loud choral passages came across a bit strained.[No sub I think, so for loud and no sub, advantage might be Swans,] On the Swans, the orchestra seemed larger (although more distant)[Because of the bloated bass? Distant why, recessed mids?] with a greater sense of dynamics[Because of bloated bass?]. Strings, and particularly Fleming's vocals, were warmer[Bloated bass? Do you want speakers which will make things warmer or which will reproduce them as on the recording?] and more moving with the D2.1SE[Guess that's personal opinion, personally, I tend to find warmth much more annoying than moving]. I give the nod the Swans[k, personal taste]. The Sierra did a better job capturing the pure rock energy of the Rolling Stones' Shine a Light at reasonable (but still loud) volume levels[ok... Not much detail, but better job at capturing pure rock energy, sounds like dynamism to me, probably tighter bass, anyhow.]. However, at less-than-reasonable, "pedal to the metal" levels (that you might use as a matter of course in a room much larger than mine) they ran out of gas, and the Swans picked up where the Sierra-1 left off in delivering a fist-pumping performance: a tie.[Ok, so for unreasonable listening levels, go Swans... Or, get a sub and alleviate the load on the Sierras so you can ruin your hearing.]


In the final analysis, I'd still recommend the Sierra-1 for most budget-minded audio thrillseekers, as they are better suited for use in normal-sized domestic living spaces, and are specifically designed with a flat impedance response that works well with just about any amplifier you might have around. That said, the Swans are really more different than they are inferior, and those who need to fill a large space with a lot of gorgeous sound (and are open to a possible amplifier upgrade), they certainly deserve a place near the top of a very short audition list.
Quote:
The speakers are very close and each has atttributes that will appeal to different people.

While you say they're very close, I say they sound pretty damn different. The last paragraph seemed to indicate that he'd recommend the Sierras over the Swans, but that the Swans were more different than inferior. I guess why is up to interpretation, but my 2 cents, amps aside, is that the Sierras are more accurate (non-colored, presents more the recording as it is instead of imparting its own sound to it) than the Swans and they might please more people than the more colored Swans... Speakers shouldn't have, for example, bloated and/or excessive bass... Some might prefer a warm speaker, but you normally want tight, balanced bass... but if you want warm speakers, he clearly recommended Swans: "If you listen primarily to symphonic music, or simply prefer a rich and sumptuous sound, they may be just the ticket for you no matter what your room size. " Mids... You want the best resolution and most transparent mids you can get... Not really one which will alter voices to make them more lush or more romantic than they really are... Well, not me at least, maybe that's what some are looking for... I dunno.


I really have nothing against reviews, it's all a matter of interpretation anyhow. But just like speakers, some are more flawed than others, are some are really flawed... In some cases, the interpretation of results is the problem, sometimes, it's test procedures which are flawed, other times the conclusion, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
200 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandarf /forum/post/16968634


'Close'? What do you mean by 'close'? 5 pts?
Or, as I said, 340SE being described as 50th row is how they really sound? Oh really? And 350$ speakers besting B&W's 2500$ 805s? And that 350$ was easily bested by the Swans and Sierras... So that means that 805s


The 340's had lower measured db and did not were not attenuated - the switch was not an issue was there something wrong with the speaker it was remanufactured? Have not heard any 800 series but if they have that signature B&W British laid back sound of my brother's DM640's..well the speakers literally sound like they have rags stuffed in them.



Quote:
Close how? I think reviews have been cited enough.

I will stick to the reviews and try to interpret down the middle and not inject bias and subjectivity.

Quote:
There's different ways of reading reviews. If you'll notice, the majority are very positive. Even when a product isn't anything special, reviews will usually be all praise. You usually have to read between lines to get the real story.

Yea, right, thats what I would do. Create a bunch of false praise and then go right into comparison with last years price/breed leader and then state you what speaker you preferred varied from recording to recording...

Quote:
Better to who? Better how? A better transducer you mean?

Except that 1) a switcher was used which has a significant influences crossover behavior (the way the speaker will sound)

"The switcher caused no audible sonic degradation, and we have done several tests in the past 2 years checking this. Under blind conditions, there has be no one who could tell a difference between speakers being attenuated and those with no attenuation.(craigsub)"


Quote:
can't average 20 different subjective scores where maybe 50% or more of listening positions weren't ideal,

Not ideal but equal for each speaker. Somehow thru all this alleged invalidity the Sierra's and Swans made it to the last round and were the clear favorites in discussions.


Quote:
That's not soundstage... SS is the ability of a speaker to reproduce space & instrument placement. Filling a large space with sound isn't soundstage...

Ok the Swans will sound like a larger speaker and fill a larger room.

A larger soundstage was mentioned in the shootout.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top