Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 234567891011 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 101

Thread: Sierras, thumbs up up up up up!!!!

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    7,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brehms
    lol, I think you were the guy who showed up as my wife and I were leaving Curtis's place Sunday. I am the super tall guy with the short blond.
    Yup.....Johnal showed up as you two were getting ready to leave. It just dawned on me that I didn't really introduce the three of you.....how rude....my apologies.
    -curtis

  2. #62
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    45

    Default

    After several hours of listening, I have to say these are wonderful speakers.
    I agree with the statements about the great imaging and clarity.

    I've already come across two tracks that had sounds I had never heard before. In one case it was some acoustic guitar behind an acapella (sp?) part. I had never heard this guitar before and seriously started wondering if it was coming from some other system in the house or neighborhood.

    Now, in all fairness, I am upgrading from Atoms which are about a third of the price, so I better be hearing an improvement. But, as I stated in my previous post, when listening to other speakers priced closer to the Sierras, I didn't notice such an improvement.

    So far continues to be so good.


    Mitch

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch G
    I was seriously considering the 340SEs and I even convinced a fellow Napervillian to let me into his house to listen to his. I found them to be too bright (or something) for my tastes.
    Out of curiosity, what did you guys listen to during the session? Personally, I've found that source material that has a lot of clipping sounds particularly bad on my 170SEs. I'm pretty sure it's the clipping because I have both the original and remastered (into clipping! ) versions of some pieces of music, as well as the clipped CD and non-clipped DVD versions of other pieces of music (checked afterwards by ripping/decoding and visually examining the waveforms), and the clipped versions invariably sound really harsh to me. On my other speakers, such material sounds annoying and lacking in dynamics, but the 170SEs are not nearly as forgiving.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch G
    (This coming from a guy with Paradigms being driven by a Yammie!). Regardless, they just didn't work for me.
    Obviously, tonal balance can also make speakers and receivers sound warm or bright (or both--the Paradigms I've auditioned generally had a laid-back midrange, sort of a built-in "loudness" function), but all Ascend speakers are designed to be as neutral and balanced as they come in this regard (and actually measure as such). I'm not arguing against what you heard, of course--just wondering out loud about the nature of auditory perception (as well as recording and mastering practices).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch G
    Then, these Sierras came out and I really liked what I read about them.
    ...
    The early exit polls are good. But, I haven't had a chance to do any real critical listening yet. Once I do, I'll bore you further with my thoughts.
    If possible, could you listen to the same source material with which you auditioned the 340SEs?

  4. #64
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    45

    Default

    It was a while ago that I listened to the 340SEs, but material probably consisted of The Shins, Alison Krauss, Jenny Lewis, Secret Machines (possibly?), The Ditty Bops, maybe some Pixies and/or Nirvana. In other words, rock and acoustic stuff. Now, I don't know what you mean by "clipping" in this context. So, I don't know if any of these recordings fit that category.

    Auditory perception is the crux of the problem of describing speakers, isn't it? What you hear and what I hear are affected by everything from age to aural abuse (I'm still feeling the effects of sitting front row at that Cars concert in high school) to simply what sort of sounds you like. (I'm more a fan of mezzo as opposed to soprano - viola vs violin, for example). It's funny you describe Paradigms as laid back. Everyone describes them as bright and Yamaha receivers as bright, yet from what I understand of "bright" I always thought my Atoms sounded pretty even keeled - laid back, I suppose. And, when I heard the 340s I found them relatively brighter.

    I have been listening to the same basic set of material on the Sierras and I would say that I definitely like the Sierras' sound better than what I remember of the 340s. They are fuller sounding. There's a brightness there, but the lower frequencies balance it out quite well. And, there are a bunch of other variables at play here as well. For one I listened to the 340s in someone else's house while the Sierras are right here in my family room. I used CDs when listening to the 340s while here in my house I'm streaming FLAC through a Squeezebox with a toslink to my receiver.

    Anyway, I'm listening to Alison Krauss and Union Station right now and they sound lovely.

    Hope this helps,


    Mitch

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    87

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch G
    It was a while ago that I listened to the 340SEs, but material probably consisted of The Shins, Alison Krauss, Jenny Lewis, Secret Machines (possibly?), The Ditty Bops, maybe some Pixies and/or Nirvana. In other words, rock and acoustic stuff.
    I'd have to do some research, but I'd imagine that the acoustic material would probably have reasonable mastering, while the rock might have some amount (possibly a great deal) of digital clipping.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch G
    Now, I don't know what you mean by "clipping" in this context. So, I don't know if any of these recordings fit that category.
    Digital formats all have an absolute numerical (integral) limit to their headroom, and for well over a decade now, engineers have been mastering CDs at such a loud (and always increasing) level that the waveforms have been clipped in the digital domain, often rather brutally. This mostly affects rock and other "popular" music, and as a result of this so-called "loudness war," many modern CDs actually do sound markedly inferior to their increasingly rare vinyl counterparts. I'm sure that analog pundits would love to know that they're right after all, but obviously it's for the wrong reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch G
    Auditory perception is the crux of the problem of describing speakers, isn't it? What you hear and what I hear are affected by everything from age to aural abuse (I'm still feeling the effects of sitting front row at that Cars concert in high school) to simply what sort of sounds you like. (I'm more a fan of mezzo as opposed to soprano - viola vs violin, for example).
    You're right, although from what I've seen, this goes beyond what we can physically hear and what we prefer. We all have a reference to what things really sound like (i.e. using our ears in the real, live, unrecorded world), but there are still differences in what each of us perceive as realistic with regard to the reproduction of sound.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch G
    It's funny you describe Paradigms as laid back. Everyone describes them as bright and Yamaha receivers as bright,
    Semantics might be an issue here. In my opinion, Paradigms are generally "laid-back" in the midrange, and a bit hot in the treble and upper bass regions--without looking at any graphs, I'd say they seem to exhibit a relatively mild "smile" or "loudness" curve that many people subjectively find rather pleasing. Overall, most of the high-end models do sound somewhat brighter than neutral to me on any sound with sufficient harmonic content (they certainly would on a Yamaha receiver, based on the Yamahas I've heard), while my Ascends sound as absolutely neutral (to me) on well recorded material as any speaker I've ever heard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch G
    yet from what I understand of "bright" I always thought my Atoms sounded pretty even keeled - laid back, I suppose. And, when I heard the 340s I found them relatively brighter.
    The Atoms I've heard (long ago--I don't know about later versions) definitely sounded warmer than the high-end models, and while they still seemed to have the "loudness" curve at lower volumes, they seemed to get comparatively shy in the treble when pushed. I'm not sure as to whether this was a function of volume, the amount of treble content in the source, or something else altogether. I actually haven't heard the 340SE, but the 170SE, which is said to sound very similar, is more neutral than the Atom at all volume levels, in my opinion, and if anything, is definitely not shy when pushed in the treble region.

    A much more extreme example to consider is the cheap, cheesy set of computer speakers that I got for free with a computer system. While it makes human voices sound much brighter than they do on the 170SE, it doesn't sound nearly as "bright" or "sparkly" when playing material that actually contains a lot of detailed treble. Certainly for this comparison, I would consider the 170SE to be more accurate.

    So there's volume to be considered, possibly, as well as certain characteristics of the source material that I'm finding difficult to cohesively reconcile with what I and others hear (especially since we're not doing a controlled scientific study, obviously). For example, with many TV soundtracks, which are not known to be great recordings, the 170SE can sound rather "crunchy" at times (some would describe this as "bright")--voices can take on a harsh, tinny quality that we just don't hear in real life. This is something that I do NOT hear on the 170SE at all with good recordings. Being a hobbyist, whenever I notice this specific characteristic, I try to detect the same thing on my headphones, and in every case so far, I have been able to hear this "crunchiness" in the headphones, only not as pronounced. Because known good recordings do not have this characteristic on either the 170SE or the headphones (to my ears and perception), I'm inclined to attribute it to the source. Similarly, digital clipping, which I mentioned earlier, is most definitely a characteristic of the source, and sounds awful to me on the 170SE.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch G
    I have been listening to the same basic set of material on the Sierras and I would say that I definitely like the Sierras' sound better than what I remember of the 340s. They are fuller sounding. There's a brightness there, but the lower frequencies balance it out quite well.
    Generally, the tonal balance of a speaker can really only be evaluated within its frequency range, and undoubtedly the Sierra-1 is more capable at the lower end, where some would say that the other Ascend speakers are a bit shy when pushed (the cost of using extremely lightweight woofers, I suppose). What I'm starting to wonder, though, is whether the 170SE and 340SE seem overly bright to some not so much as a result of tonal balance but because of some kind of oversensitivity to flaws in the source material. Obviously, the next question is whether the Sierra-1 also exhibits this characteristic, and to what degree. Can it be more detailed yet more forgiving at the same time?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch G
    Anyway, I'm listening to Alison Krauss and Union Station right now and they sound lovely.
    And that's what's important in the end. Thanks for your input, by the way. I might have to find out whether there's a valid, feasible way to make some sense out of all of this (probably not, but I can try!).

  6. #66
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    45

    Default

    DPR:
    Nice post.
    As far as clipping is concerned, then yes I would agree that some of the rock I listen to is clipped.

    I should probably do some A-B with the Atoms just for snicks and see if I notice any smiles besides the one on my face. <- Or that one.



    Mitch

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    culver city, ca
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch G
    It was a while ago that I listened to the 340SEs, but material probably consisted of The Shins, Alison Krauss, Jenny Lewis, Secret Machines (possibly?), The Ditty Bops, maybe some Pixies and/or Nirvana. In other words, rock and acoustic stuff. Now, I don't know what you mean by "clipping" in this context. So, I don't know if any of these recordings fit that category.
    just from my experience with some of that music, i find the shins and pixies to be generally well-recorded. however, i was disappointed when i put the secret machines on my 170s. was expecting "first wave intact" to just sound punishingly intense, but it seemed muddled. same with the new arcade fire CD. I saw them last night and the sea of instrumentation was amazing and powerful, but the intensity doesn't come through very well on the CD.

    The Shins and Pixies (at least surfer rosa) I think are good rock records to demo speakers with imo (i.e. I don't think there is much clipping tho i could be totally wrong--this is just from what I hear out of my speakers). I highly suspect the Secret Machines have a lot of clipping/dynamic compression. or maybe just a poor engineer.
    Last edited by ebh; 06-03-2007 at 02:18 PM.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    45

    Default

    Your assessment of the Shins, Pixies and Secret Machines is consistent with what I found. Although the Shins' "Oh Inverted World" is a bit muddy.


    Mitch

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    culver city, ca
    Posts
    219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mitch G
    Your assessment of the Shins, Pixies and Secret Machines is consistent with what I found. Although the Shins' "Oh Inverted World" is a bit muddy.


    Mitch
    maybe so--i'll have to go back and listen. i was thinking of their most recent album, which i thought sounded pretty decent. good dynamics and imaging.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    69

    Default

    The new album is a totally different animal from both their first and second albums. Though they're still on SubPop, they've used different studios and have had different people do the mastering. The first two albums were recorded in Mercer's basement (and portions in a Seattle studio), the new album was recorded entirely in a Portland studio with a new producer.

    OK, back to the thread...what are people using for stands for their Sierras? I've been contemplating building bamboo-veneered or bamboo plywood stands, but if there's a good option out there that would save me the time and runaround I'm interested.

    Thanks,

    J.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •