Wisconsin GTG discussion

[billy p]

Where is the review thread that you guys are referencing?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1324185

It took place this past Saturday...you'll have lots of reading to catch up on....
I'd start reading from about post 841

[davef]

Sounds like the Towers acquitted themsleves rather nicely....One of the guests(Archaea) really like the Ascends over the Phils and ST....nice to read comments like that coming from a third party member....

Interesting comments so far. I haven't been paying too much attention to this GTG but the various comments seem to be inline with what I would have predicted. Salk owners prefer Salk, those who desire extreme SPL prefer the Seatons / JTR's. Thus far, the only comments from a truly unbiased listener preferred the Sierra Tower over the Salk Song Tower (Archaea). I am also curious as to the comments of the (2) Sierra Tower owners that attended.

I have one major concern though, it appears like many of the listeners were reporting/recording their results from different locations in the room. I wish that they would have mentioned their seating position for the particular speaker because a comparison between one speaker and another, when a listener is in different locations for each of these speakers, should really not be taken seriously -- especially with ribbon tweeters.

It also appears like Terry's room is huge and that many of the speakers were exhibiting compression -- it would have been rather simple to re-adjust the volume levels downward. Without question, this issue gives an advantage to those speakers designed to handle more power.

That said, seems like it was a fun time for everyone Hopefully the trend to promote high performance audio will continue in this age of the iPod

Only weakness on the Sierra was the Bass...I happen to think the Bass is very good on my Towers....

I didn't quite read the reviews that way, seems like most were impressed with the bass, especially when compared to the SongTower and Phil 2. However, I would definitely expect the bass response of our tower to be limited when compared to the HT2TL or SoundScape, which are MUCH larger speakers (more than double the cabinet volume) and also lower sensitivity. Generally speaking, higher sensitivity means sacrificing low end extension and vice versa...

It is interesting to see what brands are dominating the discussion and why.

LOL... Why am I not surprised at which brands are dominating the discussion? I suppose business as usual on AVS these days...

[GirgleMirt]

I think it was noted by someone that most often the speakers which do not garner attention are usually... ok let me look it up.. (from another thread and other speaker): "they sounded absolutely inoffensive on first listen, which I mean as highest praise. (If anything stands out, one can assume the speaker is flawed. See, e.g., B&W, Sonus Faber, Wilson.)" I liked that quote

I tend to describe speakers more by what they do wrong than anything else. Around page 33 so far, and haven't read anything really shocking... I'd have expected the JTR Tripple 12s to do better... For a while on avs it was all about high compression tweeters horns and high efficiency drivers, pro designs and these were supposed to blow everything away, looks like the Seatons did well, but at 4500$... Ouch, not 4500$... 7000$... They're a little bit more expensive than the rest...

Philharmonic 2: $2000/pair
Salk SongTower RT: $2700.pair
Ascend Acoustics Sierra Tower with RAAL ribbon: $2700/pair
JTR Triple 12-LP: $3000 (per pair?)
Salk Veracity HT2-TL: $4500/pair
Seaton Catalyst: $7000/pair
Salk SoundScape 10: $12,000/pair

Overall, so far, I'd have to say that the group of speakers there has to be considered impressive, and definitely good competition, definitely some big names with good reputations of having good bang for the buck, so the Ascends doing quite well is definitely something given their price point competition...

Also listening positions... Sigh... As someone who goes yearly to an audio show with probably 100+ systems, and has had plenty of experience of how important listening position and speaker placement is, I can sympathize... Looking at those people with their backs against the rear wall, or seeming really at either edges of the L/R speakers... sigh...

I have one major concern though, it appears like many of the listeners were reporting/recording their results from different locations in the room. I wish that they would have mentioned their seating position for the particular speaker because a comparison between one speaker and another, when a listener is in different locations for each of these speakers, should really not be taken seriously -- especially with ribbon tweeters.

Looking at the pics, weren't the speakers a little too close to the rear wall? I think it was to accommodate the many listeners, but normally, shouldn't the towers be further in the room? (I have my Sierras about 3.5 feet in the room...) Mieh, looks like they were maybe 1.5/2 feet away which is probably decent...

Anyhow, reading that thread, I'd say it's safe to say that the Ascends are definitely no slouch (top tier!) in their price point. Congrats Dave!

[sesquipedalian]

After reading through the avs thread I am interested to find out more about the perception that the RAAL ribbons didn't seem well integrated (or comments similar to that effect). What specifically might allow for that impression? Crossover differences? Room differences? Driver differences? Listener preference?

I own a pair of RAAL Sierra Towers, and I have noticed what seems to me, on some recordings, a more dominant upper mid and low treble similar to what one of the reviewers noted. I am not sure whether to attribute that to the speakers, my listening room, or the recordings. Given that I have less bass response than I would prefer in my room, it seems that it is likely a combination of the listening area and recording. If I paired the towers with a sub, I suspect I might hear more balance, even on the less than stellar recordings.

[arkiedan]

I don't usually post on these forums. I find I can learn more by keeping quiet and reading the posts of guys who are willing to spend far more time and have far more money than I, in pursuing this wonderful hobby. That said, in my opinion, way too much emphasis has been placed on last Saturday's GTG.

They're a great bunch of guys who, in their pursuit of audio nirvana, were willing to drive many hours to meet with like-minded folks and spend an afternoon comparing some truly fine speaker systems. That said, too many folks are treating that pleasant afternoon as the last words in speaker analysis. My humble thoughts are: the room was terrible, seating was all over the place or non-existant, with most standing along the rear wall. It has been said repeatedly that the speakers were usually driven beyond their limits, though only a couple systems were designed for those levels. In other words, nothing I've read in hundreds of posts can be reasonably considered credible. As usual, the analysis by "nuance" was well thought out and carefully written, emphasizing his bias regarding Jim Salk's line of products and the Songtower in particular. His wife's review of the day was terrific and he's a fortunate man to have her.

Me? I have owned Sierra-1's for the last year and I love them, finding them lacking in one important area: the mid-range in big orchestral works. The do try hard to reproduce the entire Vienna Symphony but just can't do it. They can't keep up. For that reason I've been wrestling with a choice between the Sierra tower with the RAAL tweeter or the Philharmonic Two's, Dennis Murphy's offering. The point is: while the Philharmonics and the Sierras were not reviewed as well as I would have liked, in fact the Phils were reviewed quite badly in a couple cases, I will discount ALL of the posts regarding last Saturday. If you were to set out to setup the absolute worst conditions to audition speaker systems, the result would be similar to that room. It was Horrible!

So, as for me, it's back to wrestling with my decision to go with the Sierra towers or the Philharmonic Two's. Salk's line? I think I'd love to buy a pair of Salks, except they can run up in price faster than the Miami Heat can runup the score. So, I'll read the next several hundred posts that endlessly discuss that group meet last weekend and I'll chuckle at the more outrageous statements. Then, hopefully, I'll finally pick one of my two favorite candidates.

Good luck to all in your own personal pursuit of audio nirvana,

old arkiedan

[monkuboy]

I agree with Arkiedan - not just the Wisconsin GTG but any sort of review that is posted, you have to take with a grain of salt and consider the circumstances. I thought the GTG was an excellent opportunity to compare several very highly regarded speakers and I eagerly looked forward to reading the results. However, to me it is clear those results were based on listening in far less than perfect conditions, and even the controllable aspects such as volume levels, were not handled as well as they could have been which ended up favoring a couple of speakers playing at high volumes that most folks would never have in their own environment. On top of that you have personal biases.

There's no substitute for listening in person and preferably in your own room. The one conclusion I came away with after reading all that was I appreciate my own speakers. I love the way they sound and so if I am that fortunate, I should be thankful, right?

With that many people and things set up as they were, it was a less than ideal environment in which to evaluate speakers but I still found it an interesting read. It's just if I were looking for speakers, I don't think I would be too influenced by any of the posts - I'd have to hear them myself.

[curtis]

After reading through the avs thread I am interested to find out more about the perception that the RAAL ribbons didn't seem well integrated (or comments similar to that effect). What specifically might allow for that impression? Crossover differences? Room differences? Driver differences? Listener preference?

I own a pair of RAAL Sierra Towers, and I have noticed what seems to me, on some recordings, a more dominant upper mid and low treble similar to what one of the reviewers noted. I am not sure whether to attribute that to the speakers, my listening room, or the recordings. Given that I have less bass response than I would prefer in my room, it seems that it is likely a combination of the listening area and recording. If I paired the towers with a sub, I suspect I might hear more balance, even on the less than stellar recordings.

Since it is on "some" recordings, it would seem that it is a issue with the recordings/material themselves.

I would definitely look into a sub if you think the room is bass shy, or trying to rearrange the room.

[merrymaid520]

Hey Dave,

Your predictions mirrored mine as well. We all prefer what we own, who would have thought

I presented my feedback in that thread just a few minutes ago. I mentioned my "theory" as to the differences I heard. I could be way off but it seemed logical. After you read over it, let me know if I am way off base or not.

In any event, once again a great time with friends and good music! My poor towers are always in the lime light

Brandon

Interesting comments so far. I haven't been paying too much attention to this GTG but the various comments seem to be inline with what I would have predicted. Salk owners prefer Salk, those who desire extreme SPL prefer the Seatons / JTR's. Thus far, the only comments from a truly unbiased listener preferred the Sierra Tower over the Salk Song Tower (Archaea). I am also curious as to the comments of the (2) Sierra Tower owners that attended.

I have one major concern though, it appears like many of the listeners were reporting/recording their results from different locations in the room. I wish that they would have mentioned their seating position for the particular speaker because a comparison between one speaker and another, when a listener is in different locations for each of these speakers, should really not be taken seriously -- especially with ribbon tweeters.

It also appears like Terry's room is huge and that many of the speakers were exhibiting compression -- it would have been rather simple to re-adjust the volume levels downward. Without question, this issue gives an advantage to those speakers designed to handle more power.

That said, seems like it was a fun time for everyone Hopefully the trend to promote high performance audio will continue in this age of the iPod



I didn't quite read the reviews that way, seems like most were impressed with the bass, especially when compared to the SongTower and Phil 2. However, I would definitely expect the bass response of our tower to be limited when compared to the HT2TL or SoundScape, which are MUCH larger speakers (more than double the cabinet volume) and also lower sensitivity. Generally speaking, higher sensitivity means sacrificing low end extension and vice versa...



LOL... Why am I not surprised at which brands are dominating the discussion? I suppose business as usual on AVS these days...

[billy p]

Just read your review merrymaid520 thanks form all us Ascend owners for pointing out to the attendee who called the RAAL implemenation as being done poorly....comments like that are totally uncalled for IMHO ...

Thanks...

[monkuboy]

Jim Salk just posted a possible alternative explanation on AVS for why the left Soundscape seemed to have a defective midrange. I thought this could also affect the other speakers that were less efficient - he postulated that the defect may actually have been the amp clipping, something that would not have happened with the higher-efficiency speakers. That's just another reason why the high-efficiency speakers had the advantage in an environment where everything was played at really high volumes. Here is the link:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...3#post21918693