Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: System recommendation

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    22

    Default System recommendation

    First time post but have researched extensively here and avs forums. I know I want Ascend for my first home theater but not sure which set up to get. I know this might be an unfair comparison, looking for any insight. I am torn on wanting the very best but not sure if my money might have a better bang on the lower end.*

    Looking for mainly 5.1 HT, music will be *limited but not out altogether. Most likely will buy the Onkyo 3009 for power.*

    Money isn't an issue, but as my system gets more expensive I may need to wait a few extra months to get the cash.*

    First setup. I love the idea of the towers and the matching center and 170s for surrounds or possibly 340s?*FV15HP for the sub.*

    Second setup. Matching Sierra-1 all around with FV15HP.*

    Third. 340s for the front with 170s on the surrounds and FV15HP.*

    Obviously there is a major difference between each and again it might not be a fair comparison. But wanted to know if I go with the high end, will it be overkill for HT or *if I go with 2/3 will I regret not going all out from the beginning.*Was anyone else torn like me?*

    Thanks
    TA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NW Pennsylvania
    Posts
    696

    Default Re: System recommendation

    I don't think setup one is overkill at all. The towers will give your movies a more dynamic sound and the matching center will give the clearest, most intelligible dialogue. i don't think you would miss anything with smaller speakers in back.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Posts
    186

    Default Re: System recommendation

    I would love to offer assistance here as high resolution HT is my thing. First off, your receiver will offer a huge amount of flexibility and the Mult EQ32XT will provide a crazy amount of correction for pure audio bliss. Awesome receiver!!!

    Option 1. as mentioned: If the best is mandatory then I would have the Sierra Towers prepared for Bi-Amping. You would want to use as much of what your receiver will offer. The awesome side effect to this is a huge amount of flexibility and simplicity all balled up together. If THX listening is what your planning with available post processing of your receiver then go with the 340's for surrounds with possibly a higher than normal stand to somewhat match the tweeter height of the towers as a side surround configuration. Your sub choice is freaking awesome, maybe plan on tuning that bad boy for lower extension vs. output. With the towers playing as crazy excellent as they do, extension with the sub should be the focus.

    Option 2. as also mentioned: All Sierra 1's have the capabilities for your THX post processing and can absorb the power the 3009 provides. If you plan on using this choice and using the THX suggested crossover point of 80hz, then audio dreamland will also be provided but a very different presentation. The Towers will deliver such a sound that its almost difficult to provide words to. I love the sound of the Sierra 1's but to maximize your 3009 I would shoot for the Towers. The Sierra 1's will sound awesome but your sub action may tilt the audio experience and you just cannot beat the midrange purity of the Towers, especially for movies! You may have to once again tune your subbage for more extension to bring out all the different layers of pre and post processing your receiver will offer and present. We live in the midrange remember and with movie watching this is very much important and the Towers are superior here.

    Question for you: What will be your distance to your listening position and what are your room dimensions? Please read my audition post from 2 days ago. The Towers left me speechless and I cannot wait to measure them In-Ear with Real Ear Measurements. I would love to prove Audiologically that the Towers are the finest produced! That is how crazy awesome they are!

    Brian in Bakersfield...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Houston, TX.
    Posts
    204

    Default Re: System recommendation

    ATCJeep,

    Your first option is nearly identical to my setup. I have Towers, L/R/C, and 340's as surrounds. I am using a 12" Rythmik and Onkyo TX-NR809 with Audyssey. Minus the bi-amping, it is very similar to what Brian has mentioned and I am extremely pleased with it.

    Just FYI, the tweeter on the 340 is about 33 1/2 inch off the floor with the stands Dave sells and the towers' tweeter is 34, both measured to the center of the cone.

    Sheep

    Warning: You may find yourself listening to more music than you do now once you hear these 3-way floorstanding beauties sing!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Posts
    186

    Default Re: System recommendation

    I'm so curious how Audyssey will react to the Towers and the setup. I would also suggest allowance of the Towers to stretch their legs and if possible place minimum the depth of the enclosure from the wall. Its my opinion to start there when it comes to distance from wall, if space allows, more. Wifey factor sometimes comes into play when it comes to placement type stuff, imo.

    Wife walks in...what the ...!!!


    Brian in Bakersfield...

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Houston, TX.
    Posts
    204

    Default Re: System recommendation

    Quote Originally Posted by hearing specialist View Post
    The awesome Sierra Towers: WOW, where do I begin, the towers shocked the dog out of me leaving me shaking my head in complete audio nirvana the whole time. The quality of the sound is so resolute and defined with the RAAL high freq units that anything else NOW would just be "short changing" myself! Just complete sonic fidelity!!! The depth, realism, and transparent presentation in full frequency spectrum is absolutely the finest sounding design I have ever heard, and this includes all the crazy stuff auditioned at the past 2 years (THE Show Newport). Never over damped or thumpy, just full frequency spectrum realism that will honestly set the bar and expectation of what true fidelity brings.

    Brian in Bakersfield...
    Brian, given the above review and the comment you made about bi-amping, were the towers bi-amped in the demo? If not, do you still recommend it?

    I ask because I've been thinking about getting the RAAL upgrade and would consider doing both as my receiver can do it.

    I have the STC with the RAAL and like the way it sounds, but I'm very happy with the NrT tweeters, too.

    Thanks in advance,
    Sheep

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Posts
    186

    Default Re: System recommendation

    Thanks for the question, no they weren't bi-amped in the demo and were actually just built and tested by the head cheese himself while I waited. His technician just completed everything then Dave tested and completed the masterpieces for some lucky new owner. I did not expect to audition the Towers. Major treat!!! His techs arms are massive cut from haulin' around these. I joked about him not carrying both towers and then the guy flexed and shut me up real quick.

    If my receiver or amp had available power on hand, I want to use it. With my 4.2 setup and my 7.1 receiver i'm using all but my center channel bi-amping my fronts. I know it could be debated but if the design allows and one has the available channels, then for me its a go.

    The RAAL has ruined me for life, this mighty monster is so freaking heavy its unreal. It weighs more than most drivers, its crazy built. Interesting materials used externally on the internal unit or backside. I too dig the Nrt and i'm one to believe there is something about the neodynium mags that alter the sonic signature. I can almost hear the qualities but need to prove it Audiologically to apease my thoughts.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Houston, TX.
    Posts
    204

    Default Re: System recommendation

    Thanks for your input. I've read several opinions on using bi-amping when available AND when the crossover is changed to accommodate, but not passive.

    Do you purposely not use a center channel or are you between them? I ran 4.1 for a while and really enjoyed it, but it was always my plan to go 5.1 and eventually 5.2.

    Anyway, what I would like is your opinion (or facts) on the benefits of bi-amping.

    Sheep

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Bakersfield, CA
    Posts
    186

    Default Re: System recommendation

    My monkey coffins are 60" apart and due to their proximity and my listening distance to my ear canals being 12' 8" im almost on axis. In my next house Lord willing and with a bigger room, a center will exist. I also would want 3 of the new monster centers as a LCR setup with all matching stands which would put all RAALs even across the soundstage and would create a seamless left, center, and right. That will be in my future. My current room only allows so much. I posted pics over a year ago on Home Theater Shack of my builds and you would see the prox of my towers. They weigh more than my sweetpea daughter at 125lbs each with over 55 lbs of non drying clay lined to the inner walls each. Having 1.5" baffles adds some weight as well. Bi-amping removes any question or insecurity with gobs of issues using passives crossovers. Ascends do not have these issues and with the quality receivers most are using, the phasing issues are fixed internally running Advanced MCACC programs or advanced Audyssey programs.

    Bi-amping would require removing any passive crossovers, issues, and possible phasing issues typically within a passive network to be true bi-amping. Ascend crossovers are some of the finest and issues like this are eliminated by use of proper design. I have tried removing all my passive networks allowing my Elite receiver to apply all filters thru Advanced MCACC, one of the many reasons i chose this rec. I have what would be technically called bi-wiring which looks the same but still allows receiver to apply filters then i allow the passive networks to also present its slope and crossover point. Sonic wise it is hard to tell the difference between these 2 methods with my audiometric thresholds all at a measured 0db. Because i like to run at a rms of 85db while watching blue rays with my girl and wifey, i allow my high freqs to have a security blanket with a passive. So, i technically run a bi-amp and bi-wire mode with the bi-amp on my dual woofs in each then the bi-wire on my tweets. I play with my Advanced MCACC so much (60 plus) hours of standing wave measurements, time delays, you name it, i hardly leave anything alone long enough to provide a more measured objective response.

    Brian in Bakersfield...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Houston, TX.
    Posts
    204

    Default Re: System recommendation

    Thanks for your input, Brian. I seem to remember having that conversation with Dave when I ordered the towers.

Posting Permissions

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