Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: Salk Songtower vs. Sierra Tower

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    26

    Default Re: Salk Songtower vs. Sierra Tower

    I'm glad that my many hours of auditioning speakers may be of help to you. I certainly benefited from reading reviews in this forum and others. Having said that, I’m very aware of the fact that my opinion may not be yours, so I hope that you find the right speaker for your taste.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    496

    Default Re: Salk Songtower vs. Sierra Tower

    Quote Originally Posted by mattcpt View Post
    As I made reference to before, my reasonably priced dream speakers would be Focal 836Ws with the RAAL tweeters or Sierra Towers with RAAL and larger drivers or more of them. If Dave is working on such a thing, I would buy Ascend monitors with subwoofer to hold me over until the new towers are ready. If he has no plan for such a speaker I will buy the Sierra Towers with a subwoofer and feel comfortable knowing that I had found the best “compromise” for my tastes.
    I think you covered it yourself... Would larger towers be better than Sierras with sub? I've not heard the towers, but, would a larger tower really be superior vs Sierra + sub(s)? A Rythmik sub is around 1000$. So I guess it comes back to $$$... Larger drivers would require a larger cabinet, and it would cost more... Might even have downsides to the current woofers in the Sierra... So if you consider that you could purchase 1 or 2 subs for that larger Sierra tower, would you really gain by going larger tower vs current tower + sub(s)?

    I think a possible answer might be yes, and getting the larger towers + subs... I'm not sure which would 'crap out' first if the towers were played really really loud; Tweeter? Mid? Woofers? If it's the tweeter/mid, then larger woofers wouldn't improve max SPL, which I'm guessing would be the main idea for the larger mains... And even if it's the woofers, then the addition of subs probably again changes the equation and then maybe the mid/tweeter crap out first...

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    17

    Default Re: Salk Songtower vs. Sierra Tower

    If you want full deep rich bass....you will need a sub, even with the towers.

    I have the RAAL towers...they sound amazing. Bass is good and tight...But the low impact bottom end is something that only a sub can provide.
    Especially for rock, metal and bass heavy music.

    I've noticed on some recordings really emphasize the bass ( electroinica, hip hop for example)...those songs the bass sounds good on the towers alone and perhaps a sub is not needed unless u are a bass head.

    But with more balanced recordings you will want the sub to help emphasize the bass so you can feel it.
    Last edited by december11; 09-04-2012 at 11:22 PM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    St George UT & Glenwood Springs CO
    Posts
    402

    Default Re: Salk Songtower vs. Sierra Tower

    The arms race to get profound bass from a tower speaker can lead to monstrous over kill.... Speakers bigger than refrigerator that need to be a third the way into the room .

    I think that a speaker can be designed to put out an honest 30 Hz, which is good for most music, without taking over the house. This can be achieved with two 8 inch woofers, and have a fairly small footprint. It isn't only how deep, but SPL too.

    B.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    496

    Default Re: Salk Songtower vs. Sierra Tower

    Quote Originally Posted by Blutarsky View Post
    I think that a speaker can be designed to put out an honest 30 Hz, which is good for most music
    But 30hz is 'wasted' if you're using a sub... So basically, the towers would be designed to be run full range? Anyhow, I guess people always want more. I've not heard the Towers nor can really remember what the exact designs goals were for the Sierras, but I doubt they were max SPL and max bass extension... I have the Sierra-1 and the bass is very good for bookshelves. So I'm guessing twin woofers optimized for bass, would be quite decent... Is it the same as dual woofers of the same quality but 8/10/12 inches? No, but I guess it depends what you're trying to accomplish.

    So the larger towers would be made to be run fullrange? If so, my question is, would a pair of Sierra Towers + sub(s) would be better or worst? The sub would dig deeper, would be placed in a position superior for bass than where your mains are, and the mains would just have to handle >80hz which they are probably very able to do...

    I guess larger woofers might improve mid bass, but not having even heard the Sierra towers nor having any substantial speaker engineering knowledge, I'd just answer maybe and wonder how much more it would cost for the drivers and cabinets... Another question is how 'doable' larger woofers are, I think I remember something about the efficiency of the woofers matching the mid or something, anyhow, above my head...

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    245

    Default Re: Salk Songtower vs. Sierra Tower

    Quote Originally Posted by GirgleMirt View Post
    But 30hz is 'wasted' if you're using a sub... So basically, the towers would be designed to be run full range? Anyhow, I guess people always want more. I've not heard the Towers nor can really remember what the exact designs goals were for the Sierras, but I doubt they were max SPL and max bass extension... I have the Sierra-1 and the bass is very good for bookshelves. So I'm guessing twin woofers optimized for bass, would be quite decent... Is it the same as dual woofers of the same quality but 8/10/12 inches? No, but I guess it depends what you're trying to accomplish.

    So the larger towers would be made to be run fullrange? If so, my question is, would a pair of Sierra Towers + sub(s) would be better or worst? The sub would dig deeper, would be placed in a position superior for bass than where your mains are, and the mains would just have to handle >80hz which they are probably very able to do...

    I guess larger woofers might improve mid bass, but not having even heard the Sierra towers nor having any substantial speaker engineering knowledge, I'd just answer maybe and wonder how much more it would cost for the drivers and cabinets... Another question is how 'doable' larger woofers are, I think I remember something about the efficiency of the woofers matching the mid or something, anyhow, above my head...
    i wouldnt say is wasted, even with a sub you could still benefit a from a larger cone area, and you can always have different xovers points. But i doubt there is much that can be done with the current form, and not much sensiitivity could be gain. I would say a proper 8 will play bass better then a proper 5 in.
    I dont exactly know the goals of the sierra towers, looking at them, measrements and specs i would say that Dave is aiming for a relative flat on axis, small foot print with great sensitivity, handles great power and dig pretty low for its relative size and with minimal xover work. Wonder how many i got right or wrong...
    Last edited by RicardoJoa; 09-05-2012 at 03:29 PM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    St George UT & Glenwood Springs CO
    Posts
    402

    Default Re: Salk Songtower vs. Sierra Tower

    I think 2 channel audio sounds better with 2 mains, and no sub. I wish I could set a Sub up well enough to make this otherwise. Just when I think I have it, a track comes along that proves me wrong.

    I have Ascend Towers now, and I used my Sierra-1 speakers without the Sub for music also. This may be heretical. I have my flame proof hubris in place.

    Rock On

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Space Coast, FL
    Posts
    578

    Default Re: Salk Songtower vs. Sierra Tower

    I don't think it's heretical. It's a preference you have and one that is shared by many enthusiasts abroad. There is something cohesive, pure, and "right" about listening to music through high-quality, full-range speakers with no accompanying subwoofer.

    As I've mentioned in other threads, I really enjoy listening to my Sierra-1s full-range (with Q-Plug B). With my previous non-Ascend setup, that rarely happened for several reasons. Ascend has made me a believer again in quality two-channel audio. If I owned the Sierra Towers, I wouldn't change my listening habits at all. In fact, I'd probably end up running them full-range 100% of the time for music.

    With that said, I still really enjoy my Rythmik sub. I've got it sounding sweet and seamless for the times I want to reinforce that last octave and taste the subsonic realm.
    -Jacob

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    6,241

    Default Re: Salk Songtower vs. Sierra Tower

    I would take 2-channel audio setup properly with a sub over the same without a sub.

    You also have to realize, that a lot of "two-channel" recordings, are recorded/mixed with a sub in the studio.


    Quote Originally Posted by Blutarsky View Post
    I think 2 channel audio sounds better with 2 mains, and no sub. I wish I could set a Sub up well enough to make this otherwise. Just when I think I have it, a track comes along that proves me wrong.
    Is your sub EQ'd?
    -curtis

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    26

    Default Re: Salk Songtower vs. Sierra Tower

    Sure, I would love to have my main speakers play as close to full range as possible, while still being accurate (wouldn't most people?). I've been emailing Dave, and he explained that the Sierra Tower needs the small/light woofer to be fast enough (and accurate) to keep up with the RAAL tweeter. I can understand this, and after hearing so many speakers I can tell for myself the difference in clarity that I heard with the Sierra Towers with RAAL.

    My intention is to buy a very good sub that I can use for both 2 channel music (with my receiver set to "source direct") and through the LFE channel in 5.1. I'll save my subwoofer questions for another thread to avoid hi-jacking this one.

Posting Permissions

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