Introducing the Luna Mini Monitor!

[FirstReflect]

The more I think about it, the less a "Sierra Sat Center" with an M-T-M design makes sense to me. What exactly would be its purpose?

If using dual 4" drivers allows it to play louder and lower, then it essentially just overlaps with the existing Sierra-2. So the question becomes, why not just turn a Sierra Sat on its side and call it a Center, much like how a Sierra-2 can be turned on its side and called a Sierra-2 Center?

Any supposed "Sierra Sat Center" with an M-T-M design would be some sort of "tweener" model - more like an alternative form factor with Sierra-2-like performance, which would be fine, of course. But it raises the question of why both models would exist - at least in my mind.

To me, it makes more sense to keep Ascend's Sierra lineup relatively simple: you'd have the least expensive and smallest model - the Sierra Sat and a Horizontal version which is just the Sierra Sat turned on its side and the tweeter rotated 90 degrees; above that, you'd have the Sierra-2 and its horizontal version; and above that, you have the Sierra Horizon RAAL and Sierra Tower RAAL. No overlap, no "tweener" models.

From there, I think the next logical thing to work on would be a super high output and/or higher efficiency speaker. The two markets that seem to be growing fastest are compact, wall-mountable speakers, which is now addressed with the Sierra Sat, and super high efficiency, super high output speakers that can contend with truly huge rooms and deliver concert-level dynamics.

I'd also REALLY love to see Dave tackle a self-powered Series of speakers. I honestly don't see passive speakers with passive crossovers being the future of speaker technology. Why should a "good" amplifier have to be one that can contend with any sort of load imaginable? Why should the efficiency of a tweeter or midrange driver have to be tamped down to match a less efficient woofer? Why should a passive crossover have to convert a bunch of Watts into heat just to get the drivers to blend?

We have amazing and amazingly inexpensive DSP options now to handle crossover duties. And we have remarkably efficient amplifier technology that works particularly well when it only has to work within a limited frequency range. So why not let the speaker designer perfectly match an amplifier to each driver, and use powered DSP filters to perfectly shape the ultimate response and output?

So those are my hopes for when this Sierra Sat project is complete

- Rob H. - AV Rant Podcast Co-host

[dtsequoia]

The more I think about it, the less a "Sierra Sat Center" with an M-T-M design makes sense to me. What exactly would be its purpose?

If using dual 4" drivers allows it to play louder and lower, then it essentially just overlaps with the existing Sierra-2. So the question becomes, why not just turn a Sierra Sat on its side and call it a Center, much like how a Sierra-2 can be turned on its side and called a Sierra-2 Center?

Any supposed "Sierra Sat Center" with an M-T-M design would be some sort of "tweener" model - more like an alternative form factor with Sierra-2-like performance, which would be fine, of course. But it raises the question of why both models would exist - at least in my mind.

To me, it makes more sense to keep Ascend's Sierra lineup relatively simple: you'd have the least expensive and smallest model - the Sierra Sat and a Horizontal version which is just the Sierra Sat turned on its side and the tweeter rotated 90 degrees; above that, you'd have the Sierra-2 and its horizontal version; and above that, you have the Sierra Horizon RAAL and Sierra Tower RAAL. No overlap, no "tweener" models.

From there, I think the next logical thing to work on would be a super high output and/or higher efficiency speaker. The two markets that seem to be growing fastest are compact, wall-mountable speakers, which is now addressed with the Sierra Sat, and super high efficiency, super high output speakers that can contend with truly huge rooms and deliver concert-level dynamics.

I'd also REALLY love to see Dave tackle a self-powered Series of speakers. I honestly don't see passive speakers with passive crossovers being the future of speaker technology. Why should a "good" amplifier have to be one that can contend with any sort of load imaginable? Why should the efficiency of a tweeter or midrange driver have to be tamped down to match a less efficient woofer? Why should a passive crossover have to convert a bunch of Watts into heat just to get the drivers to blend?

We have amazing and amazingly inexpensive DSP options now to handle crossover duties. And we have remarkably efficient amplifier technology that works particularly well when it only has to work within a limited frequency range. So why not let the speaker designer perfectly match an amplifier to each driver, and use powered DSP filters to perfectly shape the ultimate response and output?

So those are my hopes for when this Sierra Sat project is complete

- Rob H. - AV Rant Podcast Co-host

I think people have stated in previous posts that they want the performance of the S2, but they cannot fit the speaker due to its size. I can see this being an issue for sure. Case in point: my father-in-law's house where he would need a speaker like the MTM SSat on his fire place mantle under his TV. He cannot fit anything else in the Ascend line in that spot aside from the HTM-200.

[stickx]

I think people have stated in previous posts that they want the performance of the S2, but they cannot fit the speaker due to its size. I can see this being an issue for sure. Case in point: my father-in-law's house where he would need a speaker like the MTM SSat on his fire place mantle under his TV. He cannot fit anything else in the Ascend line in that spot aside from the HTM-200.

This is exactly my situation as well. I can't fit a Sierra 2 under my TV while a Sat would fit.

[mikesiskav]

Turning a Sierra sat on its side would be the best wouldn't it? That way you have identical speakers for LCR. Why do an MTM over a Sierra sat in its side? Unless you want a center channel that is more capable than your LR.

[curtis]

Also remember that the front slot port helps those that don't have clearance for the back of the speaker.

[sludgeogre]

The more I think about it, the less a "Sierra Sat Center" with an M-T-M design makes sense to me. What exactly would be its purpose?

Because people are weird about symmetry and a speaker turned on it's side looks like... well.. a speaker turned on it's side to a lot of people. Most people don't know any better and think it doesn't make sense. They're used to every other center channel they've seen. I think it makes sense from a marketing standpoint to make it look like a real center speaker even if it doesn't add a ton of benefit. Plus, guys that want that form factor but want "more speaker" may buy two centers and use them as L/R on their side. If it isn't much more design work, I think it makes sense to make one from a marketing standpoint.

From there, I think the next logical thing to work on would be a super high output and/or higher efficiency speaker. The two markets that seem to be growing fastest are compact, wall-mountable speakers, which is now addressed with the Sierra Sat, and super high efficiency, super high output speakers that can contend with truly huge rooms and deliver concert-level dynamics.

A few people have used the CMT-340 SE and used them in places like churches and reported awesome results. I guess if you want to do that with less amp power, then sure make a higher efficiency speaker. I personally don't really see the point. It doesn't feel like it fits with Ascend's goals and lineup. There are other companies that do the dynamics thing as their one and only mission, like you said it seems to be a big market.

I'd also REALLY love to see Dave tackle a self-powered Series of speakers. I honestly don't see passive speakers with passive crossovers being the future of speaker technology. Why should a "good" amplifier have to be one that can contend with any sort of load imaginable? Why should the efficiency of a tweeter or midrange driver have to be tamped down to match a less efficient woofer? Why should a passive crossover have to convert a bunch of Watts into heat just to get the drivers to blend?

We have amazing and amazingly inexpensive DSP options now to handle crossover duties. And we have remarkably efficient amplifier technology that works particularly well when it only has to work within a limited frequency range. So why not let the speaker designer perfectly match an amplifier to each driver, and use powered DSP filters to perfectly shape the ultimate response and output

Can't argue with this. I love having amp options, but efficiency gets more and more important all the time, and with how good DSP has gotten, it could be worth a shot, especially if Dave could do it at rock bottom prices like he does with everything else. There are a lot of great companies like Funk Audio and Salk that will include DSP and active modules and all of that, but you have to pay a lot of money for it, way too much money for me. If anyone can make those kinds of speakers affordable, I bet it would be Dave.

[dtsequoia]

Turning a Sierra sat on its side would be the best wouldn't it? That way you have identical speakers for LCR. Why do an MTM over a Sierra sat in its side? Unless you want a center channel that is more capable than your LR.

Sierra 2 LR + MTM SSat.

Very similar performance to each other, but you're able to squeeze the MTM center into a spot that you would not be able to get a S2 due to the front slot port and slimmer profile.

[mikesiskav]

Sierra 2 LR + MTM SSat.

Very similar performance to each other, but you're able to squeeze the MTM center into a spot that you would not be able to get a S2 due to the front slot port and slimmer profile.

Got it. That makes sense.

[Asliang]

The more I think about it, the less a "Sierra Sat Center" with an M-T-M design makes sense to me. What exactly would be its purpose?

If using dual 4" drivers allows it to play louder and lower, then it essentially just overlaps with the existing Sierra-2. So the question becomes, why not just turn a Sierra Sat on its side and call it a Center, much like how a Sierra-2 can be turned on its side and called a Sierra-2 Center?

Any supposed "Sierra Sat Center" with an M-T-M design would be some sort of "tweener" model - more like an alternative form factor with Sierra-2-like performance, which would be fine, of course. But it raises the question of why both models would exist - at least in my mind.

To me, it makes more sense to keep Ascend's Sierra lineup relatively simple: you'd have the least expensive and smallest model - the Sierra Sat and a Horizontal version which is just the Sierra Sat turned on its side and the tweeter rotated 90 degrees; above that, you'd have the Sierra-2 and its horizontal version; and above that, you have the Sierra Horizon RAAL and Sierra Tower RAAL. No overlap, no "tweener" models.

From there, I think the next logical thing to work on would be a super high output and/or higher efficiency speaker. The two markets that seem to be growing fastest are compact, wall-mountable speakers, which is now addressed with the Sierra Sat, and super high efficiency, super high output speakers that can contend with truly huge rooms and deliver concert-level dynamics.

I'd also REALLY love to see Dave tackle a self-powered Series of speakers. I honestly don't see passive speakers with passive crossovers being the future of speaker technology. Why should a "good" amplifier have to be one that can contend with any sort of load imaginable? Why should the efficiency of a tweeter or midrange driver have to be tamped down to match a less efficient woofer? Why should a passive crossover have to convert a bunch of Watts into heat just to get the drivers to blend?

We have amazing and amazingly inexpensive DSP options now to handle crossover duties. And we have remarkably efficient amplifier technology that works particularly well when it only has to work within a limited frequency range. So why not let the speaker designer perfectly match an amplifier to each driver, and use powered DSP filters to perfectly shape the ultimate response and output?

So those are my hopes for when this Sierra Sat project is complete

- Rob H. - AV Rant Podcast Co-host

One thing I would say is the amps/electronics in powered speakers don't last as long as the speaker or a passive crossover does. So longevity is an issue with powered speakers. Your other issue is, noise related issues.

Whether we are talking about defective amps, or noise issues (like the NHT xD, which had severe ground loop issues as well as DAC-induced hiss which you could get rid of by paying modders to install extra capacitors on the board). The fact is every powered speaker is built on a budget, and the electronics just aren't going to match in performance to a mass market, high volume product. Even multi thousand dollar custom active designs from DEQX can't beat the noise characteristics of a cheap $200 receiver without aftermarket modding. It's simply the power of economies of scale. A cheap mass market product can be better designed and executed with lower defects than an expensive, low volume custom product.

[tknice]

Does anyone know if the 6" cabinet depth is with or without grills?

I'm assuming without.