Need advice on Sierra Tower Speakers (Currently own Sierra 2s)

[Darkestred]

Hey guys. I just had my house redone and i'm staring at my room and wondering if its time to upgrade to tower speakers. I currently own the Sierra 2s and i absolutely love them. I am wondering if it would be a worthy upgrade to towers. My room is 13 x 15 but i do not really care about that. I mostly listen to music with some light movie/tv watching.


thanks for any advice.

[sludgeogre]

I'd get dual Rythmik F12 subwoofers and some good bass management before going up to the towers. If you have that already, then maybe it is time for the towers.

[N Boros]

I agree with Sludgeogre. In terms of output, if you room is a sealed 13x15, then you definitely don't need the towers. If the room is open to a much larger space, then it could be effecting the bass region. In particular, the ability to get bass that you can feel and just extension since the Sierra 2s roll off at 40Hz. If the room is open to a much larger space, then even two F12s might not be enough.

There are added benefits of going with towers over bookshelves. I haven't compared my Sierra 2s to the Sierra towers, but I did compare them to the Aperion Verus grand towers. At the time there was a sale where I could get the Aperion Verus Grand towers for cheaper than the Sierra 2s. The two were very close in performance in many areas. They both have wide horizontal dispersion. The both produce a deep soundstage, towards the listener. But, the Aperion towers produced a taller and wider soundstage. I attributed this to them being a tower speaker. I really liked this aspect. But, the reason that I chose the Sierra 2s, is because of imaging. The Aperion towers image very well, but the Sierra 2s image exceptionally well. Switching back and forth between the two it is also quite apparent. However, you wouldn't know anything is lacking until you listen to the Sierra 2s. If the Sierra towers can give a larger (wider and taller) soundstage in comparison to the Sierra 2s, then I could see how it might be worth it. Others have said that there is some slightly better resolution that you get with the Sierra tower in comparison with the Sierra 2, but it is very subtle.

[sludgeogre]

I agree with Sludgeogre. In terms of output, if you room is a sealed 13x15, then you definitely don't need the towers. If the room is open to a much larger space, then it could be effecting the bass region. In particular, the ability to get bass that you can feel and just extension since the Sierra 2s roll off at 40Hz. If the room is open to a much larger space, then even two F12s might not be enough.

There are added benefits of going with towers over bookshelves. I haven't compared my Sierra 2s to the Sierra towers, but I did compare them to the Aperion Verus grand towers. At the time there was a sale where I could get the Aperion Verus Grand towers for cheaper than the Sierra 2s. The two were very close in performance in many areas. They both have wide horizontal dispersion. The both produce a deep soundstage, towards the listener. But, the Aperion towers produced a taller and wider soundstage. I attributed this to them being a tower speaker. I really liked this aspect. But, the reason that I chose the Sierra 2s, is because of imaging. The Aperion towers image very well, but the Sierra 2s image exceptionally well. Switching back and forth between the two it is also quite apparent. However, you wouldn't know anything is lacking until you listen to the Sierra 2s. If the Sierra towers can give a larger (wider and taller) soundstage in comparison to the Sierra 2s, then I could see how it might be worth it. Others have said that there is some slightly better resolution that you get with the Sierra tower in comparison with the Sierra 2, but it is very subtle.

My two F12's work really well in a pretty darn big room, even while sitting in a null (wish I could move my MLP but I can't), it's pretty surprising how much output they have, and I'm running them at about 1/2 volume. YMMV of course.

I have also heard the Aperion Verus Grands at their office and the biggest difference between them and my towers (keep in mind that their office was treated and had a drop ceiling and my house is not treated and has a vaulted ceiling (boo)) was indeed the height of the soundstage. The Aperion towers sounded absolutely huge and enveloping, but rolled off in the high range, not very powerful or impactful in the midrange, and the depth and imaging isn't even close to the Sierra Towers. I found that I really loved the Aperions with movies and was really underwhelming with music, especially the death metal that I love. With the Sierra Towers, they are supremely accurate, so I love them with everything, but, because they are so very revealing, they can make movies that sound pretty terrible sound really obviously so. I'm amazed at how bad some movies sound, and how some other speakers gloss over those effects and just make them sound big and dynamic. The Sierra Towers don't gussy anything up or sweeten up really poorly mastered material, they lay everything bare.

I was listening to The Blues Brothers yesterday for about the 1000th time as it is my favorite movie and it really, really shines on the Sierra Towers. That wide soundstage and insane detail is so involving and wonderful. You hear every last detail with huge punch and power, whereas other towers sound... disconnected, i think is the word?

I really think it's the amazing midrange driver and tweeter and how beautifully they are integrated. I have noticed that with speakers and headphones that don't sound as flat as the Sierras, there is a midrange hole that disconnects guitars and horns from their tone and distortion. My LCD-2 and PM-3 headphones have a ruler flat midrange as well and it makes instruments sound real. I really think it's the key. Where those headphones and many, many other speakers fall flat is the integration of a flat midrange with an extended treble. It's crazy having that kind of smoothness and detail in a speaker. It is unlike anything else I've heard.

Now, I have no idea how this would compare to the Sierra 2 as I've never heard them, but I really love my towers.

[curtis]

The dedicated midrange driver in the Towers does add some advantage. It is subtle. You really need to compare to understand it.

[merrymaid520]

The dedicated midrange driver in the Towers does add some advantage. It is subtle. You really need to compare to understand it.

Curtis is spot on. I own both and have compared them side by side. Without that opportunity, the S2s are quite impressive but once you hear the RAAL towers.........

[justthinking]

Sierra-2 vs Sierra Tower w/ RAAL

Soundstage - both has really wide soundstage and both speakers disappear really well, but the tower has better vertical soundstage and just sound taller

Imaging - both speakers focus really well with Sierra-2 been the better of the two by a hair thin margin

Mid-Range Clarity - This is the main reason I traded my Sierra-2 for the tower, the midrange, especially vocal, IMO is on a whole different level, mid-range on Sierra-2 is good, but you sort of feel it is blend in with rest of the sound, on the tower the mid-range is, for the lack of better wording, SEPARATED/ISOLATED

Bass Response - Tower can go deeper and may have enough bass depend on the type of music and how much you like bass, but IMO, both needed subwoofer to sound complete

Placement - Sierra-2 is really easy versatile and easy to place, I have used them as nearfield monitor, place them on stands with various distance settings and Sierra-2 always sounds good. Towers on the other hand, took me a long while to finally have them dialed in and my advise on the placement with towers is they need room to breath, if you can't give them at least 8-9 ft distance apart and 8-9 ft from your ears, you are better off with Sierra-2..

[sludgeogre]

Sierra-2 vs Sierra Tower w/ RAAL

Soundstage - both has really wide soundstage and both speakers disappear really well, but the tower has better vertical soundstage and just sound taller

Imaging - both speakers focus really well with Sierra-2 been the better of the two by a hair thin margin

Mid-Range Clarity - This is the main reason I traded my Sierra-2 for the tower, the midrange, especially vocal, IMO is on a whole different level, mid-range on Sierra-2 is good, but you sort of feel it is blend in with rest of the sound, on the tower the mid-range is, for the lack of better wording, SEPARATED/ISOLATED

Bass Response - Tower can go deeper and may have enough bass depend on the type of music and how much you like bass, but IMO, both needed subwoofer to sound complete

Placement - Sierra-2 is really easy versatile and easy to place, I have used them as nearfield monitor, place them on stands with various distance settings and Sierra-2 always sounds good. Towers on the other hand, took me a long while to finally have them dialed in and my advise on the placement with towers is they need room to breath, if you can't give them at least 8-9 ft distance apart and 8-9 ft from your ears, you are better off with Sierra-2..

This is a wonderful comparison and makes me really glad that I did go for the Towers. The midrange on them really is incredible. The tone is just nailed. I love my Audeze LCD-2 headphones as they get a lot of things right about guitar tone and I really thought they couldn't be beat, especially when people compare them to $20,000 and up speakers, but once I had listened to my Towers I was really, totally blown away.

Now if only I had the cash to get some Sierra 2's to use as nearfields at my desk....

[Jaybeez]

Now if only I had the cash to get some Sierra 2's to use as nearfields at my desk....[/QUOTE]

If / when you do, you'll be extremely happy

[N Boros]

Now if only I had the cash to get some Sierra 2's to use as nearfields at my desk....

I bet the Sierra Sats would be even better for a nearfield desk monitor. You might want to talk with Dave. Sounds like it might be a slight be cheaper too, if his pricing estimate is accurate.