Upgrading past Ascend's flagship speakers?

[goldark]

We all know Ascend makes awesome speakers with fantastic value and their speakers compete with/outperform speakers costing much more.

Having said that, and perhaps this is poor form to post this on the actual Ascend forum, but humor me for a moment.

How much would you have to spend to get something that's a significant upgrade over Ascend's flagship speakers (Sierra tower with RAAL or Sierra 2)? And what product would that be?

For example, I've read somewhere that the TAD Compact Evolution One would be a nice upgrade over the Sierra 2 (perhaps it was Dave himself who said it was the best standmount speaker he's heard? Correct me if I'm wrong), and that's a $24k speaker - which speaks volumes of the insane value proposition that Ascend's speakers have.

Obviously price isn't always indicative of quality, but IMO, you would have to spend "exotic speaker" money to get something that's a clear upgrade over Ascend's flagships - yes I'm kind of a fanboy.

[sludgeogre]

It always depends on what you're trying to do. If your goal is accurate sound with fancy looks being secondary, then I have yet to find an upgrade to the Ascend Sierra series. I think where people really get lost in high end is expecting totally clean lines, rounded edges, exotic materials, exotic finishes, etc. So many high end products are more about being art in a room than they are about reproducing music and movies accurately. So, sure, there's a bunch of companies that make very fancy looking speakers that will wow people from that perspective, but won't sound any better than a Sierra Tower. Also, to me, the Sierra Tower is beautiful and doesn't need to look like a Sonus Faber overpriced tower.

With all of the talk about Salk lately because of partnering with Schiit at THE Show, it is hard to not wonder about how a pair of HT2 speakers would sound, or even a Song3 tower. They are a very different kind of company from Ascend, though, and their website has been down since the show because of all of the press they're getting.

[goldark]

Yep, I guess I should've clarified that if you're an Ascend owner looking to upgrade, that you're looking into absolute accuracy. I've always wondered how something like the JBL M2 would compare - that speaker is supposedly a technological marvel.

How is Salk different from Ascend, in your opinion? I was looking on their site and they use a lot of high quality parts as well, like RAAL ribbon tweeters.

[sludgeogre]

Yep, I guess I should've clarified that if you're an Ascend owner looking to upgrade, that you're looking into absolute accuracy. I've always wondered how something like the JBL M2 would compare - that speaker is supposedly a technological marvel.

How is Salk different from Ascend, in your opinion? I was looking on their site and they use a lot of high quality parts as well, like RAAL ribbon tweeters.

I've certainly heard a lot of great things about the M2 as well. There is something to be said of a system that includes amps that are tailored for the drivers they are driving, especially when the speaker has gone through as much development as the M2. Wish I could hear one as well.

Salk seems to share more in common with Ascend than differences. Where I see them diverging is with how custom Salk is. They are more catered to doing one-off speaker sets, while the Song3 is really getting into production like Ascend does, where you only specify a cabinet finish. Also, from what I understand, Salk build their cabinets and are really cabinet makers at their heart, which is why they only buy drivers from other companies and don't do custom versions like Ascend does. It would be great if someone could chime in here and correct me. I've been wondering about this and this is all I've really found out.

[curtis]

At the expense of sounding like a rah rah boy...

First...know that Dave is a degreed engineer...I believe an EE. As mentioned, the drivers that Ascend uses are custom to Ascend...meaning Dave gets what he wants from the drivers first, and then engineers the crossover. Are there more expensive drivers than what Ascend uses? Yes. Does that mean if Ascend used those drivers the speakers would sound better? No. For the drivers, Dave knows what he needs/wants, and he may not need or want what a more expensive driver offers vs other tradeoffs, cost being one.

Dave/Ascend has a direct relationship with OEMs. Most notably, SEAS and RAAL. In fact, Dave and RAAL together worked on the tweeter in the Sierra-2 to get it right, and the fruit of that labor was RAAL being able to sell a version of that tweeter to other speakers companies...this helped other ID companies. On top of that, Ascend sells more RAAL tweeters than any other speaker company...ID or not (this was true a year or two ago, I believe it still is).

Dave controls/engineers every aspect of the speaker. Not saying that is good or bad, but it is a key difference from every other ID speaker company I know. This means that he doesn't have to answer to anyone but himself...especially not marketing. He might have to answer to Dina...but I don't know.

Salk, as mentioned, builds cabinets...extremely nice ones. Drivers are off the shelf..not a bad thing, but a key difference. Crossovers are done by a third party (not the same third party for all their speakers), also not a bad thing, but also key difference.

A couple more things....Dave's testing/measurement equipment...I don't know of another ID company that has the same capabilities. Dave actually has a background in audio industry, he has worked for one of the biggest names in audio. Ascend was not built from a hobby....it was built because it was what he loves to do, and was trained/educated for it. I know there are aspects of the business that he doesn't like, but hopefully they never outweigh what he loves about it.

[sludgeogre]

At the expense of sounding like a rah rah boy...

First...know that Dave is a degreed engineer...I believe an EE. As mentioned, the drivers that Ascend uses are custom to Ascend...meaning Dave gets what he wants from the drivers first, and then engineers the crossover. Are there more expensive drivers than what Ascend uses? Yes. Does that mean if Ascend used those drivers the speakers would sound better? No. For the drivers, Dave knows what he needs/wants, and he may not need or want what a more expensive driver offers vs other tradeoffs, cost being one.

Dave/Ascend has a direct relationship with OEMs. Most notably, SEAS and RAAL. In fact, Dave and RAAL together worked on the tweeter in the Sierra-2 to get it right, and the fruit of that labor was RAAL being able to sell a version of that tweeter to other speakers companies...this helped other ID companies. On top of that, Ascend sells more RAAL tweeters than any other speaker company...ID or not (this was true a year or two ago, I believe it still is).

Dave controls/engineers every aspect of the speaker. Not saying that is good or bad, but it is a key difference from every other ID speaker company I know. This means that he doesn't have to answer to anyone but himself...especially not marketing. He might have to answer to Dina...but I don't know.

Salk, as mentioned, builds cabinets...extremely nice ones. Drivers are off the shelf..not a bad thing, but a key difference. Crossovers are done by a third party (not the same third party for all their speakers), also not a bad thing, but also key difference.

A couple more things....Dave's testing/measurement equipment...I don't know of another ID company that has the same capabilities. Dave actually has a background in audio industry, he has worked for one of the biggest names in audio. Ascend was not built from a hobby....it was built because it was what he loves to do, and was trained/educated for it. I know there are aspects of the business that he doesn't like, but hopefully they never outweigh what he loves about it.

Absolutely agree with everything you said and I am glad that my statements about Salk were accurate. A fabulous company with great speakers, but not the same kind of company as Ascend. They look similar in many ways, but they differ greatly in their approach.

It is incredible to me that Dave does designs that get offered to other companies AND offers his products for such low prices. He really is a boon to this hobby, much like Nelson Pass.

On the topic of measurements, I think that was another thing that forced my hand at purchasing the Sierras instead of Aperion Verus Grands (that and the fact that Aperions drivers use very fragile PVC dustcaps and MDF cabinets). Getting FR graphs with my towers was a real joy, and he doesn't smooth the hell out of the graph like every other company that provdies them does. It's unreal how much detail is there. I don't know what audio analyzer he uses, but I'm willing to bet it costs a great deal and is something you won't find in many other shops. Schiit talks all the time about their equipment that they spent a great deal of cash on as well, and why it is so important to them while at the same time still doing subjective listening. Yet another reason why I really hope that Schiit and Ascend are able to team up one day and show the world how giant-killing their products truly are.

[davef]

I think one of the key points in finding significant upgrades beyond our ribbon speakers is in what aspect of performance one wishes to improve upon. This isn't as simple as it sounds, does one want deeper bass, the ability to play at louder volume levels, higher efficiency, more accentuated highs etc. I think at these levels of performance, the consumer needs to be a very experienced listener and must know in which performance aspects he/she is looking to improve upon. There is always something better, but in my experience, in audio, regardless of price (there are always rare exceptions) - one often improves one aspect while sacrificing another, but sometimes this is exactly what the consumer is looking for.

I have great respect for Salk, their business model is different than Ascend - can't really say one is better than another. Salk is geared more towards what Jim's specialties are while Ascend is geared more towards what my specialties are. This is generally the nature of small business. That said, I am not sure if there is an ID speaker company out there that has as much real-world and tested full design engineering experience as we do. I have honestly been designing all aspects of speakers (from cabinets, to tweeters, to woofers, to crossovers) since ~1987.

Prior to 1987, I worked as an audio repair technician for speakers and amplifiers. There really isn't a single aspect of this industry that I haven't worked in - from retail sales, to management, to production, to custom installs. It is kind of nuts - but the one aspect that keeps me going is always trying to engineer something at a fair price point to challenge the so called "best there is" out there. We really changed the industry when we first introduced the CBM-170, those were fun days -- Curtis likely remembers those days well

Speaking of our relationship with SEAS, -- look what is on the way to me

[curtis]

FR graphs are only small part of it. There was an article that Dave posted about a university research professor developing 3D sound from two speakers. He became interested in the CBM-170, and asked Dave for all kinds of measurements..and Dave obliged. In the video/article, you can see the 170's.

Dave once told me, and I am paraphrasing, "I subjectively listen, and then objectively measure to verify what I heard".

I don't know a whole lot about Schiit (that sounds funny), but it is one thing to say what they have and what they do with it, but it is another to objectively show it...which Ascend does.

For instance, Ascend sells Rythmik subwoofer because of solid engineering...as Dave has posted, he was working on a subwoofer of his own, came across Rythmik, had a lot of discussions with Brian Ding (much like Dave, but he started Rythmik), came to the conclusion that there wasn't a reason to develop his own sub, and partnered with him. Brian Ding..another engineer...PhD in EE from CalTech.

[curtis]

Curtis likely remembers those days well

Yes I do.

Speaking of our relationship with SEAS, -- look what is on the way to me

Is that a new diamond ring for Dina?

[davef]

Getting FR graphs with my towers was a real joy, and he doesn't smooth the hell out of the graph like every other company that provdies them does. It's unreal how much detail is there. I don't know what audio analyzer he uses, but I'm willing to bet it costs a great deal and is something you won't find in many other shops.

We use very much the same gear that is still considered the reference standard for loudspeaker testing. We have 2 full blown MLSSA 2000 systems, both with RCAI interfaces and SPO. One system is used for our production testing, and the other I use in my lab which is now at my home. In the lab system, we also use an automated Outline turntable, which is fully controlled by MLSSA such that we can take extremely precise off-axis measurements (at a maximum resolution of 2.5 degree steps) Over the many years, I have programmed macros to automate various measurement processes using complex weighted averages.

We also use a fully calibrated ACO Pacific 7012 microphone with their 4012 pre-amp. Combine that with various low distortion oscillators, oscilloscopes, pulse generators -- etc. etc.

This gear is indeed quite expensive - but it is also extremely complex and requires a lot of experience to use. It is definitely not something anyone first starting out or even an experienced hobbyist would even consider (Software is DOS based, anyone remember DOS - lol), but it is as accurate as it gets and there is nothing better for examining time domain measurements. It took me many years of 8-9 hour days working with MLSSA to get to where I am confident that if I hear something, I can relate that to a measurement I can take.... In fact, I trust my MLSSA measurements more than my ears these days

You will notice that the measurements we post often look very similar to what Stereophile posts and also various NRC measurements as well as Harman.