Which center? Luna, S2, or Horizon?

[daddyo]

Whew, reading thru all 24 pages has been an endurance challenge. Can I re-ask the original thread question - "Which center ? Luna Duo v2.0, Sierra 2EX, or Horizon ?"

[petmotel]

Whew, reading thru all 24 pages has been an endurance challenge. Can I re-ask the original thread question - "Which center ? Luna Duo v2.0, Sierra 2EX, or Horizon ?"

If you've read this thread I would hope you've picked up on the information that would be helpful for this community to be able to help you make a decision. You've provided not a clue as to all the important considerations, all 3 solutions have their strengths, and all three have their weaknesses. Much like asking "What car should I buy", without listing your needs and desires, that answer would be pure speculation.

Jay

[racrawford65]

Whew, reading thru all 24 pages has been an endurance challenge. Can I re-ask the original thread question - "Which center ? Luna Duo v2.0, Sierra 2EX, or Horizon ?"

Depends on your budget, space (Horizon is big per measurements, etc), etc. I ran an S2 for a center for awhile with S2’s for FL/FR. it sounded very good. Moved to Towers with Raal for FL/FR, S2 went to surround. Added Duo as center which, IMO, was a step up as a center (dialogue clarity mainly). Sold S2 center. If I had the room, probably would have gone with the Horixon

[daddyo]

If you've read this thread I would hope you've picked up on the information that would be helpful for this community to be able to help you make a decision. You've provided not a clue as to all the important considerations, all 3 solutions have their strengths, and all three have their weaknesses. Much like asking "What car should I buy", without listing your needs and desires, that answer would be pure speculation.

Jay

Old ears and damaged hearing makes dialogue clarity key priority for me. I like the idea of a dedicated mid-range in a typical 3-way cc but the Horizon is just too big for my needs. Makes the Kefs or Elacs look pretty good with their coaxial drivers and nice packaging size or I might be able to squeeze in a SVS Ultra center. Even tho a 2-way, the Duo v2.0 is a consideration. 100% HT, 5.1.2 system, not loud, w/i 12 degrees to on-axis.

[davef]

There was, to me anyway, a bit of a disconnect between part 4 and part 5c. In part 4 you were trying to get to the heart of the matter, namely why the significant difference between the Klippel measurements, and your previous system.

Sorry, I had thought I covered this. This is not an exact science, I am not sure we will ever be able to look at any measurement and confirm that this is exactly what we are hearing, and vice versa. There was simply no way for me to determine, with the measurements I took - with the Klippel NFS, MLSSA and even Oscillator + RTA how audible, if at all, the port resonance was. I measured different results with different gear and at different mic distances. Because of this, I felt the best approach was to eliminate the resonance such that it simply does not show up in any of the test setups I used.

As to why the measurements of the resonance differ from one device to another, I must accept the very real possibility that I may never have a firm answer to this.

One reason may be that our MLSSA system uses what is known as a maximum length sequence (MLS) stimulus vs the NFS which uses swept sine waves. An MLS signal is a seemingly random sequence of frequencies (much like pink or white noise) that is sent to the DUT. The mic receives this sequence and changes in this pattern of frequencies is how various data is then extrapolated (Fast Fourier Transform)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_length_sequence

With swept sine waves, a series of sine wave signals from, for example, 20Hz to 20kHz is sent to the DUT. It might be that this sine wave sweep is (because it sends a direct 600Hz sine wave to the DUT, and then 601, 602, 603... depending on how the stimulus is configured) is causing a more reactive response from the port.

Of course, music is not a series of swept sine waves, nor is music a maximum length sequence - so as you can see, determining a final resolution as to why the measurements vary is quite complicated.

To my ear, which I consider quite good even at my age, I was never able to actually hear this resonance. However, that does not mean someone else didn't hear it. Often times though, someone will see something nasty in a measurement and then they do start "hearing" something off.

Even with the Klippel NFS, I have my doubts that there will ever be a direct correlation between a measurement and precisely what we are hearing. I do believe we are getting closer though (at least I hope we are)

I could write about this subject seemingly forever, and even without drawing a firm conclusion one way or another. I do have more to post, and will do so later this evening or tomorrow, but this thread and all the research done was really about the Luna and Duo so I wanted the focus to be mostly on them.

Hope this helps out!

[petmotel]

Sorry, I had thought I covered this. This is not an exact science, I am not sure we will ever be able to look at any measurement and confirm that this is exactly what we are hearing, and vice versa. There was simply no way for me to determine, with the measurements I took - with the Klippel NFS, MLSSA and even Oscillator + RTA how audible, if at all, the port resonance was. I measured different results with different gear and at different mic distances. Because of this, I felt the best approach was to eliminate the resonance such that it simply does not show up in any of the test setups I used.

As to why the measurements of the resonance differ from one device to another, I must accept the very real possibility that I may never have a firm answer to this.

One reason may be that our MLSSA system uses what is known as a maximum length sequence (MLS) stimulus vs the NFS which uses swept sine waves. An MLS signal is a seemingly random sequence of frequencies (much like pink or white noise) that is sent to the DUT. The mic receives this sequence and changes in this pattern of frequencies is how various data is then extrapolated (Fast Fourier Transform)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_length_sequence

With swept sine waves, a series of sine wave signals from, for example, 20Hz to 20kHz is sent to the DUT. It might be that this sine wave sweep is (because it sends a direct 600Hz sine wave to the DUT, and then 601, 602, 603... depending on how the stimulus is configured) is causing a more reactive response from the port.

Of course, music is not a series of swept sine waves, nor is music a maximum length sequence - so as you can see, determining a final resolution as to why the measurements vary is quite complicated.

To my ear, which I consider quite good even at my age, I was never able to actually hear this resonance. However, that does not mean someone else didn't hear it. Often times though, someone will see something nasty in a measurement and then they do start "hearing" something off.

Even with the Klippel NFS, I have my doubts that there will ever be a direct correlation between a measurement and precisely what we are hearing. I do believe we are getting closer though (at least I hope we are)

I could write about this subject seemingly forever, and even without drawing a firm conclusion one way or another. I do have more to post, and will do so later this evening or tomorrow, but this thread and all the research done was really about the Luna and Duo so I wanted the focus to be mostly on them.

Hope this helps out!

As always, thanks for the detailed explanation, clearly correlating what we hear to what can be measured is complicated, and somewhat an inexact science currently despite the massive amount of research that has been expended to quantify sound quality.

I truly hope that with the huge investment Ascend has put into R&D, the end result will be products that actually sound better to the end user, and not just satisfy a newer standard of measurement technology.

Edit: After rereading part 5 in the series, I understand that the crossover optimizations were to a large degree possible due to information garnered from the use of the Klippel NFS system. Any concerns about the new R&D being used for product enhancements are therefore put to rest.

Jay

[petmotel]

Old ears and damaged hearing makes dialogue clarity key priority for me. I like the idea of a dedicated mid-range in a typical 3-way cc but the Horizon is just too big for my needs. Makes the Kefs or Elacs look pretty good with their coaxial drivers and nice packaging size or I might be able to squeeze in a SVS Ultra center. Even tho a 2-way, the Duo v2.0 is a consideration. 100% HT, 5.1.2 system, not loud, w/i 12 degrees to on-axis.

Not sure my experience validates a response, as no one else has commented I'll give it a go. Since I don't own a Duo, I can only go by what others have posted (I have a RAAL equipped Horizon in my theater system), which I think is an incredible center channel, but those whom have posted their opinions regarding a Duo as a center channel have found the dialog clarity to be very good. I think the Duo would best fit your needs judging by the information you've provided.

One of Ascend's design goals is to provide excellent dynamic properties, their impulse energy graph and cumulative spectral decay plots show exceptional results which I would postulate translates to exceptional clarity. Give one a try, pretty much risk free less the shipping costs, although in my experience, I've never had an Ascend product that I even briefly considered returning.

Jay

[daddyo]

Depends on your budget, space (Horizon is big per measurements, etc), etc. I ran an S2 for a center for awhile with S2Â’s for FL/FR. it sounded very good. Moved to Towers with Raal for FL/FR, S2 went to surround. Added Duo as center which, IMO, was a step up as a center (dialogue clarity mainly). Sold S2 center. If I had the room, probably would have gone with the Horixon

Although I like the idea of a dedicated mid-range in a 3-way cc speaker (for dialogue) but can't physically fit the Horizon into my setup (max would be a SVS Ultra cc). Since we sit close to on-axis (w/i 10-12 degrees) it would seem that a relatively narrow dispersion cc would be better for cc dialogue clarity than a wide dispersion speaker (eg Duo). Comments or thoughts ?

[N Boros]

Although I like the idea of a dedicated mid-range in a 3-way cc speaker (for dialogue) but can't physically fit the Horizon into my setup (max would be a SVS Ultra cc). Since we sit close to on-axis (w/i 10-12 degrees) it would seem that a relatively narrow dispersion cc would be better for cc dialogue clarity than a wide dispersion speaker (eg Duo). Comments or thoughts ?

If you are sitting that close to directly on axis then the Duo would be not problem at all. The main advantage of the tweeter over midrange design of a center is the wider dispersion compared to that of a tweeter flanked by two woofer design. I own the CMT 340 center and was also very concerned about changes in timbre and dialog intelligibility off axis. In fact in that casual living room setup I have a seat 45 or maybe 60 degrees off axis outside of the right front speaker. Dialog comes through clean and clear. The biggest problem is that panning and surround effects aren’t that convincing, not that I can’t understand dialog.

For my home theater where I do more critical listening I have no reservations about getting the Duo center to match my Sierra 2s that I have as front speakers. I really wanted to fit a Horizon, but it didn’t fit height wise. I will sit pretty much dead center anyways and others will have great dialog intelligibility with the Duo.

Bottom line. If you have towers and/or have people sitting really far off axis (and you are really worried about that) then try to make the horizon fit. If not or you just can’t fit a horizon speaker then get the Duo. Both will be excellent center channels. I wouldn’t get another brand center speaker to use with ascends, just because you like the speaker design better. I’ve heard Svs ultras and KEF Q350 and Q150 speakers. They are fine speakers, but ascend is a step above. I thought the budget ascend speakers sounded better than KEFs. The Sierra 2s are in another league then the SVS Ultra bookshelf speakers. They are better in pretty much every way. Plus you want a really good match between your mains and center.

[Shazb0t]

If you're really concerned about the center dispersion and intelligibility, and I think that you should be, then I would go with the Horizon. You then avoid the lobing issues that a MTM 2-way center inherently has.