Bigger Ascend Towers

[billy p]

Billy!! Good to see you!

....would you be willing to give up the imaging, mids, and highs, you have now to go to 2.0?

Hi Curtis,

well...I could perhaps live with some type of compromise...so long its negligible and it doesn’t alter the complete tonal balance of a properly implemented 3-way design.

I don’t like making this comparison here on Ascend forum...but look at Salk sound offerings. Sure the majority of his work is custom and usually comes at a premium that’s largely how Salk, differs from the Ascend model. Now, look at his new Song 3s...perhaps the 3A(3.8k) but in particular the Encore design(5.8k) something similar could become a welcomed addition to the Ascend family for those seeking 2.0 preferences.

Obviously, there is a market for full range speakers...just how large I can’t say....thou a new Sierra Tower (3.5-5k) within that realm is not entirely a stretch? Beyond that price point thou...I believe it’s a niche market player.

Regards,

Bill

[N Boros]

We have all the components needed to have a bigger tower, right now. Buy a pair of Horizon’s and have the tweeter turned 90 degrees so that the speakers can be used in the vertical orientation. Buy a pair of Rythmik F8’s and use them as speaker stands. Done.

Now the tweeter might be a touch low, where you would want to space it up a bit. Could use those studio sound isolation pads between them to help space it up a bit. I might need a few more inches than that though. This “speaker” wouldn’t actually be too bad, because here you at least have phase adjustment to better integrate the subs into the room. However, you could do a much better job of integrating the subs into the room if you just get a pair of speaker stands to put underneath the Horizon’s and just move the subs into the room, in locations that have been tested for an optimal reduction in standing waves by Harmon.

But, I don’t think that this is what others had in mind. I think that what others want are the “sub drivers” together with the Horizon in one cabinent because other speaker manufacturers are doing this. In this design you would lose the control to simulate moving the “sub drivers” around the room and with them all being together in one cabinent now, you can’t physically do it either. This is a step down in performance from just putting the Horizon on the F8’s as speaker stands. Just because other speaker manufacturers are doing something doesn’t necessarily mean it is the best approach, or even a good approach. I owned some A**** speakers for years, before I sold them and moved to some much better Ascend speakers. They have a unique design for some of their center channel speakers, where there are two tweeters on the outside of the speaker. I owned the smaller of the two speakers, and it was worse than just using a phantom center. Should Ascend start making one of those too, if that design becomes more popular? For a less extreme example. How about a three way bookshelf speaker? Dave has mentioned that with the loss in efficiency, doesn’t make much sense, but several other manufacturers make the speaker.

[curtis]

Hi Curtis,

well...I could perhaps live with some type of compromise...so long its negligible and it doesn’t alter the complete tonal balance of a properly implemented 3-way design.

I don’t like making this comparison here on Ascend forum...but look at Salk sound offerings. Sure the majority of his work is custom and usually comes at a premium that’s largely how Salk, differs from the Ascend model. Now, look at his new Song 3s...perhaps the 3A(3.8k) but in particular the Encore design(5.8k) something similar could become a welcomed addition to the Ascend family for those seeking 2.0 preferences.

Obviously, there is a market for full range speakers...just how large I can’t say....thou a new Sierra Tower (3.5-5k) within that realm is not entirely a stretch? Beyond that price point thou...I believe it’s a niche market player.

I have no doubt there is a market for a bigger speaker. My point is there are tradeoffs, and what is one willing to give up.

ematthew said the Tower right now is near perfect for him, and if it had more bass, it would be perfect. If he loses something to get that bass, then it is possibly no longer perfect.

Salk definitely has a wider range of speakers, but what is lost/gained when moving between speakers in the same line?

For me, to get that bass below 50hz, in a music setup, subs are the way to go. For setup, quality, and capability, it just makes more sense to me. I realize there differing opinions on this.

[curtis]

Now that I re-read the thread...

What is the argument against the use of subwoofers in a music setup? I am not clear on that.

Good discussion.

[N Boros]

There are two reasons that I can come up with.

1. Asthetic reasons, for not wanting to have subs in the room, yet want to get as much bass as possible. But, okay giving up performance.
2. Not having anywhere in the room to put subwoofer(s).

But, the reasons are not based on economically getting the best possible bass.

[curtis]

There are two reasons that I can come up with.

1. Asthetic reasons, for not wanting to have subs in the room, yet want to get as much bass as possible. But, okay giving up performance.
2. Not having anywhere in the room to put subwoofer(s).

But, the reasons are not based on economically getting the best possible bass.

Those I understand.

[Bruce Watson]

...the reasons are not based on economically getting the best possible bass.

Or on getting the best bass possible generally.

[Jaybeez]

I actually like the flexibility of my Sierra 2 / sub set up. I can dial up / dial down the sub as needed for the music I'm listening to. Most days it's set to cross over at 60 and the gain is pretty low. I know subs aren't the most attractive to look at, but I feel I can mimic a large floor stander if / as needed with this arrangement.

[curtis]

Like I mentioned, I understand space and aesthetic issues...heck, that is the main reason I went from 7.1 back to 5.1.

I was wondering if there was a performance issue that I overlooked.

I know, in the past, integration could be tough. For me, it was a two man job, had to know what to measure, what settings to change, and critical listening. Now, with the different room correction/automated speaker setup abilities of pre/pros and receivers, it is much easier, at least with the ones I have used and experienced.

[davef]

I feel it is important to state that we would not be able to approach Rythmik subwoofer bass performance in a passive speaker. The advantages a powered sub has over a passive speaker are too numerous to mention and achieving a true -3dB at 20Hz in a passive speaker is extremely problematic and expensive.

In addition, one of the biggest hits will be in efficiency - you can't have a passive speaker with an honest 90dB sensitivity spec (anechoic) with near full range bass, unless the speaker cabinet is HUGE - and that presents a host of other problems....

This is definitely a worthy discussion and the input I am receiving is very valuable.