Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Sierra Mini Tower idea (I know I know)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    199

    Default Sierra Mini Tower idea (I know I know)

    Hello again from Arkansas!

    It's been a busy 2 weeks for me... sheesh. I just wanted to throw this idea your way (even though I know you've already thought these out I'm sure). Please indulge me here when you get a little free time, because I know you stay busy.

    I just want to tell you what I would love to buy from Ascend. An MMT mini-tower. Shorter than the flagship tower. Lower price than the flagship tower. And it doesn't have to sound quite as good (although I would sure love you to try your heart out to make it sound just as good or even better! I know you do this every time which is why I always recommend your designs to everyone who will talk sound with me).

    I would love to see an MMT mini-tower (or 2) with your design skills and name behind them.


    What would I hope to accomplish?
    1. More output than MT versions while maintaining the MT character sound.
    2. Lower price than the flagship 3-way towers. (Although these are great values for what they are)
    3. Don't need stands.
    4. Towers are cool.
    5. Shorter than the flagship towers. (maybe more SAF appeal)

    BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!

    I would love to be able to recommend some Ascend tower speakers with dual woofers that land somewhere between $1000 and $2000. And, for myself personally, I would love to buy a Sierra-2EX version with a price tag somewhere between $2000 and $3000.

    So what's wrong with me? Why do I keep begging for MTM, and now MMT? Cognitive dissonance. In my pea-sized brain, I feel like there needs to be more dual-woofer speakers between the CMT-340 SE and the Sierra towers. (I know about the Duo, but I'm thinking more "regular" sized. IMO, the Duo is in a special, smaller class.)

    Whether or not this would be worth doing, I love hearing (reading) your thoughts on these things. I learn something new every time! Thanks for the continued great sound and best value!

    And... hee hee hee... I may just be a little crazy... Happy Halloween!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    199

    Default Re: Sierra Mini Tower idea (I know I know)

    Okay, after some reading, I'm kinda confused. I was under the impression that a 2.5-way design would give you roughly the same output increase as an MTM, but this might not be right.

    If a 2.5-way is just there to give a little more bass, then never mind. lol I was thinking of overall more output but maybe it's only more output in the bass region. Bah. Humbug. Maybe you can straighten me out here?
    Last edited by j0nnyfive; 10-27-2019 at 09:00 PM. Reason: Brain fart

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    7,034

    Default Re: Sierra Mini Tower idea (I know I know)

    I’m curious as to why you need more output.
    -curtis

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    199

    Default Re: Sierra Mini Tower idea (I know I know)

    Hey Curtis! Sure!

    I want speakers that can fill multiple roles (HT, party, wedding, reception, large room, small room, etc. etc.). I would rather have and not need than need and not have. (Guess how many of those roles I've used the Sierra Towers for?)

    Guess how loud I turned up the AVR at the wedding and college reception? I would have turned it up a little louder but I love my AVR. "GOOD SOUND TO YOU ALL!!! TAKE THAT!!!"

    In my opinion from my own experience: Output is a valuable thing even when you don't think you'd need it. You find uses for things.

    For my needs, I would VERY QUICKLY buy a Sierra MT speaker that favors output over bass extension and has the RAAL and bamboo and all that. Only for a good price though. But I understand that "other people" don't want this. So that's out. MTM? Requires a hoss of a tweeter. That's out (for the RAAL anyway).

    MMT? May not need a hoss of a tweeter. Has bass. People like towers.

    And then I thought... wait a minute... would an MMT fill in the gap between the CMT and Sierra Tower? The output gap? A Sierra-1 MMT mini tower? I dunno. I was going to suggest a Sierra-1 MTM, but then I was anticipating the possibility that people don't buy things like big MTMs at this price... but... people like towers.

    In fact, people like short towers too (tweeter on top).

    People also like new things (MMT would be new for Ascend).

    People also like tower speakers at lower prices ($2,000 may be a barrier for some).

    But, MMT may not really provide enough benefit to justify it's existence. If the only thing you get is a little more bass without a raise in sensitivity? Count me out. So this may be a bad idea. I really don't know. This would be an interesting challenge I think. With a 2.5 woofer... what kind of sensitivity could you get? What kind of character can you give the bass? Interesting (to me anyway). In fact, the more I think about this, the more intrigued I get. Now, I kinda want one. Maybe.

    Most importantly, if Dave doesn't like the idea and his heart isn't in it, I don't want it.
    Just thought I might give him something fun to do. lol

    I think there is something in my eye

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    7,034

    Default Re: Sierra Mini Tower idea (I know I know)

    The big question is if there is enough of a market for something like this. Enough of a market where Ascend could sell enough quantity to make it cost effective and profitable.
    -curtis

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,538

    Default Re: Sierra Mini Tower idea (I know I know)

    Quote Originally Posted by j0nnyfive View Post
    Hey Curtis! Sure!

    I want speakers that can fill multiple roles (HT, party, wedding, reception, large room, small room, etc. etc.). I would rather have and not need than need and not have. (Guess how many of those roles I've used the Sierra Towers for?)

    Guess how loud I turned up the AVR at the wedding and college reception? I would have turned it up a little louder but I love my AVR. "GOOD SOUND TO YOU ALL!!! TAKE THAT!!!"

    In my opinion from my own experience: Output is a valuable thing even when you don't think you'd need it. You find uses for things.

    For my needs, I would VERY QUICKLY buy a Sierra MT speaker that favors output over bass extension and has the RAAL and bamboo and all that. Only for a good price though. But I understand that "other people" don't want this. So that's out. MTM? Requires a hoss of a tweeter. That's out (for the RAAL anyway).

    MMT? May not need a hoss of a tweeter. Has bass. People like towers.

    And then I thought... wait a minute... would an MMT fill in the gap between the CMT and Sierra Tower? The output gap? A Sierra-1 MMT mini tower? I dunno. I was going to suggest a Sierra-1 MTM, but then I was anticipating the possibility that people don't buy things like big MTMs at this price... but... people like towers.

    In fact, people like short towers too (tweeter on top).

    People also like new things (MMT would be new for Ascend).

    People also like tower speakers at lower prices ($2,000 may be a barrier for some).

    But, MMT may not really provide enough benefit to justify it's existence. If the only thing you get is a little more bass without a raise in sensitivity? Count me out. So this may be a bad idea. I really don't know. This would be an interesting challenge I think. With a 2.5 woofer... what kind of sensitivity could you get? What kind of character can you give the bass? Interesting (to me anyway). In fact, the more I think about this, the more intrigued I get. Now, I kinda want one. Maybe.

    Most importantly, if Dave doesn't like the idea and his heart isn't in it, I don't want it.
    Just thought I might give him something fun to do. lol

    I think there is something in my eye
    I think there is some level of confusion here with regard to output.

    Typically, with an MT speaker -- the woofer is the limiting factor with regard to maximum output levels. When you add another woofer (paralleled), regardless of the orientation (be that an MTM or TMM) - assuming you are using the same woofer as the MT and providing the appropriate cabinet volume for 2 woofers , you double the max output SPL capability of the woofer section. Doubling might seem like a lot more output, but it is only +3dB. You then must make sure the tweeter can keep up, or a new tweeter must be used. There is no difference in this regard between a TMM or MTM.

    It is important to understand that human hearing does not perceive +3dB more output as a doubling in acoustical power, human hearing perceives a doubling of volume as +10dB.

    Taking the same woofer from a TM and adding another one in parallel, while also doubling the cabinet volume does not give you more bass extension, you simply get higher efficiency. You can sacrifice some of that efficiency gain to get slightly deeper bass extension, but then you also decrease max output levels.

    So the important question to ask here, Jonnyfive, what exactly are you looking for? Why doesn't the CMT-340 suit your needs?
    .
    .
    .
    Good Sound To You!

    David Fabrikant
    www.ascendacoustics.com

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    St George UT & Glenwood Springs CO
    Posts
    432

    Default Re: Sierra Mini Tower idea (I know I know)

    Why not use Horizon's stood on end?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    199

    Default Re: Sierra Mini Tower idea (I know I know)

    Hey guys! Sorry for the delayed response. I was too tired after work last night. Couldn't think straight.

    Curtis: Definitely. Agreed. Audio marketing isn't one of my strong suits. I'll leave that to you guys.


    Dave: I love it when you talk technical to me. lol First of all, I want all you guys to understand that I'm not criticizing any of your speakers at all. Every speaker I've heard was very very good to my ears. (And I'm not sucking up either.) I just wanted to make that clear because sometimes it's hard to convey a message or communicate clearly in text alone. So, thank you guys for the good sound.

    Next, I want to let ya'll know that when I make a suggestion of a new speaker, it's a suggestion coming from a kindergartner to astronauts on how to fly a space shuttle! So, I can see some level of ridiculousness going on here. lol

    So why would I even make a suggestion then? Because... why not? Life is short.

    What do I want? Good question. I typed a long paragraph here, but I deleted it for brevity. I'll sum it up: A RAAL/Bamboo/SEAS version of the CBM-170 SE (IOW, less bass, more efficiency). But, I understand that other people don't want this. Meh. Gotta play nice with the others!

    Dave, after hearing enough of your speakers, I'm convinced that you can make any configuration (within reason) sound very good. You've done MTs, MTMs, MTWWs, and a couple of funny-shaped speakers (HTM-200 and Horizons). You've demonstrated your talent through all these configurations. I don't think there is a "magical" speaker configuration. I think the magic is in the quality of the parts, and in the talent of the designer. Which is why I'm not going to another company for this. I'm just gonna bug you guys with ideas. There are other talented designers and quality parts out there, but you guys seem to care about the little guy like me. You deliver bang-for-buck value where other people deliver nice furniture for the wine tasters. (nothing wrong with that). But, in addition to being bang-for-buck, what I love about Ascend Acoustics is your evidence-based approach. Thank you, thank you, thank you for not wasting my money. Fan for life.

    The MMT speaker idea is just a suggestion. I'm trying to find "bang for buck" ideas. Why do I feel the MMT is bang-for-buck?

    In no particular order:
    1. Being a tower speaker, you don't need stands.
    2. Being a 2-way or 2.5 way means a less expensive crossover board (I think).
    3. Having 2 woofers increases power handling and sensitivity (I think).
    4. Putting the tweeter on top minimizes the height of the tower (I think). (less wood)
    5. Using an MMT config presents a familiar MT sound (I think).
    6. Using an MMT config doesn't require the tweeter to cross any lower than an MT
    (A really big assumption here).
    7. Tweeters usually "outrun" the woofers in efficiency anyway, so the second woofer
    may maximize the value of the tweeter (I'm really speculating here).


    So, those are value-related reasons. Below are desirability reasons:

    In no particular order:
    1. With your design skills, this thing would sound like magic chocolate.
    2. Towers are cool. Some people just want towers for towers sake.
    3. Shorter towers might be desirable to some, maybe for SAF/WAF reasons.
    4. Some people just like the MMT speaker (seems kinda popular on some forums).
    5. Some people want an Ascend tower speaker, but $2,000 may be their absolute
    allowance for speakers. Would an Sierra-1 or Sierra-1 Nrt MMT tower be possible
    under $2000 per pair? I dunno. Dual woofer Sierra Mini Towers less than $2,000.
    Sounds pretty cool to me (I'm weird she says). I wonder how much a Sierra-2EX
    version would cost. Would it still require the big RAAL? I didn't think it would.


    Okay! All that being said... (whew!)... I understand that:
    A. This may not have enough demand
    B. May confuse potential customers
    C. May dilute the product line too much
    D. May be a bad idea (not bang for buck for a simple or complex reason)
    E. May be a bad idea (not much efficiency increase in M->T crossover region).
    F. May be something that you're just not really interested in (totally understand that).
    G. May be something you just don't have time for (do I ever understand that)!

    So, either way... if you made it this far... I'm sorry it was so long and there was no TLDR!!!

    Thanks, guys.

    To Blutarsky:
    Attached Images Attached Images

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    199

    Default Re: Sierra Mini Tower idea (I know I know)

    Hey Blutarsky! Just kidding. I was just too tired to write any more last night. How do your vertical horizons sound? Is that what you're doing? I never would have thought of that.


    To Dave, Curtis, and other Ascend people: Again, I just want to stress that I don't have any problem with any of my Ascend speakers. It isn't that I don't like the CMT-340 SE, it's just that I could tell the Sierras have higher resolution(?). More detail, to my ears. I want as much detail as humanly possible in a speaker (with reasonable sensitivity and dynamic range and natural dispersion and all that good stuff). I love em all. Sometimes I get an idea and have to share it. No biggie if it isn't a good idea. I learn a lot from your explanations as to why or why not. So, hit me with it! (When you're not busy). Don't work too hard!

    Thanks guys!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    199

    Default Re: Sierra Mini Tower idea (I know I know)

    Just wanted to add, if you guys want to talk technical about the MMT configuration, please do!! That's why I put my posts in the technical forum. I learn something every time! (Whenever you get time though. No rush!)

    For instance, from what I'm reading elsewhere, it looks as though the MMT can have some serious lobing challenges. Also, assuming a 2.5-way design, I'm reading that the sensitivity won't be as high. But, I'm not the engineer.
    Last edited by j0nnyfive; 11-01-2019 at 03:10 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •