Something old is young again, introducing the Sierra-1 V2!!!

[goldark]

I have the Sierra 2 EX v2 right now and have no complaints. However, the Sierra 1 v2 has a significantly higher preference score. Does the Sierra 1 v2 sound 'better' than the Sierra 2 EX v2?

[davef]

Also, will these take the standard S1 Q-Plugs or the new LX Q-Plugs?

Yes, both Q-Plug sets will work great, the originals or the newer ones.

[redsandvb]

Dave, what's the status (and price) on S1 to S1V2 upgrade kits?

Haven't worked out all the details just yet, once we get all the components in and start fulfilling orders, I will work it out and post info here.

I'm guessing there will eventually be a Sierra-1 V2 to LX upgrade kit too?

[mendicitis]

I'm guessing there will eventually be a Sierra-1 V2 to LX upgrade kit too?

The already existing LX upgrade kit should work for any sierra speaker including V2, or any other sierra except some super early versions of the sierra-1.

[davef]

I'm guessing there will eventually be a Sierra-1 V2 to LX upgrade kit too?

Yes, kit would be identical to current LX upgrade kit, but without the tweeter - since both the LX and Sierra-1 V2 now use the exact same tweeter.

[redsandvb]

Thanks for the info!

[bkdc]

I am so impressed, Dave. What amazing value you are offering the customers. When paired with a high quality sealed subwoofer (or two) to delve down to the 20-30Hz even the LX can’t cover, you’re giving up almost nothing against a Sierra LX except flexibility to use without woofers and power handling.

And with the frequency response, it makes an even better near field monitor than the LX to avoid in-your-face low frequencies when the monitor is that close. I’ve always been a huge fan of the original Sierra tower woofers as the mid-frequency reproduction is the biggest strength, and I was actually hesitant to consider the LX or ELX when I could cover the lows with a sub.

[davef]

I am so impressed, Dave. What amazing value you are offering the customers. When paired with a high quality sealed subwoofer (or two) to delve down to the 20-30Hz even the LX can’t cover, you’re giving up almost nothing against a Sierra LX except flexibility to use without woofers and power handling.

And with the frequency response, it makes an even better near field monitor than the LX to avoid in-your-face low frequencies when the monitor is that close. I’ve always been a huge fan of the original Sierra tower woofers as the mid-frequency reproduction is the biggest strength, and I was actually hesitant to consider the LX or ELX when I could cover the lows with a sub.

Thanks for your nice comments!! yes, Sierra-1V2 offers incredible value. Taking the deeper bass and higher power handling of the LX out of the question, I do feel the LX midrange sounds just a tad bit cleaner and overall, LX is just a bit more spacious. At sub $1000 (maybe even sub $1400), nothing can touch the S1V2 and they make for incredible nearfield monitors (listening to them nearfield right now as I attempt to get caught up with emails)

[jambarino]

Yes, kit would be identical to current LX upgrade kit, but without the tweeter - since both the LX and Sierra-1 V2 now use the exact same tweeter.

After watching Erin's review of the Sierra 1 V2,I'm curious if the LX would measure the same in regards to compression in the tweeter's range? Or would it change since the crossovers and mid bass woofer are completely different?

[davef]

After watching Erin's review of the Sierra 1 V2,I'm curious if the LX would measure the same in regards to compression in the tweeter's range? Or would it change since the crossovers and mid bass woofer are completely different?

I haven't yet been able to reproduce Erin's compression measurements. This is his own measurement, not one designed by Klippel and his results don't match those from SEAS. So until I am able to reproduce his results, I can't really say one way or another.

Until his compression measurement is verified and peer reviewed, I wouldn't pay much attention to it. The Titan tweeter is designed for massive power handling. Technically, Erin's "compression" test is displaying variations in frequency response, so I really can't say if that is compression or something entirely different. Proper compression testing relies on the voice coil and former becoming quite hot, and this is not what Erin is doing with these sweeps.

The frequency response changes that Erin's test shows can be caused by a variety of reasons, including the microphone itself (especially when measuring such high volume levels) and even the amplifier being used. Typically, a tweeter will show signs of compression in the lower frequencies well prior to the upper frequencies. Erin's measurement is showing a steady increase in compression at 102dB as frequencies rise, the opposite of what I would expect to see with compression. His results actually look more like an increase in inductance.

Per the standard IEC 268-5 power test, this tweeter is rated for long term power handling of 180 watts, with short term power handling (peaks) of 240 watts. That is massive power handling for any tweeter and the power testing is grueling:

100 hour RMS – 100 hours with continuous signal. (IEC 268-5, cl 18.4 Rated noise test)

Long Term Power Handling – 10 times alternating between signal for one minute and pause
for 2 min. Total test time is 28 min. (IEC 268-5, cl 18.2)

Short Term Power Handling – 60 times alternating between signal for one second and
pause for 1 min. Total test time one hour. (IEC 268-5, cl 18.1)