Floorstanding loudspeakers?

[GDV]

Is Ascend working on releasing a floorstanding loudspeaker? If so, does anyone have an idea of when it will be available?

Thanks.

GDV

[BradJudy]

Good luck getting DaveF to let slip on anything he's working on - he plays it close to the chest until things are ready to roll. I also expect that any projects might be on the back burner with the arrival of a new baby. :)

[bikeman]

Is Ascend working on releasing a floorstanding loudspeaker? If so, does anyone have an idea of when it will be available?Thanks.GDV
The SE's were just introduced. Based on past performance, the 3nd quarter of 2008 will be the earliest a completely new design will be available. I'd bet on a floorstander but I'd also bet I'm wrong. Look for an updated 200 sometime before that. This is all mindless speculation on my part.

David

[Quinn]

Good luck getting DaveF to let slip on anything he's working on - he plays it close to the chest until things are ready to roll. I also expect that any projects might be on the back burner with the arrival of a new baby. :)

No kidding! I think he stunned many long time Ascend fans last fall by announcing the SEs six weeks before it was ready to ship. Before that Ascend hadn't announced anything until it was ready to ship.

[GaryB]

Not that I don't have more pressing issues :rolleyes: but I have thought about this quite a lot over the last little while. Here are my fairly detailed suggestions for my dream Ascend compact full tower (CFT?), which I would buy in a minute, and I suspect might find favor with many typical Ascend customers:

1. Ported cabinet 7.5" wide (same as CMT-340), 12" deep, on plinth similar to that of TP-24 stand, for a total height no more than 40". Assuming the same sensitivity as the CMT-340, the F3 for this enclosure size should be in the 38 Hz range, or ~10 Hz deeper than the CMT-340.

2. 3-way: 2 x 6-1/2" polygel woofers, 4" polygel midrange (I believe Audax does make one, which could be customized for this application, as all DaveF's drivers are), SEAS tweeter from CBM-170 SE. TMWW orientation, from top to bottom. Approximate crossover points @ 500 & 2500 Hz. I chose the 170's tweeter rather than the 340's for its smaller faceplate. The higher crossover allowed by the 4" midrange should make the 340's tweeter unnecessary, but I stand to be corrected on this point, of course.

Just off the top of my head, I might hope that these could be offered for $800/pr. in standard finish, or only $132 more than the CMT-340s with TP-24 stands. Even at $900, I think there might be great interest in such an addition to the line. I suspect, though, that a price much over $900/pr. would negatively impact saleability.

BTW, assuming use of the 170's tweeter, it occurs to me that the same 4 drivers (with similar crossovers) would fit perfectly in the current CMT-340 SEC's cabinet, simply by slightly increasing the separation of the woofers on the existing baffle and installing the midrange and tweeter between the woofers, in the preferred vertical orientation. If such a 3-way dedicated center channel (DCC?) speaker, with EXBAC, could be offered for $400-$450 in standard finish, sign me up!

Yes, yes, I know things aren't quite so simple and straightforward, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and wouldn't it be great to see what Dave could do with these designs? It's been a year since the SEs were introduced... how about a little excitement around here again? :D

[Quinn]

The drivers in the SE are propriety and no longer made by Audax.

The tweeter size of the 340 is in relation to the cabinet volume.

The SEAS tweeters allows for a much lower x-over than 2500Hz and shifting that range to the tweeter is a part of where the 340SE bass improvement came from. Meaning that I don't think unloading what is left of the range you're suggesting is going to offer enough improvement for the cost.

Adding and integrating a 2nd x-over is expensive to do right.

The present 340SE could be tweaked to get down around 40Hz the trade off would be in sensitivity. The 340SE would end up around 85-86dB and need ~4 times the power to reach the same volume as the present design. Dave's goal is affordable high end sound. Making this change would require more money spend on quality amplification.

Ascend to this point has a new product about every 2 years.

As for the suggestion of W-TM-W center you can read Dave's comments on the design trades offs of this arrangement here- http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showpost.php?p=1367&postcount=10

[GaryB]

In general and also in specific response to some of Quinn's arguments, I would offer the following:

1. There appears to be genuine interest in an Ascend floorstander. IMO, such a speaker should offer real value and real advantages over Ascend's existing designs. It would necessarily cost more and would not supplant existing models.

2. A well-designed 3-way can offer significant advantages in bass extension/output over a well-designed 2-way, without compromising the critical midrange frequencies. In fact, the midrange performance would likely exceed existing designs. The proposed tower model does not sacrifice sensitivity to achieve these gains. IMO, the proposed design would be a very authoritative performer on most music sans sub, but would still benefit from the use of a sub, especially for home theater.

3. The proposed models make use of several already-developed Ascend assets (i.e. 6-1/2" woofer, SEAS tweeter). While not the case for the proposed new center, most buyers of the floorstander would partially recover the added costs of the new midrange and more complex crossover by not having to purchase stands.

4. The fact that the SEAS tweeters allow a lower crossover point than that required by the proposed new models is irrelevant. The design work has already been done and the sonic advantages of these tweeters would still be fully realized in the new models. I would be happy to allow the designer to choose the optimum crossover points. ;)

5. I am quite familiar with the referenced post regarding W-TM-W centers. A well-designed W-TM-W center channel speaker, using equivalent woofers, will cost more than a well-designed W-T-W center and will have inferior vertical dispersion, which most of us already address by angling the center up or down toward the listening area. A well-designed W-TM-W center will have advantages in all other respects, but especially with regard to horizontal dispersion. I see nothing in Dave's post to refute these facts. Those who don't need the improved horizontal dispersion, or are unwilling to pay the price for the other (likely subtle) advantages, could simply opt for the current W-T-W model.

All the above is moot, of course, if my price predictions are way off, if DaveF has other plans or is unwilling, with his well-known new commitments, to expend the considerable time/effort to do these new models justice... and we all know that he would do them justice. One can only hope... :)

[curtis]

If Dave were to take on such a product, I think it is safe to say that it would not stray from the sound quality that we owners are used to.

[Quinn]

Typical 3-way speakers are designed so that the midrange driver shares the same cabinet volume as the woofer. Big problems here…. As we all know, the inside of a speaker cabinet is subjected to tremendous pressure changes. When a small midrange woofer is sharing the same air space as a larger woofer (or worse, 2 woofers), the midrange driver will modulate with the pressure changes caused by the two bass woofers. We have all seen what happens in a dual woofer design; manually pushing one woofer inward will force the other outward etc. When the small midrange driver is trying to reproduce its signal, the larger woofers will actually cause unwanted compliance changes, thus producing high levels of intermodulation distortion. This is easily measurable and audible, regardless of where the listener is seated. http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showpost.php?p=1367&postcount=10

BTW- You can count me as someone who wants an Ascend full range speaker.

[bikeman]

BTW- You can count me as someone who wants an Ascend full range speaker.
Me three. ;)

David

[GaryB]

C'mon, Quinn... :rolleyes:

The operative phrase is well-designed (not "typical") 3-way speaker. I have no doubt that if DaveF were to design such a speaker, the midrange would be properly isolated in a sub-enclosure, and the described issue simply wouldn't arise.

[curtis]

Me three. ;)

David
Me four...but I would need a new room too.


C'mon, Quinn... :rolleyes:

The operative phrase is well-designed (not "typical") 3-way speaker. I have no doubt that if DaveF were to design such a speaker, the midrange would be properly isolated in a sub-enclosure, and the described issue simply wouldn't arise.
Yeah...I'm sure Dave would do it right.

[davef]

Great stuff GaryB!

Very well thought out and when and *IF* the time comes to release a floorstander, you can be sure it will be done right.

I will say this, there are some very exciting things planned for 2007 ;)

[BradJudy]

I will say this, there are some very exciting things planned for 2007 ;)


Like new products exciting, or new babies exciting? :D

As always, I'm rooting for a more full range speaker and a wood veneer option.

I find it interesting that the assumption about a 3-way seems focused on a smaller mid. Why not the existing M-T-M or T-M supplemented with a woofer or two? :)

[Eddie Horton]

I'm with Brad. More of a full range model with the pretty stuff for the WAF. I'd like something that would play down in the 30's with authority. Something that could be used for 2 channel and also would really belt it out as fronts for HT crossed over around 60-80HZ. Since a crossover isn't a brick wall, the extra displacement would be used to get you up around Dolby ref level without strain.

[GaryB]

Great stuff GaryB!

Very well thought out and when and *IF* the time comes to release a floorstander, you can be sure it will be done right.

I will say this, there are some very exciting things planned for 2007 ;)Thanks, Dave. :o (...closest I could come to a "blushing" smilie...) I knew I was sticking my neck out when I made that post and appreciate your not chopping my head off! As always, I'm looking forward to any and all new developments from Ascend.


I find it interesting that the assumption about a 3-way seems focused on a smaller mid. Why not the existing M-T-M or T-M supplemented with a woofer or two? :)Hi, Brad. I certainly did consider the possibilty of essentially adding two more 6-1/2" woofer cones to the existing CBM-170 SE drivers and crossing over at ~200 Hz. I have seen variations on this theme from other manufacturers (I think Onix is doing something similar with one of the 17 upcoming variations of the x-series... you should know ;)). All things considered, this alternative would probably work equally well for a floor-stander.

OTOH, the possibility of a 3-way center in a slim cabinet is very compelling to me and requires a smaller midrange driver. Once I had made that decision, the prospect of matching drivers in the center and tower became irresistible.

A variation for the tower would be a MTMWW array (top-to-bottom) using the smaller mid, as you suggest for the larger mid. This would require a taller cabinet to keep the tweeter at the same height, however, and I'm not sure that the results would justify the added expense and complexity.

[Mag_Neato]

I can see Dave just sitting back, taking it all in and letting out a big "Muh-wahhahahahahahaha!!! :D

[BradJudy]

(I think Onix is doing something similar with one of the 17 upcoming variations of the x-series... you should know ;)).

I don't know anything more about these products than anyone else who reads the AV123 forum.



A variation for the tower would be a MTMWW array (top-to-bottom) using the smaller mid, as you suggest for the larger mid. This would require a taller cabinet to keep the tweeter at the same height...

I'm missing how this would require a taller cabinet. It shouldn't be any taller than the 340's on stands since that's already an MTM with large M's. Did I miss what you meant?

[GaryB]

I don't know anything more about these products than anyone else who reads the AV123 forum.Fair enough. You do have quite a presence there, and I have seen in posts at AVSforum that you seem to have a cordial relationship with Mark Schifter. I really wasn't implying anything sinister... sorry if it came across that way. :)


I'm missing how this would require a taller cabinet. It shouldn't be any taller than the 340's on stands since that's already an MTM with large M's. Did I miss what you meant?My proposed tower design specified a height of no more than 40'', since I'd like the tweeter at ~36". And you're right, adding another 4" driver above the tweeter would increase the height to just about exactly match the CMT-340 on its stand (45"). Not a biggie, but I prefer a 38"-40" height for my compact tower.

[BradJudy]

My proposed tower design specified a height of no more than 40''...

Ah, I missed that you had a target height of 40". I think that would only be realistic in something like a TMW or TMWW design.

begin long aside.....

BTW: Mark and I definitely know each other and we only live 2 miles apart, but it's not like we get together or even talk much. I saw him at the RMAF last month, but it was the first time I'd seen him since the RMAF last year. It's a fun forum (lots of activity, but not crazy like AVS) and I know the folks at their office from events and from stopping by to pick things up on occasion. I've done a bit of work with Mark (or rather, other folks working on projects for him) on a couple of items, but not currently. I learned quite a bit from several folks (designers and engineers of various types) at the couple of AV123 events in town (held a mile from my house), which has been cool.

Of course, the RMAF has been a great event for meeting designers/engineers. It's very interesting to get each person's different take on the same type of products. My favorite this past RMAF was probably Frank VanAlstine - very smart guy who's been designing electronics for my entire lifetime. He's very anti-audiophile fluff and was at a show with a lot of it. He went into details on his amp designs and how he was able to use a wider bandwidth than most - it was cool.

I think the only thing all of them had in common was that they all had an opinion (or five or six). :D

end long aside.... :)

[GaryB]

Ah, I missed that you had a target height of 40". I think that would only be realistic in something like a TMW or TMWW design.No problem... come to think of it, with the small-faceplate 170 SE tweeter at 36", tight spacing between the drivers, and a "squared-off" driver frame for the 4" midrange, a 42"-43" height for the MTMWW array should be achievable, which isn't too far off the mark. So maybe I should start to consider the merits of such a design, such as controlled vertical dispersion, ability to lower (in frequency) the MW crossover which in turn allows further physical separation between the woofers and midrange on the baffle, etc., etc. Or maybe I'll just leave it up to DaveF. :D

Frank Van Alstine... I haven't heard that name in many, many years. I just Googled his name and found his company's website (http://www.avahifi.com/). I, for one, certainly welcome his take on quasi-scientific "audiophilia".

And again, Brad, my apologies that my off-handed (ultimately ham-handed) attempt to be "familiar" with a well-recognized name in internet audio circles made you feel compelled to "explain" yourself. It wasn't my intention. :o

[BradJudy]

It will be interesting to see what Dave comes up with for 2007. With the amount of time he spent on the SE tweeter, I'm putting my money on him spending a lot of time specing out either a woofer or smaller mid for something like this. Of course, there's always the mid from the HTM-200. :)

Don't worry about it Gary - I'm just a bit sensitive from others who have implied or stated a degree of relationship that wasn't there.

Frank seemed like a good guy - he was in the Salk Sound room with Jim and Mary Salk who are both very nice.

[GaryB]

Of course, there's always the mid from the HTM-200. :)...which might work quite well in my proposed designs, but I might hope for something slightly more ambitious in "flagship" models. :)

Hey! I'm a "Senior Member" now! :eek:

[Jonnyozero3]

...snip.... With the amount of time he spent on the SE tweeter, I'm putting my money on him spending a lot of time specing out either a woofer or smaller mid for something like this.

...snip....

My thoughts exactly :)

[jad5]

I would also like to see a tower about 38" tall with either two 6 1/2 woofers or one 8" woofer along with a 4 or 5 inch midrange plus tweeter. I believe the smaller mid would provide better dispersion and transparency. I also prefer the mt design on music better than the mtm.

[bikeman]

I would also like to see a tower about 38" tall with either two 6 1/2 woofers or one 8" woofer along with a 4 or 5 inch midrange plus tweeter. I believe the smaller mid would provide better dispersion and transparency. I also prefer the mt design on music better than the mtm.
The design isn't anywhere near as important as the execution of the design IMO. Speaker design, like anything else an engineer gets their hands on, is all about trade offs. I like the decisions (compromises) that Ascend makes with their speakers so I'll leave that part of the equation to them. My preference is in the end product, not how it got there. My wife's preferences are more weighted toward the aesthetic so even in this house, priorities vary.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone. I took the 200's I got from Jeff and sold them to a friend of mine who's a heck of a chef. As part of the deal, I get great food and wine for the day. And the music for dinner will be much improved with the 200's.
Life is good.

David

[Eddie Horton]

Happy Thanksgiving back, David, and to everyone else as well. Let's all eat too much!!!

[GaryB]

The design isn't anywhere near as important as the execution of the design IMO. Speaker design, like anything else an engineer gets their hands on, is all about trade offs. I like the decisions (compromises) that Ascend makes with their speakers so I'll leave that part of the equation to them. My preference is in the end product, not how it got there.I agree completely. OTOH, I think DaveF has taken the economical 2-way to the point of rapidly diminishing returns with his current designs. There are real gains to be made, at additional cost of course, with 3-way designs, both for a dedicated center channel speaker and a compact floor-stander. I am quite willing to pay the somewhat higher prices that such designs would demand, and suspect many others would, as well.

As to the details of how this might be accomplished, I'm perfectly happy to leave those decisions to DaveF, and I'm quite prepared to be pleasantly surprised. My proposals merely reflected what I thought might be done, using many existing Ascend resources, in the "compact" cabinets that I prefer.

Happy Thanksgiving to all you Yanks, BTW. We had ours in the Great White North over 6 weeks ago. And life is indeed good. :)