Any chance of a MTM Sierra in the future?

[marksanctuary]

A mid-tweeter-mid version of the Sierra would complete the family...don't you think?

This way I could someday do a swap of my 340 center and my 170 mains with the same setup but from the Sierra family of speakers. :D

[BradJudy]

Why not use a Sierra-1 to replace your 340? That's what I'm planning on doing.

[marksanctuary]

That is a good idea to just use one of the Sierra-1 speakers, but I do like the idea that the tweeter is centered with a MTM setup. Also with the center speaker being the most utilized speaker its nice to have the slightly more authority in that speaker.

[Quinn]

My Sierra 1 center is better to my ears than my 340 center was. I got the idea from all the statements about equal off axis dispersion that there is no need for a MTM center for the Sierra. Of course that the name is the Sierra 1 not just Sierra leaves a lot of room for speculation of Sierra 2......

[ravingndrooling]

I traded my 340s for Sierras across the front and miss NOTHING! You won't miss anything not having a MTM across the center. If you need it a little louder, try bumping up the center channel level a notch or two. I have yet to turn them up LOUD, but for what I have turned them up, they have had no complaints. I listened to Cream at Albert Hall last night....sounded great, and yes it was pretty LOUD. Buy some Sierras and don't look back! :D

[jvillas]

Hi, I do not own the Sierras, and probably will not purchase a pair. It is unclear to me what direction Dave is going with the release of the Sierra-1. From what I have read here and at other forums the Sierras are mostly considered a full-range speaker that is accurate reproduction down to 40 Hrz. That leaves only 1 octive of music left to go after.(not counting the pipe organ at 16Hrz).

If I were to speculate Dave might introduce a larger full-range bookshelf speaker,or a floorstander to capture that last octive, and of course using bamboo cabinets. I think we will see a hint of this when the subwoofer is introduced sometime this summer if it is still scheduled. By hint I mean if Dave introduces a subwoofer with the cabinet made from bamboo or mdf. If it is bamboo a finish to compliment the 200s,170s and 340s would have to be offered. If mdf my guess is that Dave may feel that the Sierras do not really need a subwoofer.

Mtm mains or center your guess is as good as mine.

These are my thoughts, guesses, all just for fun. I eagerly await Daves next offering.

[curtis]

If it is not bamboo, it could also mean that that the cost to use bamboo is not worth the added benefit.

I don't think an Ascend subwoofer will hint at any future speaker product.

[jvillas]

curtis you could be right.

My thought here is isn't it remarkable what Dave has accomplished with the Sierra-1 bass response using just a 51/2" woofer? Given Daves ingenuity a bamboo subwoofer may not need have a very large driver, and cabinet. This would keep cost down and price reasonable. Plus adding another unit to the bamboo production facility may also reduce cost.

So who knows.

[Quinn]

By hint I mean if Dave introduces a subwoofer with the cabinet made from bamboo or mdf. If it is bamboo a finish to compliment the 200s,170s and 340s would have to be offered.

I would think most would be happy mixing a piano black sub in with their 170/340/200s. I can't see Ascend doing an average sub if they enter the sub market. Ascend keeps raising the bar for performance for the price. I can't see Dave and company putting out a sub just to have a sub. Besides they could have done that a long time ago as Dave worked on a number of the M&K subs and has that knowledge. Just like they could have released the Sierra 2 or 3 years ago but Dave wasn't satisfied. With Dave's focus on music I'd expect any sub from Ascend not to get into to the louder deeper wars. I would expect a focus on music reproduction and transient responses to match those of the Sierra.

[drewface]

my only concern with the whole bamboo cabinet sub is what it would cost... with a pair of bookshelves costing in the $800 range, i'd imagine a quality sub with a bamboo cabinet would be more than that. i'm not sure i'd be willing to throw that kind of money into a subwoofer within the next couple years. maybe my logic is a little off with estimating how much it would cost, but from looking at other companies, i think i'm fairly on target.

i just wish there was a way to know for sure if an ascend sub was in the works. my system really needs a sub now that i have it set up in a much bigger room and it is being used primarily for ht now. i was just about ready to go with a hsu sub, but then ascend put up that cryptic "Stay Tuned For An Exciting Announcement Regarding Subwoofers for 2007 and Beyond!!!" message...

[Dread Pirate Robert]

From what I have read here and at other forums the Sierras are mostly considered a full-range speaker that is accurate reproduction down to 40 Hrz. That leaves only 1 octive of music left to go after.(not counting the pipe organ at 16Hrz).

It might only be a single octave from 40 Hz to 20 Hz, but it's one doozy of an octave! The last 5 Hz alone forces one to move up a whole class in subwoofers, and having significant output below 20 Hz is likely to substantially impact performance at higher bass frequencies in just about any design.


If I were to speculate Dave might introduce a larger full-range bookshelf speaker,or a floorstander to capture that last octive, and of course using bamboo cabinets.

Given the power requirements of that last octave, however, I would think that a dedicated driver and amp would be desirable. In that case, it might be interesting to make the entire speaker active (tri-amped).

That said, there are valid reasons to actually prefer the sub-sat arrangement in terms of sound quality, in my opinion, primarily because the ideal placement of bass radiators can and often does differ from that of higher frequency radiators in any given room. This philosophy would basically render the deep (I mean DEEP) bass capabilities of true full-range loudspeakers (which are rare in any case) redundant. One might want even more output to 40 Hz than the Sierra-1 can muster, but I think that it goes quite deep enough.


I think we will see a hint of this when the subwoofer is introduced sometime this summer if it is still scheduled. By hint I mean if Dave introduces a subwoofer with the cabinet made from bamboo or mdf. If it is bamboo a finish to compliment the 200s,170s and 340s would have to be offered. If mdf my guess is that Dave may feel that the Sierras do not really need a subwoofer.

I suspect that the cabinet will be made of whatever it needs to be made of in order to achieve the desired level of performance and value. Whether it's made of MDF has nothing inherently to do with whether the Sierra series needs a subwoofer. The bottom line is that if you want to hear the octave from 20 Hz to 40 Hz (or whatever the range turns out to be), then you need a subwoofer, and if you want to experience the full impact of modern movie soundtracks, then you need a subwoofer.


My thought here is isn't it remarkable what Dave has accomplished with the Sierra-1 bass response using just a 51/2" woofer?

It's actually 5 1/4", so it's even more impressive. ;) I think the impressive aspect is that it can remain so accurate while putting out so much bass. The woofer looks kind of like a small subwoofer, but is obviously far more controlled than a subwoofer of that size would be. I have an old subwoofer driver of that approximate size, and it can put out enough bass to rattle windows and objects in the room alarmingly, but somehow I doubt that it could be used to accurately reproduce midrange. :)


Given Daves ingenuity a bamboo subwoofer may not need have a very large driver, and cabinet.

Well, there are still the laws of physics with which to contend at some point. It's certainly possible to get a decent amount of high quality output using a driver and cabinet of relatively modest proportions, and there are some existing examples of this class of subwoofer, such as AV123's UFW-10 (although it only goes down to 25 Hz). And JL Audio's Fathom series is the same basic concept scaled up in every way, especially in the amount of bass it can generate, as well as its price tag.

Using these examples as a baseline for comparison, I wonder what Dave might have in mind that would set his subwoofer (if he is indeed even designing one) apart. Will it have even higher sound quality all the way down to 20 Hz for a similar price to that of AV123's current offerings? Or will it fill the output and quality gap between these and the F112/F113? The latter concept appears to be where the improved SVS Ultra series is intended to be positioned (in sealed mode--with its ports open, the Ultra is designed to exceed the F113's output :eek: ). How about a ported sub from Ascend with massive output that still sounds "tighter" than any of these existing sealed subs! :D


With Dave's focus on music I'd expect any sub from Ascend not to get into to the louder deeper wars. I would expect a focus on music reproduction and transient responses to match those of the Sierra.

While this is certainly valid reasoning, the Sierra-1 can apparently go deeper and louder than virtually any two-way, single-woofer speaker its size while maintaining superlative sound quality for music. The problem with subwoofers even today is that there are significant tradeoffs between output, extension, and transient response (which are then meshed with cost, cabinet size, and whether it's ported). I'm not going to kid myself or anyone else that these inherent tradeoffs will ever magically go away, but if Dave could achieve in a subwoofer what he has achieved in a bookshelf speaker--for a similarly affordable price--I think that such a sub could shift the state of the art once more.

For one thing, if transient response could somehow be improved sufficiently in a ported design (doesn't seem to hurt the Sierra-1 too much), then everything else would become a bit easier (well, maybe not extension/cabinet size). It'll be interesting to see what the upcoming SVS PB13- and PC-Ultra can do within their design constraints. I imagine that there would be a demand for a smaller, less expensive sub with even better sound quality and levels of output and extension that can get anywhere close, for example.


my only concern with the whole bamboo cabinet sub is what it would cost... with a pair of bookshelves costing in the $800 range, i'd imagine a quality sub with a bamboo cabinet would be more than that.

I don't know how much of the Sierra-1's cost is in its cabinet, but you're paying for more expensive drivers, as well (particularly the woofer, I'd imagine). Obviously, there are bookshelf speakers made of MDF that cost significantly more, even from internet-direct companies, so that's not the whole picture.

[FirstReflect]

While the specifics of the woofer and tweeter layout - be it MTM, MMT or something else - aren't really the topic of my post, what I really want to point out is that something capable of more output with the same quality as the Sierra-1 could really be useful in the Ascend lineup!

Let's look at some numbers:

The Sierra-1 speakers are rated as having a 87 dB 1W/1m sensitivity

This may be conservative or the number may, in fact, be lower in some rooms, but let's just go with the given rating.

Another given rating is that they can accept a short term peak power input of 400 Watts.

So let's assume that we want to be able to reproduce real concert music levels or, for that matter, THX spec levels for movies.

That means, at whatever seating distance we chose, we want an average listening level of about 85 dB and we also want to be able to hit short term peak output levels of about 105-106dB (for the big crescendos or huge movie explosions! :D )

The 85 dB level is no problem unless we're VERY far away. But hitting those short term 105 dB peaks is another matter!

Let's say we're sitting a typical 8-9 feet away. I say typical because this is a very common seating distance for many people in their living rooms and also a distance that would make a lot of sense in a room, the size of which would make bookshelf sized, rather than larger or smaller sized speakers the most appealing.

At 6 feet (roughly 2 meters), we lose 6 dB off of that stated sensitivity. And we'll lose an additional 3-4 dB for the extra 2-3 feet.

So right away, with 1 Watt of power, we'd be hearing something around 77-78 dB of output from a Sierra-1 speaker. If the stereo pair is playing together, we can add 3 dB to that. But if it were, say, just the center speaker on its own - we have to stick with the 77-78 dB number, so let's just work with that.

10x the power gives us 10 dB more output, so 10 Watts = 87-88 dB. Easy for any receiver or amp out there and we're already past our average listening level, so that was a piece of cake!

Ok, 10x more power for 10 more dB. 100 Watts = 97-98 dB. 100 Watts/channel is pretty typical these days for a lot of receivers out there. And 98 dB is pretty darn loud. But it isn't concert level loud. So let's go right up to the maximum these speakers can deliver. According to the specs, we can input up to 400 Watts for short term peaks. So let's go ahead and do that and see what we get!

2x more power gives 3 dB more output. 200 Watts = 100-101 dB

And finally 2x more power and another 3 dB more output. 400 Watts = 103-104 dB

There! We pretty much hit that 105 dB peak we were after! So long as our amp or receiver can deliver the short term power of 400 Watts needed, we can reach concert or THX levels with the Sierra-1 speakers.

BUT THAT'S IF WE'RE SITTING 8-9 feet AWAY

What happens in a larger listening room or theater with a seating distance that is further away from the speakers? Let's sit just 12 feet away - a very common seating distance in a lot of moderately sized home theaters, so certainly not a stretch in terms of imagining this being a real seating distance. And in a room with dimensions of, say 14' x 20' x 8', bookshelf sized speakers would still make a lot of sense and a 12 foot seating distance would be totally normal.

So at 12 feet (very roughly 4 meters) we've lost about 12 dB of output vs. the output at 1 meter or 3 feet (we lose about 6 dB every time the distance doubles - it's an inverse square rule)

So with 1 Watt, we've got 75 dB. And using the same method as before, when we reach that 400 Watt max. short term input, we get 101dB of sound output.

Now, by all accounts, this is still very loud. And for the most part a 3 dB difference in output is subjectively only "barely perceivable". So the Sierra-1 speakers will probably be just fine for most people with a room that's about 2500 cubic feet or smaller and a seating distance that isn't longer than about 10-12 feet. Again such number make perfect sense for a bookshelf sized speaker anyway. Most people would instinctively feel that a larger speaker is needed in a notably larger room or with a notably longer listening distance.

But my point is that even in a small to mid sized room, with very common seating distances, the Sierra-1 speakers are only barely able to reach full concert or THX levels and, in fact, come up just a bit shy.

And if you like to listen really loud, then there could be cause for concern as well.

I think the Sierra-1's are an amazing offering. For the large majority of people, I think they will play "loud enough" and for a good chunk of people they'll never even reach the limits.

But that said, there is definitely room in Ascend's speaker lineup for a "big brother" to the Sierra-1's. Something with a higher sensitivity - akin to the CMT-340SE's, or something that can accept more power, like say 2000 Watts. Or better yet, both!

I think getting smooth and controlled output down to 40 Hz is ample. Output below 60 Hz starts to get tricky with room placement and the reactions of the room itself, so I'm not necessarily looking for a "full-range" or "tower" speaker.

What I would love to see from Dave and his team at Ascend is simply a speaker with the same sort of sound and quality as the Sierra-1, but just with more output capability.

Ascend started with the CBM-170 as their only offering. Then the CMT-340's came and offered the same quality of sound, but with more bass extension and higher output capability. That's exactly the same sort of expansion I'd love to see in a Sierra-2 :D

As luck would have it, my current room and seating distance makes the Sierra-1's an ideal fit, both in terms of physical size and potential maximum output. But in a few years, I hope I might have a house and a larger dedicated theater. Hopefully, that will be enough time to see a larger Sierra-2 come out!

Thanks to Dave and everyone at Ascend for constantly working to up the ante and I hope some people find this helpful!

Jon

[Quinn]

I think it would be less expensive to buy a more powerful amp to get everything out of Sierra 1 then change speakers to Sierra-2(?) for more efficiency. Also, if you're using a sub the bass is the real power hungry area for a speaker and you're off-loading it.

I'd also say those short term peaks are more dependent on the quality of the amp section than it is on how many watts the amp is rated at. Then you get into the Sierra 1 doesn't have strong impedance swings making it fairly easy to drive.

I understand what you want. As a market what you desire is an extremely small market and doesn't make much sense for a small company to chase.

[FirstReflect]

Quinn, I more or less agree with what you've said. I certainly agree that a capable amp is most important in getting full performance from the Sierra-1's and certainly for those short term peaks (the typical 1-channel at 160 Watts maximum of most receivers ain't gonna cut it! :p ), but where I don't agree is in there being only a very small market for a "larger" Sierra speaker.

As an example, the CBM-170SE's have a higher efficiency than the Sierra-1's and the same 400 Watt maximum input for short term peaks. While other things come into play, such as distortion in particular, in terms of specifications, the CBM-170SE's are capable of "louder" output than even the Sierra-1's!

But that certainly didn't stop the CMT-340SE's from finding a market, did it? In many real ways, the CMT-340SE is a "bigger brother" to the CBM-170SE's. It has lower bass extension and is capable of even more output.

Truth in figures, the CBM-170SE's would fill the vast majority of peoples' rooms. Truth in figures, the CBM-170SE's could hit those 105 dB peaks for the majority of peoples' seating distances. Truth in figures, the CMT-340SE's aren't "necessary" for the vast majority of people!

But that certainly didn't stop them from selling! The CMT-340SE's most definitely found a market.

A lot of people aren't really very educated about sound, amp power and speaker output. A lot of people just go by looks. The Sierra-1's are gorgeous, but they are relatively small. They are a single driver and a single tweeter in a bookshelf sized speaker. That's what a lot of people see.

I happen to have gone a lot further and crunched the numbers. And by the numbers, the Sierra-1's could struggle in even "typical" rooms with "typical" seating distances if you want to play them extremely loud and really want to hit those concert level peaks.

But ignore the numbers and just go by looks and a lot of people out there are going to think the Sierra-1's simply can't play all that loud because they are relatively small.

Give it a "big brother" and I honestly don't think the market for a Sierra-2 is going to be "very small" as you have said it would be. The exact same logic should also apply to the CBM-170SE and CMT-340SE, but the proof is in the sales! Whether people truly "need" it or not, a lot of people just like to buy the "bigger" speaker - the one with more drivers. Doesn't mean it's better, doesn't mean they need it, but a lot of people will still buy it, "just to feel safe" :p

I've crunched the numbers and KNOW that I actually could use a larger speaker - or at least one capable of higher output. Not right this second, as I said, but with any luck in just a few years. Lucky for me that the timing could quite possibly work out very well if Sierra-2's are indeed a planned product ;) But freaks like me aside :p I truly think a "larger" Sierra speaker could easily find a market. The CMT-340SE's are excellent proof of this concept. If anything, it's actually someone like me - who's willing to crunch the number - who would come to the realization that I really don't need a "bigger" speaker. For the public at large, "bigger" still means "better".

If a Sierra-2 DIDN'T sell extremely well, I'd personally be very surprised!

Jon

[jvillas]

Dread Pirate Robert, and jonathan_teller, thank you both for some very interesting posts, really good reading, alot to think about. Thankx :)

[Quinn]

I meant a small market for playing them at the volume you're interested in not the size or more bottom end extension. I'd like a pair of Sierra towers if they happen.

Figures say the 170SE can play louder yes.....but that louder is going to be distorted in comparison to the Sierra. The 340 has half the distortion at the same volume as the 170. The Sierra 1 plays as louder than I can take it without distortion. I really don't see the need for a second driver to share the load. Now someone with a weenie amp may need that second driver for efficiency. But, how many people with cheap amps are going to spring for Sierra-2(?) for what I'd guess would be around $1500 or more a pair? Now, if Ascend delivers a Sierra 2 with two drivers around that price I'm certainly not going to complain.

I think we may be talking about different things like, louder at a certain amount of power vs loud and clean capability. I cannot listen to the 170 as loud as I can the the Sierra 1 because the Sierra 1 is still clean at those very high volumes.

Of course with Ascend's release rate we are all blowing a lot of hot air speculating on what product is next for the Sierra line. When that product won't likely be released for a year or more.

[jvillas]

One thing we should not forget is that there will be further improvements to be made on the existing line 200s 170s ,and 340s. Dave has made that very clear.

[FirstReflect]

Quinn, as I said, I agree with you. The only thing you said that I did not agree with was that the market for a Sierra-2 would be extremely small and not worth it for Ascend since they are a small company and can't afford to produce "niche" products. I just strongly disagree that a physically larger Sierra speaker that is capable of more output (ie. "louder") would only have an extremely small market. I personally believe it would sell very well and I've detailed my reasons in my last post.

Also, just to clarify, it's certainly not as though I want to listen at a 105 dB volume level all the time :eek: That is, quite literally, dangerous! And wouldn't be pleasant at all. No, the average listening volume I'm after is about 85 dB and there's no question what-so-ever that the current Sierra-1's and virtually any amp can deliver that.

It's the 20 dB of dynamic range above that, or the "headroom" that I'm after - and that is only for short peaks. A clean amp is certainly a "must", but so is the ability of the speaker.

Jon

[Dread Pirate Robert]

So right away, with 1 Watt of power, we'd be hearing something around 77-78 dB of output from a Sierra-1 speaker.

Your numbers look good, and as fortune would have it, the distance aspect generally works out to approximately -1 dB per foot of distance in an HT-sized room, just to keep things simple.


If the stereo pair is playing together, we can add 3 dB to that. But if it were, say, just the center speaker on its own - we have to stick with the 77-78 dB number, so let's just work with that.

The 105 dB reference peaks are, by definition, for each main (non-LFE) channel speaker alone (the LFE channel peaks at 115 dB).


Ok, 10x more power for 10 more dB. 100 Watts = 97-98 dB. 100 Watts/channel is pretty typical these days for a lot of receivers out there.

Because we're talking about peaks here and most specifications are for continuous power, most receivers could probably deliver 100 watts quite easily over the short term. That said, 100 watts/channel is usually quite an exaggeration for continuous power, even with a single channel driven.


And 98 dB is pretty darn loud. But it isn't concert level loud. So let's go right up to the maximum these speakers can deliver. According to the specs, we can input up to 400 Watts for short term peaks. So let's go ahead and do that and see what we get!

2x more power gives 3 dB more output. 200 Watts = 100-101 dB

And finally 2x more power and another 3 dB more output. 400 Watts = 103-104 dB

We can use the following simplified formulae (distance is in feet):

volume = 10*log(power) + efficiency - distance
power = 10 ^ ((volume + distance - efficiency) / 10)


There! We pretty much hit that 105 dB peak we were after! So long as our amp or receiver can deliver the short term power of 400 Watts needed, we can reach concert or THX levels with the Sierra-1 speakers.

You're right about the THX reference, but live concerts are way louder than that!


And for the most part a 3 dB difference in output is subjectively only "barely perceivable".

I thought that most people could perceive a 1 dB difference. I can, and I keep a list of volumes that are appropriate for each movie I own in 1 dB increments. I might be a purist about most things, but I doubt that most DVDs are truly consistent with any reference, as there is a 9 dB range for the levels I use to subjectively match the average dialogue volume.


I think getting smooth and controlled output down to 40 Hz is ample. Output below 60 Hz starts to get tricky with room placement and the reactions of the room itself, so I'm not necessarily looking for a "full-range" or "tower" speaker.

Agreed--at some point around this frequency range, it becomes increasingly important to be able to control and shape your bass response through independent subwoofer placement and equalization.


Thanks to Dave and everyone at Ascend for constantly working to up the ante and I hope some people find this helpful!

Great post, by the way--I love it when someone actually crunches the numbers, and doing it accurately is even better. :)


I think it would be less expensive to buy a more powerful amp to get everything out of Sierra 1 then change speakers to Sierra-2(?) for more efficiency.

Yes, but the point is that the Sierra-1 has its own limits, no matter how powerful the amp, and this is what his post was about.


Also, if you're using a sub the bass is the real power hungry area for a speaker and you're off-loading it.

Generally true, but the kind of deep bass that requires a lot of power would not even be reproduced by the Sierra-1 by itself, so effectively it doesn't count toward the nominal 400 watt peak limit. If the mixer removed most of this bass from one channel to the other channels in order to provide 105 dB peaks at higher frequencies, then the Sierra-1 had better be able to handle this.


One thing we should not forget is that there will be further improvements to be made on the existing line 200s 170s ,and 340s. Dave has made that very clear.

Speaking of which, looking at the pictures of the crossovers, it appears that a number of electrolytic capacitors are used. While they are probably used in compensation circuits and other areas where quality is not critical and large capacitances are often required, I wonder if even a modest improvement could be gained by replacing them with higher quality film capacitors. Frankly, I suspect that it wouldn't even be worth the cost, but I wonder if anyone has tried this anyway, just to find out for sure. Perhaps replacing the polyester bypass caps with polypropylene caps would make more of a difference at a lower cost, but I have no idea, and am not currently inclined to find out personally. :)

[ravingndrooling]

I had the pleasure of hooking up my Sierras to a Halo 51 for a couple of days and I can tell you that they will get plenty loud. My Rat Shack SPL said 115db, now in all fairness/reality I did have twin subs running about 7db hot as well. The Sierras didn't even blink, they just kept getting louder! THX levels I don't think will be a problem. Rush sounds AWESOME LOUD!! Now I just need to find the money for a Halo :D

[Quinn]

I don't think there'd be a small market for a Sierra 2 the opposite in fact. I meant designing a speaker for the volumes I thought you wanted would be a small market.

[FirstReflect]

Dread Pirate Roberts, thanks for your detailed breakdown and response and I'm glad you liked my post as well :D

Quinn, I think I get what you're saying now - about how the number of people who would actually require more output than the Sierra-1's can muster is probably a rather small market. I agree with that and I think I actually mentioned something along those lines myself, although I just stated it differently.

What I wanted to illustrate though is that the Sierra-1 speakers DO have limits. Most people, even in a 3000 cubic foot room, probably won't tax the Sierra-1's right to their limits. Their amp will probably limit them before the Sierra-1's do - and I think that is what you've been stressing - that most people's amps will be the true limiting factor. I agree with that as well.

But does that mean a physically larger Sierra speaker - that just so happens to be able to go "louder" - would not sell? I certainly think it would sell and now it's clear that you think it would sell as well, so again, I think we're in agreement.

I think the only sticking point in our conversation is whether or not we think it is worth Dave F.'s time and money to develop and manufacture a physically larger Sierra speaker. I honestly think it IS worth his time and money. I think a physically larger Sierra-2 speaker would sell very well. Again, I mention the CMT-340. Originally it was developed solely as a center speaker, but then people asked for and wanted stereo pairs for L/R speaker duty.

Did all those people truly require a larger speaker than the CBM-170? My guess is, probably not. But that didn't stop them from buying! :p The CMT-340's have been VERY successful and I'm sure the time and money Dave spent on their development has paid off for him in profits. I simply contend that a Sierra-2 would produce similar buying trends.

And the end of all that, there is this final fact: I for one could actually use more output than the Sierra-1's can deliver. I may be part of a very small market who would actually tax speakers to such extremes, but never-the-less it is a real situation. One that is backed up by the numbers and not just me thinking I'd like a larger speaker.

The point of my post was to illustrate with the numbers that even in a 2500 cubic foot room, the Sierra-1's could be pushed beyond their capabilities using only THX standards, which I don't think is an unreasonable standard to try and attain.

Be it people just thinking they'd like a bigger speaker, or people like me, who could genuinely need the extra headroom, I think there is a rather large market of people who would buy a physically larger Sierra-2. If I'm right about that, then it would be worth Dave's time and money to develop such a speaker. At the end of the day, it's all about making profit and running a healthy business. Dave and his team have done a wonderful and amazing job of not only releasing new products, but updating existing ones as well. In this way, Ascend continually delivers extraordinary value and ever increasing performance as well.

I'm simply eager to see the next product :D It's only a question of what that next product should be - what will be the best business move for Ascend? I'd just like to suggest that a Sierra-2 speaker - much like the CMT-340 to the CBM-170 - represents a logical "next step". Just as the CMT-340's sold extremely well, I think a Sierra-2 would do the same.

And all of that logic aside - I just need and want a physically larger Sierra speaker that's capable of more output! :D I'm not afraid to admit there's some selfishness to my suggestion ;) I just think Dave and his team would happen to profit as well! I know for sure they'd have at least one guaranteed sale. Can I pre-order, Dave?

:p :D :cool:

Jon