Please help with choice

[jrhooper1963]

I am torn between the choice of either the Sierra's or the 340's as my mains. I know I will be using the 200's for surrounds. My room is 14x13. I also will be placing the fronts within 10-12 inches of a wall behind them. I listen to 70 percent home theater, 30 percent music. Price is no object. I simply want to have the best sound. Which speaker would be less forgiving of close placement to a wall? I know that is a large variable, probably the key to my decision. PLEASE ADVISE

[DougMac]

Hopefully Dave will answer this, but the documentation states:
"the rear baffle of this loudspeaker should be located at least 3-4" away from a wall or any other obstacle".

The Sierra addendum has no further discussion regarding minimum rear clearance. Since the 340's and Sierras are both rear ported, I would think they would react in a similar manner; close placement to a wall will tend to strengthen bass compared to placement further out in the room. The Sierra's reach deeper, so that may be a factor. I'm not sure you'll run into anything that can't be tamed with an EQ adjustment.

I shared your delimma. I read everything I could and even PM'd some folks who had owned both Sierras and 340's. All felt the Sierra's sounded better, the difference was a matter of degree. Some stated the difference for them was significant, the majority said it was more subtle. One person expressed the difference by saying they thought the 340's in a treated room would sound better than Sierra's in an untreated room.

I ended up ordering the 340's. My decision was partly an economic one and partly based on appearance. The appearance factor may sound paradoxical since the Sierra's are much nicer looking. I'll be placing my mains behind an acoustically transparent screen. They need to be black, since anything behind an AT screen has to be black or you'll be able to see it under certain circumstances. Since they won't be seen, having those lovely bamboo cabs hidden would be a waste! This way, I'll save up and get Sierras for my office where I do 2 channel listening.

BTW, I own a pair of classic 200's. They're amazing little speakers and I understand the 200 SE's are even better.

Are you getting the 200's because of space or WAF? The 170's are on sale until May 19th and at the sale price, they're not much more than the 200's. That's what I ordered for surrounds.

Good luck and let us know what you decide.

Doug

[jrhooper1963]

I spoke with Dave and he told me that since I am using a sub crossed over at either 60 or 80 Hz, the rear port distance from wall wouln't be an isssue with the Sierras or the 340"s. He also told me that the 340 was a great speaker. And highly regarded, especially in it's price range. But he also explained that the Sierra was the superior speaker of the two. I guess that is why it costs more dough. Makes sense to me. Oh by the way, I chose the 200's for surrounds because of there size. The wife factor was not an issue. Although she thinks I need serious psychiatric help with my audio compulsion, she is also pretty tolerant. Also I promised her I would not do any calibrating or real loud listening while she is home. The test tones drive her freakin nuts.

[jrhooper1963]

HEY Doug, By the way. What is an acoustically transparent screen. What are they for? I'll have to run this one by the wife. She'll really think you need help. HAHA!

[DougMac]

HEY Doug, By the way. What is an acoustically transparent screen. What are they for? I'll have to run this one by the wife. She'll really think you need help. HAHA!

...Sitting here listening to "Maybe I Know" by Leslie Gore on my 200's. Sounds great even without a sub!

See Seymour Center Stage Screen (http://www.seymourav.com/screens.asp)

Every time you go the multiplex you're watching a movie on an AT screen. The nice thing about the AT screen is you can put your center at the perfect height.
My installation problem is that my screen for my front projector will be 54" high. Putting the center under the screen isn't recommended, especially if you have family members who like to stretch out on the floor or use back jacks. If I placed the center above the screen, it would be 7' high! Again, not the best solution.

With an AT screen, I can align my LCR speakers perfectly horizontally. I'll have to do some tests to determine whether L&R will be behind or to the sides of the screen. I'm leaning towards next to, since the geometry to my listening position will be optimum.

I did some tests on a 2'x2' sample from Seymour. My sweeps confirmed their results, response below 9k was virtually identical with or without the screen in front of the speaker. Response was down 3-5db from 9k up, but the good news is that the curves paralleled, proving the screen didn't add any funky dips or peaks.

This link will take you to photos of my HT, including screenies of the AT screen.
http://picasaweb.google.com/dougbrucemac/HomeTheater

Doug

[MichaelG]

I am torn between the choice of either the Sierra's or the 340's as my mains. I know I will be using the 200's for surrounds. My room is 14x13. I also will be placing the fronts within 10-12 inches of a wall behind them. I listen to 70 percent home theater, 30 percent music. Price is no object. I simply want to have the best sound. Which speaker would be less forgiving of close placement to a wall? I know that is a large variable, probably the key to my decision. PLEASE ADVISE

I've had both 340's and now Sierra's and I think you will be happy with either. If price is no object I would go with the Sierra's. The 340's are awesome but the sound quality is even better with the Sierra's. Also, I find that the sound from other seating positions is more comparable to the sweet spot. I let my wife sit in the center position when we watch movies and I have always sat to her right. These days I notice less of a difference with the Sierra's. Also, the Sierra's are a smaller speaker and in a smaller room that might make a difference depending on your taste.

Michael