Sierra front stage.....what surrounds?!?!

[mrsollars]

I'd love to stick with ascend bc they've been so great thus far.
I have the L/C/R with Sierra-1 in piano black.
I have the SVS pb-13 ultra in piano black.


now i'm torn on the surrounds. what is going to match best. the 170se's or the 200se's. different tweeter, etc.

just looking for your thoughts. i love info, the more the better, so dont be afraid to really get into the response.
I hear about timbre, etc. and i should have sierra's all the way around, but it's just not feasable. piano black would be nice....but i'm willing to sacrifice to continue supporting the ascend brand.

ok, ok,......let 'er rip.

thanks guys.

matt

[azanon]

Unless you do a lot of multi-channel music listening, I'd recommend HTM200SEs for the back channels due to their timbre matching to the Sierra's, their small size and being able to mount them flush, and being able to hide them easier/decor because of the size. I've found that on movies, including lossless tracks, they are absolutely superb for reproducing the intricate details of rear sound.

I hope your room accommodates a 7.1 instead of a 5.1 setup. I find that it really did add a nice, extra dimension to sound. There are a reasonable number of 7.1 tracks on blu-ray. And for those that are only 5.1, there are soundfields that give a nice simulated effect. I use THX select 2 for 7.1.

For fronts, the main extra challenge that they have that rear channels usually don't is for vocals. Its with vocals where I can EASILY tell the improvements a speaker like the 340SE, or presumably the Sierra, will easily stand out ahead of a 200SE. But for just random special effects will deep bass being handled by a sub.... a 200SE can eat that stuff up no problem.

[mrsollars]

that's great info....thanks.

so i'm guessing since you said that the 200se's matched well with the timbre of the sierra's......am i to assume that the 170se's don't?

if size and placement isn't a factor....is there any reason NOT to go with the the 170se's?!?
(i guess it's the 'bigger is always better' mentality kicking in.)

thanks for the input and keep it coming

[Mike^S]

If you're willing to wait, DaveF may come out with a smaller version of the Sierra. This may or may not happen and there is no timeline for release but if Dave can make it happen, it will.

Take a look at this thread:

http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?t=3898

[P Seastrand]

so i'm guessing since you said that the 200se's matched well with the timbre of the sierra's......am i to assume that the 170se's don't?I wouldn't make that assumption. While I'm no expert, my understanding is that all the Ascend line works well together since they are all very neutral in their sound. That's one if the main points for Ascend, in my opinion.

I have 340's across the front with 170's in back and I'm extremely happy with them. I bought before the Sierra's were announced, so they weren't an option for me. I have a friend who went with 200's all the way around and he is also very happy. I think the main decision point for you is which fits better into your room. Go with the 170's if you have room to install them, otherwise the 200's would work great.

[DougMac]

I decided to check out the specs of each and look again at the measurements to see if one looked like a better fit with the Sierras. Well, I saw nothing that helped. They use the same tweeters, so any difference will be from the woofers and basic design (sealed vs ported).

I don't have Sierras. I'm running 340's L/C/R. I do have 170SE's as side surrounds and 200 Classics as rear surrounds. I haven't done any true testing, but when running the level test from the receiver, white (pink?) noise in each speaker in succession, I hear maybe a tiny difference in timbre in the 170's and 200s.

I like both a lot. I guess you could make an argument that using a similar configuration (2 way ported) and a similar form factor might give the edge to the 170's, but practically it may make no difference.

Azanon makes a compelling argument for the 200's in his first paragraph, and I heartily concur with him to go 7.1 if at all possible.

Doug

[ccotenj]

ime...

i started with a sierra front stage, and a pair of the original htm-200's as my surrounds... i was perfectly content with that... for movies, the htm's were more than adequate, and i listen to very little multichannel music...

dave then ran a ridiculous sale on b-stocks that had been loaned out while people were waiting on piano blacks, and i had some spare change in my pocket, so i bought a pair of those to use as surrounds... to be honest, for movies, it's hard to say there was much of a difference... there's something to be said for the difference in multichannel music, but not necesarily as much as you'd presume there to be...

now i'm going to buy 3 cherry sierra's as soon as dave puts pricing up and use a pair of htm-200 se's that i picked up for surrounds. imo, the added bulk of the sierra for surround usage isn't worth the small gain i get from them. my room is 15X17, with the mains pulled 3 feet off the wall. so there's not a lot of area to spare. since the se's are a better speaker and better matched with the sierra's than the originals that i had, i'm pretty confident i'm going to be more than satisfied. the smaller form factor is a big bonus.

that being said, if (when?) the sierra .5 is produced, it's safe to say i'll jump on a pre-order list for a pair...

the change never ends.... :)

[curtis]

My vote, if you have the room for them, 170SE's as surrounds.....it is what I use with my Sierra front sound stage, a great match. The down side is the mounting, that is where the 200SE's are much easier.

[Tushar]

If you get to a point where you are mostly comfortable with both speakers (170, 200) but still torn on the decision, I would seriously suggest you make cardboard boxes the size and color of each cabinet and test placement for 5.1 and 7.1 before you order them. I have 200SE and very happy with them. As I've posted elsewhere I ordered 170SE and returned them because even in my 19' X 39' room they visually stood out too much. I also have the HTM 200's very close to the wall and I am not sure you can do that with the 170SE. Dave was really cool with the return but it was an avoidable hastle. If both look great in the room and you have room to add 2 more speakers for 7.1, go with the 170SE. Otherwise, get the 200SE and know that you're still getting an incredible little speaker that sounds great. If the 200SE looks still too big, review and add your inputs to the Sierra-0.5 thread.

[mrsollars]

i think i'm just going to pull the trigger on the 200se's. the wife would prefer the smaller form factor as everything else blends into decor pretty well.
thanks for the input.

matt

[DougMac]

i think i'm just going to pull the trigger on the 200se's. the wife would prefer the smaller form factor as everything else blends into decor pretty well.

matt
I think you'll be very happy with your choice. Be comforted in the knowledge you haven't given up anything for the sake of domestic tranquility.

Let us know what you think when you get them set up.

Doug

[azanon]

I think you'll be very happy with your choice. Be comforted in the knowledge you haven't given up anything for the sake of domestic tranquility.

Let us know what you think when you get them set up.

Doug

Again, I have to agree. The 170SE IS a better speaker, but I just personally think you're only going to realize noticing that improvement on vocals via multi-channel music.

I only rate myself as "casual" listener and certainly not expert, but I could probably only tell an HTM 200 SE from a 170 SE blind tested if I was allowed to hear a vocal track. (say... Josh Groban). I'm not counting bass comparisons because I'm assuming cross at 80hz.

[TooManyHobbies]

My surround sound experience is almost entirely with movies. In that case, the surrounds really don't do very much. Most of the time, if used at all, they provide ambiance/environmental sounds. Occasionally they add to the sound effects, but, at least for the movies I watch, the surrounds really don't do a lot. Almost any surround speaker will do, and frequency response below 100 Hz isn't really necessary, so ported enclosures really don't gain anything. As I recall, the 200's are closed-box and the 170's are rear ported. The rear porting will demand they be mounted out from the wall at least six inches, preferably more. Closed-box could be mounted flush to the wall. That makes the 200's easier to mount, a big plus even when space is not a concern. I really haven't paid close attention to the reproduction of any of the 5-channel music I have, but my impression is the majority of the sound comes from the front speakers. My impression is that surrounds, again, only provide spacial effects, so their performance will be less important. There's really little, if any, serious bass in the surround channels, and that's the only real plus a larger, ported speaker will provide anyway.