If there are new Sierra's or new name speakers.

[King]

I would like to see a monitor closer to the Cremona Auditors sound built with sub use in mind for the bottom end.

I have compared my speakers and there is an sq gap along with a huge price difference.

[DougMac]

I would like to see a monitor closer to the Cremona Auditors sound built with sub use in mind for the bottom end.

I have compared my speakers and there is an sq gap along with a huge price difference.

I think it's a compliment to Dave and the rest of the Ascend team when Sierras are mentioned with high end audiophile speaker offerings. This post had me Googling "Cremona Auditors". I'll have to take other's word for sq difference, but the price difference is truly astounding!

What would make these speakers cost 5x+ the cost of Sierras? I'm sure there was some R&D costs, but Sierra's represent a tremendous amount of work and experience. The drivers and crossover are top notch, but the drivers and crossover used in Sierra's aren't slouches either.

The most obvious difference to me was the materials and handcrafting of the cabinets, which are admittedly beautiful. From the description, it seems they are more sonically inert than standard braced MDF. Whether they offer a huge advantage over the laminated bamboo of the Sierra's is hard to tell.

Sometimes I'm not sure of the intentions of posts like this. Does the poster want Dave to produce a product that sounds as good as a $5k speaker but sells for less than $1k, or do they want Dave to design and offer a $5k speaker? Do they want him to produce a speaker with a Sonus Faber sound?

If it's to produce a less expensive speaker to rival that of way more expensive speakers, there are those who feel the Sierra already does that. Professional reviewers have favorably compared them to speakers costing many times more. If it's to offer another line of speakers with stratospheric prices, I'm not sure how that fits into Dave's philosophy. I sure hope it doesn't. If it's to produce a speaker with a different signature sound, why not just buy the speaker with the sound signature you prefer?

[Mag_Neato]

To keep within Ascends' philosophy, producing a no-holds barred, cost-be-dammed speaker, would not fit in. Giving the average audio joe a taste of the hi-end for a mid-fi price is more inline. Sure, if Dave want to produce a speaker like the Sonus Fabers I'm sure he could, but for who? If he can approach the qualities of such a speaker at a fraction of the cost to us customers, then that's what Dave is all about.

Now, as I have mentioned already, an "SE" path for the Sierra-1 would be my preference. Taking the Sierra ever so closer to the level of the megabuck speakers. Much like the original Datsun 240Z back in the day, taking on the big dollar sports cars!

So let's go, Dave, Show us what you have cooking!:D

[curtis]

IMO...the Sierras, already give us Average Joes a taste of the high end for our Average Joe budgets.

[Mag_Neato]

True dat, Curtis! To simplify my statement let me put it this way:

I love my Sierra-1's! If Dave never does anything to upgrade them, they are still an excellent speaker and value. Should Dave decide to offer an upgrade that would bump up the performance, and make people say that they compete with models costing $5000 and more, rather than saying they are the speaker to beat at 1K or less, then I'm all for that. Dave knows the speaker game better than any of us commoners, and will no doubt keep the Sierras up to date, so to speak, performance-wise. I am extremely satisfied with my Sierras, but if an upgrade appears then why not!

[curtis]

Agreed.

Dave/Ascend is about selling an honest product at an honest price.

6 or 7 years ago, I heard a speaker that retailed for approx. $1000 in stores. At the time I felt the old classic CBM-170 was able to compete with it in terms of sound...or course the cabinet on the more expensive speaker was a nicer wood veneer.

About two years ago, that same speaker was retailing for $1100/pr, and a local A/V shop was no longer going to sell the brand, so he was having a blow out sale on them....at $600. The shop owner told me his "cost" was $400. So comparing them to the CBM-170 made a lot of sense to me and reinforced my thoughts on Ascend's business model.

[davef]

About two years ago, that same speaker was retailing for $1100/pr, and a local A/V shop was no longer going to sell the brand, so he was having a blow out sale on them....at $600. The shop owner told me his "cost" was $400.

So, with a wholesale cost of $400, we can assume that this pair of speakers probably cost $160 to build -- and they retailed for $1100?

It costs us more than $160 to build a pair of HTM-200SE these days :mad:

Sadly, I am starting to think I am in the wrong business :(

I found some really cool looking rocks outside and I swear that by placing them in my room, not only did my speakers sound better, but my video looked better too. I can't post measurements confirming this but my eyes and ears can be trusted -- trust me ;)

$500 for a matched set of two sounds reasonable. I will post a link so you can order them soon. Note, quantity is very limited --- these "wave bend stones" are extremely rare...

I will even offer you a 30-day satisfaction guarantee, less 15% re-stock fee and shipping and handling...

[mziegler]

I have the rocks with moon dust which affect gravity fields to create perfect off-axis sound.

We should talk.

[King]

Sometimes I'm not sure of the intentions of posts like this. Does the poster want Dave to produce a product that sounds as good as a $5k speaker but sells for less than $1k, or do they want Dave to design and offer a $5k speaker? Do they want him to produce a speaker with a Sonus Faber sound?
?

Yes, Dave should sell a 5k sound for less then 1k, or give them away, even better. :)
Or
Step up the next speaker to fill the void between say a Sonus Faber and the current Sierra monitor, and yes of course charge more. I mistakenly thought it was implied in my first post.

SF is a top sound signature choice. I did draw it out of a hat of reviews and ownership.
Sierras are great (I own 4) but they are in a different league then the Expensive SF speakers, as they should be.
If Dave can step up the monitors to get closer, at a less then SF current cost, I would be a buyer.
He would then cover higher price points for buyers and give us upgrade possibilities with our current subs. Maybe make a few $$ for himself too.

[curtis]

I doubt Dave would aim for the Sonus Faber....it employs different approach to speaker design...first order crossover to name one(some would actually call that a negative), it also doesn't have as deep as bass extension according to its specs. As far as the crossover is concerned, it can be argued that the Sierra's OPPIX crossover is more advanced.

[King]

it also doesn't have as deep as bass extension according to its specs. As far as the crossover is concerned, it can be argued that the Sierra's OPPIX crossover is more advanced.

My SF Auditors extend to 46hz. Thats why I mentioned a sub in my post, as it improves both speakers for music to many, and most for HT.

Everyone has their own taste in speakers, so let just call it speaker X with a great to anyone looking/listening 4k to 6k sound.
A Dave speaker, notched up closer to speaker X SQ, without the full price, would bring my interest. Since I have seen what he can build and sell for $800.
A 2k to 3.5k speaker would be amazing from him, and give buyers choices for upgrades and not have to leave the Dave line.

PS
Curtis do you prefer the Sierra sound vs the SF Auditors sound, forgetting the huge cost difference?

[GirgleMirt]

I doubt Dave would aim for the Sonus Faber....it employs different approach to speaker design...first order crossover to name one(some would actually call that a negative), it also doesn't have as deep as bass extension according to its specs. As far as the crossover is concerned, it can be argued that the Sierra's OPPIX crossover is more advanced.

I don't think it's really a good idea to embark in design decisions here... Some swear by metal drivers for example, but there's never been any metal in any Ascend drivers/tweeters... 1st order is phase coherent if I remember correctly, and to some that's more important than the benefits of 2nd, 3rd or 4th order crossovers, plus it depends largely on drivers used, etc... And in my experience, there's hardly ever any reply to anything technical here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_crossover#First_order_crossovers

First order crossovers

1st order filters have a 20 dB/decade (or 6 dB/octave) slope. All 1st order filters have a Butterworth filter characteristic. 1st order filters are considered by many audiophiles to be ideal for crossovers. This is because this filter type is 'transient perfect', meaning it passes both amplitude and phase unchanged across the range of interest. It also uses the fewest parts and has the lowest insertion loss (if passive). A 1st-order crossover allows more signals of unwanted frequencies to get through in the LPF and HPF sections than do higher order configurations. While woofers can easily take this (aside from generating distortion at frequencies above those they can properly handle), smaller high frequency drivers (especially tweeters) are more likely to be damaged since they are not capable of handling large power inputs at frequencies below their crossovers.

In practice, speaker systems with true first order acoustic slopes are difficult to design because they require large overlapping driver bandwidth, and the shallow slopes mean that non-coincident drivers interfere over a wide frequency range and cause large response shifts off-axis.


Second order crossovers

2nd order filters have a 40 dB/decade (or 12 dB/octave) slope. 2nd order filters can have a Bessel, Linkwitz-Riley or Butterworth characteristic depending on design choices and the components used. This order is commonly used in passive crossovers as it offers a reasonable balance between complexity, response, and higher frequency driver protection. When designed with time aligned physical placement, these crossovers have a symmetrical polar response, as do all even order crossovers.

It is commonly thought that there will always be a phase difference of 180° between the outputs of a (second order) low-pass filter and a high-pass filter having the same crossover frequency. And so, in a 2-way system, the high-pass section's output is usually connected to the high frequency driver 'inverted', to correct for this phase problem. For passive systems, the tweeter is wired with opposite polarity to the woofer; for active crossovers the high-pass filter's output is inverted. In 3-way systems the mid-range driver or filter is inverted. However, this is generally only true when the speakers have a wide response overlap and the acoustic centers are physically aligned.


Fourth order crossovers

Fourth-order filters have an 80 dB/decade (or 24 dB/octave) slope. These filters are complex to design in passive form, as the components interact with each other. Steep-slope passive networks are less tolerant of parts value deviations or tolerances, and more sensitive to mis-termination with reactive driver loads. A 4th order crossover with -6 dB crossover point and flat summing is also known as a Linkwitz-Riley crossover (named after its inventors), and can be constructed in active form by cascading two 2nd order Butterworth filter sections. The output signals of this crossover order are in phase, thus avoiding partial phase inversion if the crossover bandpasses are electrically summed, as they would be within the output stage of a multiband compressor. Crossovers used in loudspeaker design do not require the filter sections to be in phase: smooth output characteristics are often achieved using non-ideal, asymmetric crossover filter characteristics.[1] Bessel, Butterworth and Chebyshev are among the possible crossover topologies.

Such steep-slope filters have greater problems with overshoot and ringing[2] but there are several key advantages, even in their passive form, such as a the potential for a lower crossover point and increased power handling for tweeters, together with less overlap between drivers, dramatically reducing lobing, or other unwelcome off-axis effects. With less overlap between adjacent drivers, their location relative to each other, becomes less critical and allows more latitude in speaker system cosmetics or (in car audio) practical installation constraints.

The OPPIX would fit in, I believe:

Mixed order crossovers

Crossovers can also be constructed with mixed order filters. For example, a second order lowpass combined with a third order highpass. These are generally passive and are used for several reasons, often when the component values are found by computer program optimization. A higher order tweeter crossover can sometimes help compensate for the time offset between the woofer and tweeter, caused by non aligned acoustic centers.
or per Ascend's words:

OPPIX stands for Optimized Paradromic Phase Integrated X-Over (crossover). This sophisticated variable slope crossover precisely aligns the acoustic phase response of multiple transducers at the exact point where the response of one transducer crosses over to another, with reference to a specific point in space. This precise alignment allows the transducers to mimic a single point source radiator, allowing for symmetrical dispersion even with an asymmetrical transducer layout while maintaining a linear frequency response and greatly reducing off-axis phase and response anomalies. It also avoids the undesirable frequency response anomalies commonly found with even the best coaxial drivers.


I'm really tempted about building a pair of these: http://www.zaphaudio.com/ZD5.html Just for the sake of building something, and I guess in the hope of getting something which might better the Sierras, without breaking the bank, with parts and all, this should still be under the 1000$ mark, but anyhow, my point is that there's a hell of a lot more than just saying "this is 1st order it's not as good as X", just take what the designer has to say about the crossover, in this case, a second order (think the 2nd quote is more to the point):


As you can see, I resisted simplifying this crossover in order to reach perfection regardless of cost. The woofer filter consists of a single inductor with 2 response shaping LCR notches, one series and one parallel. The tweeter filter consists of a single padding resistor (R0), 3 core response shaping components (C1, L2 and R3), a ladder delay network (L4, C6, C7 and L8) and an impedance flattening conjugate notch (C10, L11 and R12). R0 is used instead of a L-pad located after the filter, which has some tweaking benefits to be shown later. The XT25 is a tweeter without ferrofluid and it has a huge, sharp impedance peak. The conjugate notch is required. Without it, the tweeter will ring at the Fs, causing audible distortion. It's a little more obvious with an LR2 system. The XT25 is one of the most misused tweeters around because many choose to use it without a notch, and the shunt resistor in an L-pad often isn't enough to damp the peak. There's nothing too out of the ordinary about the crossover, except the appearance of the ladder delay network which doesn't seem to be used in other designs very often.

The ladder delay network is really the secret to this crossover. There are 3 passive solutions to the problem of mismatched acoustic center offsets common to LR2 designs. The first and most common is asymmetrical crossover slopes and the other common solution is using a slanted baffle. These work but are not optimal. Asymmetrical crossover slopes cause poor phase tracking around the crossover point which can remove a level of coherency depending on how severe the phase angles don't line up. (this is debatable and unproven however) There's no problem with crossovers that are mildly asymmetrical, but if you have to go more than one order in either direction on either slope, there can be some problems with the drivers not summing to flat. Slanted baffles represent a couple a different problems. First off, the drivers are off axis, which affects vertical off axis response and rolls off the top end response of both drivers. With the XT25, that's a big issue. Sure, using a 3/4" dome would solve the top end off axis issue, but I have not seen any acceptable 3/4" domes. The Hiquphon doesn't even come close to the performance required in a reference level design like this. Other 3/4" domes don't have the low end balls to pull off a LR2 crossover.

So, with all that in mind, you can see that the ladder delay network is the best solution in this system. It allows us to use a flat baffle, getting us the most out of the XT25's top end and giving us good phase tracking around the crossover point and symmetrical lobing when hitting LR2 targets perfectly.


Summary
This system is a bit outside of my normal high value tendencies, but I would not have posted it if I did not think it offered some improvement over the average 5" 2-way design. This is without a doubt the best sounding 5" 2-way I've designed. I won't be so bold and arrogant to say this is the best 5" 2-way in the world, but I will say that I've seen enough overpriced speakers that just don't sound as good as their price might suggest mainly due to under performing drivers and poor design decisions.

Part of the magic of this system is simply due to the fact that it's a solid LR2 design. Accurate 2nd order slopes are hard to pull off, and only very wide bandwidth drivers with smooth response and low distortion need apply. Make no mistake that shallow slope crossovers sound better than steep slope crossovers. But doing shallow slopes right amounts to much, much more than just throwing a cap and coil on the tweeter and woofer. My Waveguide TMM design was more of a hardware solution addressing some typical LR2 design issues. This Scan Speak / Vifa system is more of an electrical solution.

In the end, an LR2 design has 180 degrees of phase wrap through the crossover while an LR4 has 360 degrees. The lower phase wrap directly equates to an improved midrange coherency. Honestly, most drivers and system designs require LR4 or greater slopes just to work properly. But when everything comes together for a LR2 system, it's the sweet spot in speaker design. Why is it the sweet spot? Because the next step is no crossover at all in a full range driver, which is a step backwards, introducing a whole different set of problems that detract from good sound.

If you are after value, this system is not for you. If you're after high performance music reproduction that is very uncolored and true to the original recording... and you have a few extra bucks to spend, you might consider this design.

Anyhow, I don't mean this in anyway as a irk on the Sierras or anything... Personally, I'm really curious about for example the above vs Sierras. The ZD5, just driver cost alone, is 2x40$, and the woofers are 2x240$, raising already the total to 600$, which almost what I paid for my finished Sierras... Another pair I'd be very interested if they were also bookshelves, the ZRT, but these use 250$ woofers and 250$ tweeters...

Realistically, speakers using these drivers will cost quite a bit... Ascend/David designs his own custom drivers, so if they're really good, and don't cost as much as the super expensive ones, can surely lead to very good bang for the buck... But... How far can you take that? With the ID model, great speaker design, custom drivers, already with the Sierras it's been shown they can compete with other speakers costing much more... But can it be taken to the next level and compete with the best of the best, and at a much lower price range?

Again, Zaph, like David I'm sure :) Has measured a ton of woofers and tweeters, and for the ZRT tower (http://www.zaphaudio.com/ZRT.html) 'Zaph' simply used the best tweeter/woofer he's ever tested... But these are nearly 1000$ of tweeter/woofer cost alone... Certainly, some drivers might be cheaper and might come close, but if you want the best, then normally you have to pay for it... Hence the big challenge here...

Anyhow, a good crossover is critical, cabinet is also very important, but the quality and performance of drivers is also essential and I think the irk lies here, getting the top performers is expensive, which leads to expensive speakers... But with the custom designed drivers... Who knows! Look at Sierras...

Like they say, 'You can't have the butter and the money from the butter.' Reminds me of photography and tripods for example: Choose 2 of the 3. -Good quality -Lightweight -Inexpensive. It always seems to come down to compromises between price and quality, as you reduce the price, quality invariably comes down. It's about the balance... But expecting cutting the price by a factor of five and hoping to keep 100% of quality is unrealistic in most cases I believe...

[Jonnyozero3]

Dude....that may be the longest post I've ever seen in this forum.

Btw, I'm selling bottles of snythetically produced Higgs-Bosons which, when coated on your tweeter waveguide, allow frequencies above 192Khz to spontaneously replicate using the Heisenberg-Uncertainty Principle; filling in the missing high-frequency gaps of even your best lossless audio codec. Available in both Pine Fresh(tm) and Mountain Rain(tm), for a limited time only. Proudly made in the U.S.A.

[GirgleMirt]

Ooops! Sorry! There's actually a lot of stuff involved in speaker design...

I for one have tried many rock tweaks and was always disappointed... Always a sort of hardness to the sound... Hard to explain... Great for hard rock or rock and roll, for example rolling stones sounds fantastic, so do stone temple pilots... But there's a weight to the sound... I'm more a proponent of organic tweaks (http://www.soundstage.com/audiohell/audiohell200306.htm). Much more organic sound, and if you go bio... Ooooh... the background is so black... Blacker than you've ever heard before. Like so black, seems everything gets sucked into it... Light probably can't escape it... You can basically see dark matter. That good.

[Mag_Neato]

Pretty quiet around here the past several days.

Dave, any bones to throw us regarding a new product, or perhaps a Sierra-1 upgrade?:D

[merrymaid520]

Pretty quiet around here the past several days.

Dave, any bones to throw us regarding a new product, or perhaps a Sierra-1 upgrade?:D

It has been very quiet lately.....Dave must be hard at work on the next best thing:p

[King]

It has been very quiet lately.....Dave must be hard at work on the next best thing:p

Retirement!

[davef]

Retirement!

Ha -- I got a few more good years left in me ;)

Actually, when it is really quiet around here, it means that I am working real hard somewhere else...

Curious about something, what would people be willing to pay for a Sierra-1 "upgrade" to bring the speaker to the next level in performance?

[merrymaid520]

Ha -- I got a few more good years left in me ;)

Actually, when it is really quiet around here, it means that I am working real hard somewhere else...

Curious about something, what would people be willing to pay for a Sierra-1 "upgrade" to bring the speaker to the next level in performance?

Good to hear! Maybe around $100 or so plus shipping per pair? Just throwing a number out there:D

[mrvoid]

Whoa! "Upgrade" Now thats a dangerous word. :D You have my attention.
On the other hand the Sierra's still sound just awesome the way they are. Options are nice though.

[Mag_Neato]

Now we're talking!

I'd say to significantly upgrade the Sierras it would probably be in the area of $200-$300 a pair with shipping. The 170 SE upgrade was between $100-$200 if memory serves.

[sbeveraggi]

Ha -- I got a few more good years left in me ;)

Actually, when it is really quiet around here, it means that I am working real hard somewhere else...

Curious about something, what would people be willing to pay for a Sierra-1 "upgrade" to bring the speaker to the next level in performance?

Maybe around $300-350 per pair if it really takes them to a whole new level...
What specific areas are you working on improving Dave?

[blindcat7]

I think it would depend on how high the next level is. I am quite happy with the Sierras, but more is always better!

A small improvement would likely have to run $50-100 to get me to bite. A significant improvement would probably get me to pay $150-300 depending on level of significance, and to move from the current Wow! of the Sierras to WOW!!!!!, I would probably be willing to go as high as a little over half again over the cost of a standard pair. If you are able to get more out of it than that,I think you've just invented the Sierra 2.

On my current shoestring budget, I'd have to do some saving to get anything more than the simple upgrade, but if you announced such an upgrade, the upgrade fund would probably get started the next day.

Chris

[mziegler]

That's a tough question. It was worth the money for me to move from the 340se to the Sierra. The improvement was both aesthetic and sonic.

It seems to me that a similar improvement, if you could somehow quantify it, would cost more because I assume it takes more dollars for the same improvement (i.e., a sound improvement curve would be logrithmic as one approaches "perfect" sound).

Are you talking about an SE Sierra, or a new beast? Do you already know what your options are, or would you have to start with entirely new designs and testing?

I think you have well established yourself as someone concerned with price/performance value. I love to hear what an SE version of the Sierra would sound like.

[Mag_Neato]

An upgrade at this time for the Sierra's would work well for me, since my pair are currently in the original packing box.:cool:

[Jonnyozero3]

Curious about something, what would people be willing to pay for a Sierra-1 "upgrade" to bring the speaker to the next level in performance?

I'd be interested, for sure. I'm whole-heartedly sold on the Sierras and what they can do...I'd be in for upwards of $300 shipped. Hell, if you made a good enough case for what the improvements are, I could even go higher.

[Bill Mac]

Curious about something, what would people be willing to pay for a Sierra-1 "upgrade" to bring the speaker to the next level in performance?

Dave,

Not sure but what ever the cost is I'm in:D. The biggest issue for me would be not having my Sierras for the time it would take for shipping and upgrading. Please keep us all up to date on what these "upgrades" will consist of and the overall benefits to an already excellent speaker:).

Bill

[King]

Big upgrade to current Sierra's, up to 50%

Double the speaker sq upgrade would = double the money.
(As this would sound better, then anything near its price point.)

[Mag_Neato]

Well, I would not expect 50% of the original price for an upgrade. You already have the cabinet and basic drivers & crossover. Swapping out, say, the tweeters and maybe revising the existing crossovers if required should not be $400-$450. I'd think the woofer could be left alone since it is already excellent. Higher quality tweeters and misc. x-over parts, and the labor + shipping would be, in my estimation, the real costs involved.

Just my 2 cents. I think(hope!) that Dave would stay with the maximum bang for the buck philosophy.

[qwknuf6]

I think the price of improved performance gets much higher as the level of performance rises , its not linear , 100.00 may get a 10% improvement at lower levels , may take 1000.00 to get 1% at a higher level

I am in for upgrades

Mark

[Mag_Neato]

I don't think Dave would head down the road of "cost-be-damned". It would deviate away from the very philosophy that is Ascend Acoustics, being high-end sound at mid-fi prices.

[qwknuf6]

agreeded :)

[pegleg]

Dave wrote "I found some really cool looking rocks outside and I swear that by placing them in my room, not only did my speakers sound better, but my video looked better too. I can't post measurements confirming this but my eyes and ears can be trusted -- trust me"

Oddly enough, I found that placing green magic markers in the drawers with my CDs actually improved their sound (the CDs, not the markers).

I wonder if I should put the markers next to my Sierras....

Pegleg

[aggieactuary]

When I'm ready for an upgrade (just got mine recently), I'd probably be willing to spend $300-450 depending on the upgrade.

It's exciting to think that these Sierra's can get even better!

[GirgleMirt]

what would people be willing to pay for a Sierra-1 "upgrade" to bring the speaker to the next level in performance?

Depends on what's the upgrade and what's the result!

[drewface]

I wonder if I should put the markers next to my Sierras....you'd probably got a bigger improvement by putting the markers INSIDE the Sierras. :D

[Jonnyozero3]

you'd probably get a bigger change by putting the markers INSIDE the Sierras. :D

corrected for ya... :D