Wisconsin GTG discussion

[billy p]

Sounds like the Towers acquitted themsleves rather nicely....One of the guests(Archaea) really like the Ascends over the Phils and ST....nice to read comments like that coming from a third party member....;)

Only weakness on the Sierra was the Bass...I happen to think the Bass is very good on my Towers....

[curtis]

Sounds like the Towers acquitted themsleves rather nicely....One of the guests(Archaea) really like the Ascends over the Phils and ST....nice to read comments like that coming from a third party member....;)

Only weakness on the Sierra was the Bass...I happen to think the Bass is very good on my Towers....
It is interesting to see what brands are dominating the discussion and why.

[Dark Ranger]

Both Billy and Curtis echo my thoughts at this point.

I've been following that thread intensely and I'm very interested to hear everyone's thoughts. I am undeniably biased to Ascend, although I am enjoying the reviews, videos, and pictures so far. Some of those speakers I will never own because of the price. However, the opportunity to gather with like-minded folks outside of a forum is priceless; the speaker demonstrations would be icing on the proverbial cake.

I think Nuance's wife impressed me the most with her review. :)

[billy p]

Holy smokes...my STC has just arrived.....:D. Last I heard from Dave... he said it would ship out late last week...what a funster.....jk.

It's really huge....:eek: Can't wait to hook it up...:cool:

I know, wrong thread...lol

[monkuboy]

Both Billy and Curtis echo my thoughts at this point.

I've been following that thread intensely and I'm very interested to hear everyone's thoughts. I am undeniably biased to Ascend, although I am enjoying the reviews, videos, and pictures so far. Some of those speakers I will never own because of the price. However, the opportunity to gather with like-minded folks outside of a forum is priceless; the speaker demonstrations would be icing on the proverbial cake.

I think Nuance's wife impressed me the most with her review. :)

I loved her review! Whether I would agree with it or not had I been there, I admired how forthright she was and just said what was on her mind, simply, honestly and in plain English.

One problem I saw from reading a lot of the comments was that in too many cases people seem to equate quality with volume. A couple of the speakers were made for really loud volumes whereas others were made for more sane levels. I mean, how many people regularly listen to music that loud all the time? That gave an unfair advantage to some of the speakers.

[curtis]

It definitely seems like the room was not something all the speakers could handle easily, so I am wondering what the listening levels were.

[billy p]

I think they mentioned levels were set at ~80dbs...if you include peaks and the fact all the material was high res...that would be really LOUD for most...:)

[Djoel]

I loved her review! Whether I would agree with it or not had I been there, I admired how forthright she was and just said what was on her mind, simply, honestly and in plain English.

One problem I saw from reading a lot of the comments was that in too many cases people seem to equate quality with volume. A couple of the speakers were made for really loud volumes whereas others were made for more sane levels. I mean, how many people regularly listen to music that loud all the time? That gave an unfair advantage to some of the speakers.

Exactly what I was thinking, I know the video can't serve to make any or type of audio quality decisions, but in certain instances you can definitely tell when the room, volume interacts with those speakers that weren't able to handle the high gain. I believe I read that the cathedral ceilings are about 13' ft alone. I felt the same way when the Song towers video played, which I heard reputable owners say that they can do lows pretty well and quite the capable for a speaker of that size.



It definitely seems like the room was not something all the speakers could handle easily, so I am wondering what the listening levels were.

Agreed, like I said you can tell from some of those video. were some of those speakers just could not handle the volume, even in my modest listening area which is about 14' by 21.5 9' high ceilings and I never listen too loud but I know they can hit crazy levels if I wanted to.

Djoel

[curtis]

I think they mentioned levels were set at ~80dbs...if you include peaks and the fact all the material was high res...that would be really LOUD for most...:)
That is loud, but not too loud.

When listening to the Towers at the Ascend shop, I think we were hitting at least 95dB peaks, but I don't think Dave's demo room is as big.

[Sonic Ray]

Where is the review thread that you guys are referencing?

[billy p]

Where is the review thread that you guys are referencing?

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1324185

It took place this past Saturday...you'll have lots of reading to catch up on...:).
I'd start reading from about post 841

[davef]

Sounds like the Towers acquitted themsleves rather nicely....One of the guests(Archaea) really like the Ascends over the Phils and ST....nice to read comments like that coming from a third party member....;)

Interesting comments so far. I haven't been paying too much attention to this GTG but the various comments seem to be inline with what I would have predicted. Salk owners prefer Salk, those who desire extreme SPL prefer the Seatons / JTR's. Thus far, the only comments from a truly unbiased listener preferred the Sierra Tower over the Salk Song Tower (Archaea). I am also curious as to the comments of the (2) Sierra Tower owners that attended.

I have one major concern though, it appears like many of the listeners were reporting/recording their results from different locations in the room. I wish that they would have mentioned their seating position for the particular speaker because a comparison between one speaker and another, when a listener is in different locations for each of these speakers, should really not be taken seriously -- especially with ribbon tweeters.

It also appears like Terry's room is huge and that many of the speakers were exhibiting compression -- it would have been rather simple to re-adjust the volume levels downward. Without question, this issue gives an advantage to those speakers designed to handle more power.

That said, seems like it was a fun time for everyone :D Hopefully the trend to promote high performance audio will continue in this age of the iPod :cool:


Only weakness on the Sierra was the Bass...I happen to think the Bass is very good on my Towers....

I didn't quite read the reviews that way, seems like most were impressed with the bass, especially when compared to the SongTower and Phil 2. However, I would definitely expect the bass response of our tower to be limited when compared to the HT2TL or SoundScape, which are MUCH larger speakers (more than double the cabinet volume) and also lower sensitivity. Generally speaking, higher sensitivity means sacrificing low end extension and vice versa...


It is interesting to see what brands are dominating the discussion and why.

LOL... Why am I not surprised at which brands are dominating the discussion? I suppose business as usual on AVS these days... :(

[GirgleMirt]

I think it was noted by someone that most often the speakers which do not garner attention are usually... ok let me look it up.. (from another thread and other speaker): "they sounded absolutely inoffensive on first listen, which I mean as highest praise. (If anything stands out, one can assume the speaker is flawed. See, e.g., B&W, Sonus Faber, Wilson.)" I liked that quote :)

I tend to describe speakers more by what they do wrong than anything else. Around page 33 so far, and haven't read anything really shocking... I'd have expected the JTR Tripple 12s to do better... For a while on avs it was all about high compression tweeters horns and high efficiency drivers, pro designs and these were supposed to blow everything away, looks like the Seatons did well, but at 4500$... Ouch, not 4500$... 7000$... They're a little bit more expensive than the rest...


Philharmonic 2: $2000/pair
Salk SongTower RT: $2700.pair
Ascend Acoustics Sierra Tower with RAAL ribbon: $2700/pair
JTR Triple 12-LP: $3000 (per pair?)
Salk Veracity HT2-TL: $4500/pair
Seaton Catalyst: $7000/pair
Salk SoundScape 10: $12,000/pair

Overall, so far, I'd have to say that the group of speakers there has to be considered impressive, and definitely good competition, definitely some big names with good reputations of having good bang for the buck, so the Ascends doing quite well is definitely something given their price point competition...

Also listening positions... Sigh... As someone who goes yearly to an audio show with probably 100+ systems, and has had plenty of experience of how important listening position and speaker placement is, I can sympathize... Looking at those people with their backs against the rear wall, or seeming really at either edges of the L/R speakers... sigh...


I have one major concern though, it appears like many of the listeners were reporting/recording their results from different locations in the room. I wish that they would have mentioned their seating position for the particular speaker because a comparison between one speaker and another, when a listener is in different locations for each of these speakers, should really not be taken seriously -- especially with ribbon tweeters.

Looking at the pics, weren't the speakers a little too close to the rear wall? I think it was to accommodate the many listeners, but normally, shouldn't the towers be further in the room? (I have my Sierras about 3.5 feet in the room...) Mieh, looks like they were maybe 1.5/2 feet away which is probably decent...

Anyhow, reading that thread, I'd say it's safe to say that the Ascends are definitely no slouch (top tier!) in their price point. :D Congrats Dave!

[sesquipedalian]

After reading through the avs thread I am interested to find out more about the perception that the RAAL ribbons didn't seem well integrated (or comments similar to that effect). What specifically might allow for that impression? Crossover differences? Room differences? Driver differences? Listener preference?

I own a pair of RAAL Sierra Towers, and I have noticed what seems to me, on some recordings, a more dominant upper mid and low treble similar to what one of the reviewers noted. I am not sure whether to attribute that to the speakers, my listening room, or the recordings. Given that I have less bass response than I would prefer in my room, it seems that it is likely a combination of the listening area and recording. If I paired the towers with a sub, I suspect I might hear more balance, even on the less than stellar recordings.

[arkiedan]

I don't usually post on these forums. I find I can learn more by keeping quiet and reading the posts of guys who are willing to spend far more time and have far more money than I, in pursuing this wonderful hobby. That said, in my opinion, way too much emphasis has been placed on last Saturday's GTG.

They're a great bunch of guys who, in their pursuit of audio nirvana, were willing to drive many hours to meet with like-minded folks and spend an afternoon comparing some truly fine speaker systems. That said, too many folks are treating that pleasant afternoon as the last words in speaker analysis. My humble thoughts are: the room was terrible, seating was all over the place or non-existant, with most standing along the rear wall. It has been said repeatedly that the speakers were usually driven beyond their limits, though only a couple systems were designed for those levels. In other words, nothing I've read in hundreds of posts can be reasonably considered credible. As usual, the analysis by "nuance" was well thought out and carefully written, emphasizing his bias regarding Jim Salk's line of products and the Songtower in particular. His wife's review of the day was terrific and he's a fortunate man to have her.

Me? I have owned Sierra-1's for the last year and I love them, finding them lacking in one important area: the mid-range in big orchestral works. The do try hard to reproduce the entire Vienna Symphony but just can't do it. They can't keep up. For that reason I've been wrestling with a choice between the Sierra tower with the RAAL tweeter or the Philharmonic Two's, Dennis Murphy's offering. The point is: while the Philharmonics and the Sierras were not reviewed as well as I would have liked, in fact the Phils were reviewed quite badly in a couple cases, I will discount ALL of the posts regarding last Saturday. If you were to set out to setup the absolute worst conditions to audition speaker systems, the result would be similar to that room. It was Horrible!

So, as for me, it's back to wrestling with my decision to go with the Sierra towers or the Philharmonic Two's. Salk's line? I think I'd love to buy a pair of Salks, except they can run up in price faster than the Miami Heat can runup the score. So, I'll read the next several hundred posts that endlessly discuss that group meet last weekend and I'll chuckle at the more outrageous statements. Then, hopefully, I'll finally pick one of my two favorite candidates.

Good luck to all in your own personal pursuit of audio nirvana,

old arkiedan

[monkuboy]

I agree with Arkiedan - not just the Wisconsin GTG but any sort of review that is posted, you have to take with a grain of salt and consider the circumstances. I thought the GTG was an excellent opportunity to compare several very highly regarded speakers and I eagerly looked forward to reading the results. However, to me it is clear those results were based on listening in far less than perfect conditions, and even the controllable aspects such as volume levels, were not handled as well as they could have been which ended up favoring a couple of speakers playing at high volumes that most folks would never have in their own environment. On top of that you have personal biases.

There's no substitute for listening in person and preferably in your own room. The one conclusion I came away with after reading all that was I appreciate my own speakers. I love the way they sound and so if I am that fortunate, I should be thankful, right? :D

With that many people and things set up as they were, it was a less than ideal environment in which to evaluate speakers but I still found it an interesting read. It's just if I were looking for speakers, I don't think I would be too influenced by any of the posts - I'd have to hear them myself.

[curtis]

After reading through the avs thread I am interested to find out more about the perception that the RAAL ribbons didn't seem well integrated (or comments similar to that effect). What specifically might allow for that impression? Crossover differences? Room differences? Driver differences? Listener preference?

I own a pair of RAAL Sierra Towers, and I have noticed what seems to me, on some recordings, a more dominant upper mid and low treble similar to what one of the reviewers noted. I am not sure whether to attribute that to the speakers, my listening room, or the recordings. Given that I have less bass response than I would prefer in my room, it seems that it is likely a combination of the listening area and recording. If I paired the towers with a sub, I suspect I might hear more balance, even on the less than stellar recordings.
Since it is on "some" recordings, it would seem that it is a issue with the recordings/material themselves.

I would definitely look into a sub if you think the room is bass shy, or trying to rearrange the room.

[merrymaid520]

Hey Dave,

Your predictions mirrored mine as well. We all prefer what we own, who would have thought:D

I presented my feedback in that thread just a few minutes ago. I mentioned my "theory" as to the differences I heard. I could be way off but it seemed logical. After you read over it, let me know if I am way off base or not.

In any event, once again a great time with friends and good music! My poor towers are always in the lime light:p

Brandon


Interesting comments so far. I haven't been paying too much attention to this GTG but the various comments seem to be inline with what I would have predicted. Salk owners prefer Salk, those who desire extreme SPL prefer the Seatons / JTR's. Thus far, the only comments from a truly unbiased listener preferred the Sierra Tower over the Salk Song Tower (Archaea). I am also curious as to the comments of the (2) Sierra Tower owners that attended.

I have one major concern though, it appears like many of the listeners were reporting/recording their results from different locations in the room. I wish that they would have mentioned their seating position for the particular speaker because a comparison between one speaker and another, when a listener is in different locations for each of these speakers, should really not be taken seriously -- especially with ribbon tweeters.

It also appears like Terry's room is huge and that many of the speakers were exhibiting compression -- it would have been rather simple to re-adjust the volume levels downward. Without question, this issue gives an advantage to those speakers designed to handle more power.

That said, seems like it was a fun time for everyone :D Hopefully the trend to promote high performance audio will continue in this age of the iPod :cool:



I didn't quite read the reviews that way, seems like most were impressed with the bass, especially when compared to the SongTower and Phil 2. However, I would definitely expect the bass response of our tower to be limited when compared to the HT2TL or SoundScape, which are MUCH larger speakers (more than double the cabinet volume) and also lower sensitivity. Generally speaking, higher sensitivity means sacrificing low end extension and vice versa...



LOL... Why am I not surprised at which brands are dominating the discussion? I suppose business as usual on AVS these days... :(

[billy p]

Just read your review merrymaid520 thanks form all us Ascend owners for pointing out to the attendee who called the RAAL implemenation as being done poorly....comments like that are totally uncalled for IMHO ...:)

Thanks...:D

[monkuboy]

Jim Salk just posted a possible alternative explanation on AVS for why the left Soundscape seemed to have a defective midrange. I thought this could also affect the other speakers that were less efficient - he postulated that the defect may actually have been the amp clipping, something that would not have happened with the higher-efficiency speakers. That's just another reason why the high-efficiency speakers had the advantage in an environment where everything was played at really high volumes. Here is the link:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=21918693#post21918693

[Dark Ranger]

Jim Salk just posted a possible alternative explanation on AVS for why the left Soundscape seemed to have a defective midrange. I thought this could also affect the other speakers that were less efficient - he postulated that the defect may actually have been the amp clipping, something that would not have happened with the higher-efficiency speakers. That's just another reason why the high-efficiency speakers had the advantage in an environment where everything was played at really high volumes. Here is the link:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=21918693#post21918693

Wow.

That changes things, doesn't it. A very informative post by Jim Salk. The confirmation by Nuance also seals the theory.

I could say a whole lot more, but what's done is done. I think this will be a good learning experience for everyone involved. :)

[sesquipedalian]

Since it is on "some" recordings, it would seem that it is a issue with the recordings/material themselves.

I would definitely look into a sub if you think the room is bass shy, or trying to rearrange the room.

The link to Jim Salk's post above gets at what I was hinting at (despite the lack of clarity in my post I was not trying to suggest that my experience was the fault of the speaker). Instead, if one has an issue, before blaming the speaker, it is good to assess the system (including the room and recording itself) before concluding that the problem is the speaker. The problem could be the speaker, or it might not. The extra emphasis in the upper mids that I experience(d) could have been interpreted as a problem with the speaker except for the fact that it did not occur with everything I listened to. The person who made a similar comment on the thread may have had the same experience as myself, so I was curious what other variables could contribute to that perception as I want to consider all variables and possible explanations.

I had a similar experience with Emotiva's UMC-1 remote control. They were going to have me ship the whole unit back to investigate the problem, but after playing around a bit, it turned out the problem was Panasonic's special HDMI port (for some functionality that I don't recall) on the TV. Switching HDMI outputs fixed the problem

I have been in e-mail correspondence with Dave about my "bass problem" as I was curious why I was experiencing lower bass output than what I expected. After an assessment it became clear that my room was not providing the environment to contain the bass that I was accustomed to from my previous full range speakers that had powered woofers. I was initially concerned, but I probably will be buying a Rythmik sub sometime in the future as I really can't fix my room the way I might like.

[curtis]

^^^^^
Understood.

Bass and rooms rarely play nice together. It takes some experimenting with placement and measurements to understand what is going on. That is the luxury with a subwoofer, it can be placed where it sounds best, and can be adjusted independently.

[davef]

I thought I would follow-up with some additional comments.


After reading through the avs thread I am interested to find out more about the perception that the RAAL ribbons didn't seem well integrated (or comments similar to that effect). What specifically might allow for that impression? Crossover differences? Room differences? Driver differences? Listener preference?

I own a pair of RAAL Sierra Towers, and I have noticed what seems to me, on some recordings, a more dominant upper mid and low treble similar to what one of the reviewers noted. I am not sure whether to attribute that to the speakers, my listening room, or the recordings. Given that I have less bass response than I would prefer in my room, it seems that it is likely a combination of the listening area and recording. If I paired the towers with a sub, I suspect I might hear more balance, even on the less than stellar recordings.

The integration of our RAAL 70-20XR with our mid-driver is as good as it gets. The critical factor in driver integration is such that the directional characteristics of the two drivers are as close as possible at the crossover point. On-axis frequency response will not illustrate this nor will phase/reverse-phase plots. The only measurement that can truly represent this characteristic is a polar-response plot.

Below is the polar response plot of the Sierra Ribbon Tower.

http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/images/ascenduploads/ribbonpolar.gif


This measurement shows the horizontal off-axis frequency response measurements from 0 degrees all the way to 90 degrees off-axis in 5 degree increments, it is an extremely revealing graph of loudspeaker performance. The RAAL and our mid cross at approximately 2.2 kHz. You will notice on this plot, at that range, the frequency response remains smooth and linear even up to 60 degrees off-axis. There is no midrange bloom or tweeter bloom. For this to be possible, considering 2 different drivers, both the phase and directional characteristics of each driver must closely match. With a cone woofer, as frequency increases the response becomes more directional. With a ribbon tweeter, as frequency decreases the response becomes less directional so the crossover point, desired slope and Q are critical. The little dip At 3kHz that becomes more noticeable as you get further off-axis is actually an edge reflection from the RAAL faceplate. Normally this would be smoothed out in 1/6 octave measurements and not noticed but we did not use any smoothing in this measurement.

Here is an example of a polar response measurement whereby the directional characteristics of the mid do not match the tweeter. This is not bad at all but it is not ideal either.

http://www.stereophile.com/images/911AT1fig08.jpg

Notice at 3kHz how the energy of the tweeter “blooms” upward and is higher than the midrange energy, which is falling off rapidly as the speaker gets further off-axis. When we listen to a speaker in a room, we hear a combination of the direct sound and off-axis sound and this particular speaker has too much energy at 3kHz at not enough at 2kHz.

Here is another example:

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1110Focfig4.jpg. This model has some serious tweeter bloom in the 4kHz range.

The ideal polar response is one where the frequency response remains linear but gently decreases uniformly as we get higher in frequency.

I would also like to address some additional comments that I have read from the GTG. The Salk owner that questioned the implementation of our RAAL tweeter stated the following in his first sentence:

“I used the rating sheets on all the speakers except the last one. I did not sit in the sweet-spot all the way through each speaker to not hog the seat. I continued to listen and complete the sheets while hanging in the back of the room.”

In other words, for some of the speakers, he sat in the sweet spot and then for others he hung in the back of the room, yet he continued to rate / compare various speakers. I honestly do not see how anyone can fairly compare speakers when one sits in the sweet spot for some and stands in the back of the room for others. In a room as large as Terry’s, there is going to be significant high frequency drop-off towards the back of the room, even more so when there are bodies and chairs in front of you. In addition, a ribbon tweeter has very limited vertical dispersion, such that standing / sitting in a chair / sitting on the floor can make a significant difference in the high frequency response.

Further along that same line, as there have been some comments regarding the high frequency response of the RAAL vs LCY. The SongTower with LCY ribbon, as tested by Audioholics (the only 3rd party measurements available) has a considerable rise in the high frequency response. http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/speakers/floorstanding/salk-songtower-qwt/Salk_1half.jpg/image_view_fullscreen

This will make the highs seem more prominent when compared to our RAAL implementation and if someone is used to listening to this, a response that has a flatter top end will not sound “right” to them. In a room as large as Terry’s, that has been ideally tuned and treated for his particular speakers (with LCY ribbon), I am not surprised our ribbon did not sound as crisp or bright as some of the other ribbon speakers.


I own a pair of RAAL Sierra Towers, and I have noticed what seems to me, on some recordings, a more dominant upper mid and low treble similar to what one of the reviewers noted. I am not sure whether to attribute that to the speakers, my listening room, or the recordings.

Since you are noticing this on only some recordings, the logical explanation is that it is the recording itself. We should never assume that a recording is properly balanced throughout the frequency bandwidth. There are very specific equalizations applied to recordings depending on what instruments the engineer wants to bring forward or highlight.


If I paired the towers with a sub, I suspect I might hear more balance, even on the less than stellar recordings.

Yes, as we have discussed in detail, in your particular room -- a subwoofer is highly recommended :) However, adding a subwoofer will not affect the delicate balance between mids and highs.

[davef]

Now I need to vent just a bit…

There are some things about this GTG that really bother me. A clipping amp, people listening and reporting their comments from varying room locations and obvious biases. Two examples of this are with the SoundScape’s and Phil’s, both of which did not perform very well. Rather than comment that the “speaker” is not performing too well or that people are hearing something strange, the immediate consensus from the GTG was that something was wrong with the midrange of the SoundScape or that the crossover on the Phil’s got damaged. In the case of the Sierra Tower, instead – when something not quite right was heard by the Salk owners, it becomes a case of “improper implementation.” The only non-biased listener (doesn't own Salk, Ascend or Phil) actually preferred the Sierra Towers...

In the case of the SoundScapes, nothing was found wrong with the speaker and I am quite confident the same will be said of the Phil’s.

The SongTowers and HT2L performed well, but a few listeners reported some distortion or edginess in the Sierra Tower, compared to these 2 speakers. The SongTowers and the HT2L are 2-ways, while the only 3-ways at the GTG were the Phil 2 (w/possible problems), the SoundScape (w/possible problems) and our Sierra Tower (no problems, but possibly poor implementation :mad:) )

Could it be possible that some of the distortion being heard is being masked by the SongTower or HT2L, being that these are 2-way designs using a ribbon tweeter that must be crossed rather high and thus the speakers might not be capable of reproducing the same detail that a 3-way can? Is it possible that our Tower was simply reproducing the same distortion being heard on the other 3-way speakers, but to a slightly lesser degree since our towers have a bit higher sensitivity so the amp would have been clipping a bit less?

No, instead the various Salk owners report speaker problems with the Salk and Phil 2, but questionable design implementation in the Sierra Tower? I find this extremely bothersome.

This is not a knock on JS or DM, but the fact is that I have been designing complete loudspeakers from the ground up for a considerably longer period of time, not that this is any determination of sound quality but even a smidgeon of respect from their customer base would be nice.

I have great respect for them both, but the ever increasing bias amongst their customer base is becoming rather hard to ignore, and that combined with information shared with me regarding certain brands being “pushed hard” by way of private messages on AVS is why I am trying to stay far away from AVS these days. Luckily, we don’t rely on AVS for our sales. Our Sierra Towers both w/RAAL and dome version are still at a 100% satisfaction rate, not a single return and I have never experienced this type of overall satisfaction with any audio product – and this dates all the way back to 1984, when I got my start in this industry…

There is some irony here as well, such that if I had to guess at a single speaker at the GTG with the possibility of problems, it would actually be the Sierra Towers. Why? Simply because Brandon did the RAAL tweeter upgrade himself, which is a massive job – including installing the new crossover and his current pair of speakers have never been tested by us. The RAAL ribbon, while extremely robust and durable once implemented, can easily be damaged during installation. The only confidence I have that his pair of speakers are performing to spec are based on his comments, and these: “The RAAL is exceptional and the midrange is really good. Dave hit one out of the park with the RAAL Ascend Tower.”

Care to guess as to whose quote that is? A bit different from his most recent impression though, same speakers but different circumstances... I suppose :(

Ok, I vented – sorry guys, back to building speakers… ;)

[billy p]

Dave, I understand your fustration pertaining to comments made by certain factions in that GTG and accumulative others(from those guys) over the years that rubbed me the wrong way.... and why I chose the Ascends :)

I have the utmost respect for you and your company....:)

There...I hope that makes you feel better...:D

[davef]

Dave, I understand your fustration pertaining to comments made by certain factions in that GTG and accumulative others(from those guys) over the years that rubbed me the wrong way.... and why I chose the Ascends :)

I have the utmost respect for you and your company....:)

There...I hope that makes you feel better...:D

Thanks Billy!

I do feel better... it is hard for me to just sit back and ignore. Some disturbing info shared with me from a few individuals considering our products on AVS forum really pushed me over the edge. I suspect you know or have an idea what I am talking about, but I was not aware that this was occurring and I found it shocking, to say the least.

Frankly, I can't stand the politics nor do any of of us here actually have the time to stay on top of it. We are swamped, which is a good thing of course:)

[merrymaid520]

Dave,
Thank you for your explanation and honesty. I in a way feel responsible for all the GTG's I attend with your Towers and the resulting feedback:( I never meant to cause a ruckus:). I know these last 2 posts were tough for you considering you typically stay neutral on these issues. Sometimes a thorugh explanation is warranted, kudos to you!

Now don't make me second guess my RAAL installation:eek: The father in law and I were extremely careful with the ribbons and made sure to connect the wires appropriately(hopefully right). Just to be safe, anything I should investigate to make sure?

I truly hope the readers out there (in AVS and other forums) can look past the biases, product pushing, etc and choose for themselves. There are a lot of great speakers out there and not everyone one is a fit for you or I.

In the end, the GTG was a great time and I could care less about the resulting politics and possible issues that came about.

[merrymaid520]

Oh,
On a side note, my father in law (AKA - RAAL installation specialist) will be ordering the STC from you very soon. He is wondering what finish to order. His center is in a cabinet with a cloth front so he wants to know which finish is most popular for future resale purposes?

Thanks,
Brandon

[GirgleMirt]

Wonderful...

And they seem to use crappy mp3s from what I read... Probably Fraunhoffer iTunes encoded mp3s at CBR in stereo...

I sure would appreciate everyone slowing down a bit. Many of you are possibly only half right. I am in the process of getting some additional information, and know that many of the vocal tracks were not perfect recordings. This was intentionally done by Nuance and myself. Why? Well, we all know that MOST recordings suck on some level. I don't want a speaker that over exposes these issues so that I don't enjoy listening to 80% of the stuff out there. I need a certain level of perfection for great recordings, but the speakers/system needs to work for lesser recordings as well; even some poor ones.
Seriously??? :confused: :rolleyes:

I feel for Dave... As much as I enjoy audio, the industry is horrendous. From a lack of objectivity in reviews, to all kinds of technical issues (room, placement), listener bias & subjective tastes, snakeoil, flawed GTGs, crappy forums, and the list goes on and on... I've always said that Ascend was a refuge from all the audio BS, it's sad that there seems to be no way to get away from it... This isn't something new, it was always this way... "the more things change, the more they stay the same".

[curtis]

Dave, your honesty, objectivity, and your ability to explain the issues(or anything for that matter) are second to none. Thanks!


Now don't make me second guess my RAAL installation:eek: The father in law and I were extremely careful with the ribbons and made sure to connect the wires appropriately(hopefully right). Just to be safe, anything I should investigate to make sure?
Send them to me. I will check them out for you. I'll pay for the shipping too! :)

[monkuboy]

Well I must admit that while I regularly visit this forum, I am not an Ascend owner. However, I have nothing but the highest respect for Dave and his company - it is obvious to me from reading everything he and the forum members write that Ascend is a first-class operation and he knows what he is talking about.

I found it odd that there was such sloppiness at the GTG. You can't do much about the room since it is what it is, and the number of people who show up make it impossible for everyone to sit in a preferred section. But the use of amps that weren't even properly matched, as well as everyone listening at unreasonably loud volume levels with no one suggesting that perhaps a more realistic listening situation should be used, to me invalidates a lot of the impressions that were reported.

You would think that there would have been more care taken but then people get carried away in "crowds" (like the ending of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest... at the time I sat there thinking, they all had their chance to escape yet they ended up getting drunk and falling asleep.. how could they do that? Well now I know.. people are not always acting in the most rational or reasonable manner).

[Dark Ranger]

I'm an idealist at heart. I'll admit it. For once, I actually thought this GTG would turn out as intended: a bunch of like-minded guys (and gals!) hanging out, just enjoying great music on a bunch of great speakers. What could possibly go wrong?

So to say I am disappointed is an understatement at this point.

I actually had to get up and walk away from the computer a couple of times. I got so fed up with the drama, and I didn't even attend the GTG! If I, a mere audio enthusiast, am deeply affected by what I'm reading, I can't imagine how Dave must feel about all of this. Yet here we have the soft-spoken representative driven to speak his mind about these things. It's bull***t like this that eats at you day after day. Honestly, I don't know how Dave can stay sane.

I think it's pretty obvious that Ascend customers are a different breed. I don't recall Brandon and Jay throwing mud and poisoning the soup, even when others seemed inclined to do so. Props to you gentlemen for staying cool. No doubt we all have strong feelings about current issues.

If there is one thing I wish to bang into everyone's heads "over there," it's this: folks, let's remember that we're talking about speakers. We're not discussing the cure for AIDS or ending starvation in Africa, we're nit-picking each other's opinions about loudspeakers! We are getting bent out of shape, because somehow our fragile egos are tied to whether or not our speaker "wins." Heaven forbid our luxury item not get the attention that it deserves.

Good riddance.

You know what? I think I'm going to stop by the beach tomorrow after work, and then call my parents to see how they are doing.

There are more important things in life than bickering over an event that was supposed to be fun, informative, and bring people closer together over a common interest.


Dave: I appreciate your honest and insightful remarks. Most of your customers remain very satisfied with you and your products. Loyalty and respect are sometimes hard to cultivate, but just look around you here in our forums...

Ascend is about much more than quality loudspeakers. I am a firm believer in that.

[sesquipedalian]

Since you are noticing this on only some recordings, the logical explanation is that it is the recording itself. We should never assume that a recording is properly balanced throughout the frequency bandwidth. There are very specific equalizations applied to recordings depending on what instruments the engineer wants to bring forward or highlight.



Yes, as we have discussed in detail, in your particular room -- a subwoofer is highly recommended :) However, adding a subwoofer will not affect the delicate balance between mids and highs.

See what happens when I send out a quick post without fully checking for clarity--Dave whips out facts. :)

I hope my second post clarified what I was trying to get across. If not, I apologize. I like to analyze other people's criticisms and experiences to see whether mine matches theirs. Since I acknowledged that the mid-high issue was the recordings, I meant to imply that the person who had a similar perception should think about things like the recording and listening position when making assessments.

I do wonder, however, even if a subwoofer does not actually affect the balance between mids and highs, could one's perception be altered so that it sounds as if this is the case even when it isn't. For example, if one turned off the woofers completely, wouldn't the mids and highs seem jarringly out of place without the full range? Or if one added a subwoofer and had the bass amped up a bit, wouldn't this leave the impression that the mids and highs were lacking? If so, then a balanced speaker seems essential. Yet, even with a balanced, neutral speaker, the room acoustics seem to play as much or a larger role in how a speaker sounds. This seems evident in several comments where people criticize the listening experiment due to the room and listening position. And based on our conversation, I myself had not fully realized how poor my room acoustics were (even with some acoustic treatment).

Again, I did not mean to stir up further controversy. I'm just a lowly audio-enthusiast wannabe who still has a lot to learn. Thanks for the response above and your patient detailed answers to my numerous questions via e-mail. :D

[Djoel]

With a grain of salt:)


DJoel

[petmotel]

With a grain of salt:)


DJoel

The average volume level was most assuredly not terribly loud, I keep hearing this statement from folks who were not there :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused::confused::confused:? WTF is wrong with people that they need to second guess something they did not participate in?

Kudos to Dave for putting into perspective the great many variables that existed in this GTG, and one of the reasons I didn't bother to take notes, or comment in detail on the various speakers present.

One thing was evident, being that the speakers were playing into a volume equivalent to an entire small house, The smaller speakers with lesser volumes and cone area didn't stand much of a chance in producing low bass to fill the huge volume at the required volume level. Like the JTRs, this somewhat skewed the response of the Ascends, and to a bit lesser degree the Song Towers toward the treble side and probably contributed to a perception of being brighter than they are in truth. I think they probably sounded good to Archea, because he was close enough he was almost a nearfield listener.

My beloved Sierra Towers (actually Merrymaid's) did sound very much different in Terry's room, playing through his electronics. I'm very particular about my source material, there was some that was pretty good here, some that was not.

Comments from others aside, and although this is likely an example of preaching to the choir, I felt the Ascends had the most tightly controlled bass and midrange drivers in attendance (with the exception of the Sound Scapes which of course by now we know had a problem). I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that a well implemented three way system will out perform a similarly well implemented two way system.

The midrange of the Ascend Tower is a dedicated, neodymium powered, lightweight poly cone driver with optomized T/S parameters tweaked for it's use in an acoustically suspended, resonant resistant, bamboo enclosure that isolates the mids from bass resonances and back wave pressures. The bass drivers are also mission specific, T/S optomized drivers that also exhibit VERY tight driver control.

All of this hard work, and attention to detail is fleshed out by a sound characterized by extremely well controlled driver motion which translates to a brutally honest, balanced, incredibly detailed and accurate reproduction of the signal sent to it. To expect the same level of accuracy from a design compromised by woofers that must reproduce both the mid, and bass frequencies is unrealistic at best.

I don't begrudge anyone for their preferences, as mentioned in the GTG thread, I think people, to some degree, will bias their preferences based on the familiarity of what they listen to, using that familiarity as a basis for what sounds "accurate" to them.

[Djoel]

The average volume level was most assuredly not terribly loud, I keep hearing this statement from folks who were not there :confused::confused::confused::confused::confused: :confused::confused::confused::confused:? WTF is wrong with people that they need to second guess something they did not participate in?

Kudos to Dave for putting into perspective the great many variables that existed in this GTG, and one of the reasons I didn't bother to take notes, or comment in detail on the various speakers present.

One thing was evident, being that the speakers were playing into a volume equivalent to an entire small house, The smaller speakers with lesser volumes and cone area didn't stand much of a chance in producing low bass to fill the huge volume at the required volume level. Like the JTRs, this somewhat skewed the response of the Ascends, and to a bit lesser degree the Song Towers toward the treble side and probably contributed to a perception of being brighter than they are in truth. I think they probably sounded good to Archea, because he was close enough he was almost a nearfield listener.

My beloved Sierra Towers (actually Merrymaid's) did sound very much different in Terry's room, playing through his electronics. I'm very particular about my source material, there was some that was pretty good here, some that was not.

Comments from others aside, and although this is likely an example of preaching to the choir, I felt the Ascends had the most tightly controlled bass and midrange drivers in attendance (with the exception of the Sound Scapes which of course by now we know had a problem). I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that a well implemented three way system will out perform a similarly well implemented two way system.

The midrange of the Ascend Tower is a dedicated, neodymium powered, lightweight poly cone driver with optomized T/S parameters tweaked for it's use in an acoustically suspended, resonant resistant, bamboo enclosure that isolates the mids from bass resonances and back wave pressures. The bass drivers are also mission specific, T/S optomized drivers that also exhibit VERY tight driver control.

All of this hard work, and attention to detail is fleshed out by a sound characterized by extremely well controlled driver motion which translates to a brutally honest, balanced, incredibly detailed and accurate reproduction of the signal sent to it. To expect the same level of accuracy from a design compromised by woofers that must reproduce both the mid, and bass frequencies is unrealistic at best.

I don't begrudge anyone for their preferences, as mentioned in the GTG thread, I think people, to some degree, will bias their preferences based on the familiarity of what they listen to, using that familiarity as a basis for what sounds "accurate" to them.



Hey Jay

The Grain of salt reference meant, that at the end of the day there are allot of variables that determent the final sound of a pair of speakers. I've sent months changing,tuning, turning, pulling away the speakers moving them back to the walls, and a million other small tweaks, and not counting other changes on the AVR it self, and to make a blunt statement on how a particular speaker sounds from a GTG like this is pretty much unfair.

Hope I didn't offend you too much ;)

Talk later
Dan

[petmotel]

Hey Jay

The Grain of salt reference meant, that at the end of the day there are allot of variables that determent the final sound of a pair of speakers. I've sent months changing,tuning, turning, pulling away the speakers moving them back to the walls, and a million other small tweaks, and not counting other changes on the AVR it self, and to make a blunt statement on how a particular speaker sounds from a GTG like this is pretty much unfair.

Hope I didn't offend you too much ;)

Talk later
Dan

Dan, I don't think you have an offensive bone in your body! I wasn't responding to your comment, but agreeing with the grain of salt comment. After reading my response, I too thought it looked like I was responding to your comment, which was not my intent. Sorry my friend.

My comments, and observations are my opinions (except for the physical descriptions) and can be taken with a grain of salt.

Jay

[curtis]

Hey...too much salt is not good for you! :)

Joking aside, as we can see, so many variables at the GTG....and as Jay mentioned, familiarity seems to be the major key.

[Djoel]

Dan, I don't think you have an offensive bone in your body! I wasn't responding to your comment, but agreeing with the grain of salt comment. After reading my response, I too thought it looked like I was responding to your comment, which was not my intent. Sorry my friend.

My comments, and observations are my opinions (except for the physical descriptions) and can be taken with a grain of salt.

Jay

Thanks Jay:)

Just gotta say glad you were there representing, and left the GTG with your reasoning, and wits intact.:cool:

Dan

[Sonic Ray]

Something about this thread just reminded me of the scene in Boogie Nights where Cowboy (Don Cheadle) is selling hi fi equipment and demos an 8-track cassette of country music. I'll have to find it on youtube and post when I get home for a laugh.

[billy p]

Wow...another vote of confidence for the Sierra Tower.....I almost see a trend here....:D

[curtis]

Wow...another vote of confidence for the Sierra Tower.....I almost see a trend here....:D
A familiar type of trend...that some of us have seen maybe 6 or 7...maybe more, years ago. ;)

[davef]

Guys,

Thank you all so much for the support. Yesterday was not a good day for me and I regret publicly venting like I did. I almost always try to stay quiet and remain in the background - as indicated by my rather poor post count on AVS Forum, only 451 posts in about ten years? :o

Things I heard in confidence over the past few days, combined with what I viewed as unnecessary disrespect rekindled some old very deep wounds from many years ago. Wounds that were serious enough to cause me to come very close to leaving a profession that I love and aside from a few teenage summer jobs, the only career I have ever known. A few of you were there with me when these things occurred and know how it hit me. It seriously took me many years to once again find my passion in this, as girgle hinted at, completely insane industry.

I feel Brandon and Terry really put themselves out there, trying very hard to accommodate everyone, but things simply got too big. Too many people, too many speakers. For an informal GTG, or a party, as I used to call it many moons ago, – the more the merrier. However, scorecards were handed out and the term “shootout” started to be thrown around -- things then changed. Not for the people attending, but for the hundreds if not thousands of people following the event. The problem is that when everything is posted publicly in an audio forum, there is an incredible amount of hype generated and personal biases build hope that a particular model or brand comes out "on top". When that doesn't happen -- things get out of control, and they always do, be that a speaker or subwoofer shootout. It is human nature to need self-assurance, assurance that "I made the right purchase"...

Years ago, I made it our company policy to stop providing products for "shootouts" like these because it is just not worth it in the long run. It is a familiar trend, if for example, our product comes out on top, the other camp or camps are going to find flaws in the procedures, if our products ends up at the bottom, you can expect the same response from our side etc. I am certainly not saying that any or all of the issues in this GTG aren't real (I have found technical problems with many similar types of shootouts in the past), but technical issues can be found in anyone's personal audio system -- always.

Terry, for example, has put in a huge amount of time and expense into optimizing his system and it is something he is most proud of. I have had many conversations with him in the past and he has very specific tastes as to his performance preferences and he also has very good ears such that he can quickly detect things that don't sound right to him... Problems have now been detected in Terry's much lauded system that he was not aware of.

I spent a good 3-4 years of my career troubleshooting transistor based power amplifiers and if a transistor is bad, you can be well assured that you will hear it, especially someone as critical as Terry. Just this past Saturday afternoon I repaired a bass amp (transistor based) for a friend of mine. I am not saying that there is/was nothing wrong with Terry's amp -- my point is that if the GTG never happened, Terry would have never known. However, if Terry and Brandon were comparing two speakers at Terry's place (which has happened many times), and one speaker did not sound right (perhaps the same reported amp distortion heard at the GTG), the immediate consensus from the both of them would be that the speaker doesn't sound quite right or just isn’t up to par, and as I have learned, these results are shared by way of private messages and absolutely influence purchase decisions. Another example, I remember a while back that Terry brought his speakers over to someone else's house to listen. He did not like the way his speakers performed there, stating possible flaws in this persons system. Which system is actually the one with problems? Might have been Terry's but his system is what he is used to listening to and it appeals to him. Our own system becomes our personal reference standard, flaws and all....

Our Sierra Towers performed very well amongst 3rd party attendees (those that do not own any of the brands) and I am not the least bit surprised by this.

In the $2K - $3K price range, I think many consumers expect one brand to simply crush another. As I believe Jim Salk once similarly mentioned, amongst the top-tier ID manufacturers, this is simply not going to happen, regardless of the hype. Salk, Phil, Ascend, JTR, Seaton -- we each have different design philosophies and goals but we all know what we are doing.

My hope is that a few owners of the other brands will recognize the 3rd party results and while I don't expect them to ever recommend Ascend (I would be floored), but to at least not try to influence and change someone’s decision when they are interested in our products.

Thanks again guys!

[davef]

Something about this thread just reminded me of the scene in Boogie Nights where Cowboy (Don Cheadle) is selling hi fi equipment and demos an 8-track cassette of country music. I'll have to find it on youtube and post when I get home for a laugh.

LOL -- That is one of my all time favorite movie scenes. It is classic! It wasn't just the music, but as I remember it, Cheadle also starts to dance to it a bit.

[Sonic Ray]

HaHa, I have the blu-ray from Netflix --was planning to play that as the first "grown-up's" movie in my new theater room (as I remember a fun, high quality soundtrack), but haven't found the time yet after the kid's bedtime. Just the thought of Cheadle starting to dance a little is making me laugh out loud.

There's also a Judge Reinhold scene where he's an inept hi fi salesman, can't quite remember the movie yet. Dave, you must know all these scenes by heart, yes? (Sorry to be off topic--feel free to move this)

[petmotel]

Guys,

Thank you all so much for the support. Yesterday was not a good day for me and I regret publicly venting like I did. I almost always try to stay quiet and remain in the background - as indicated by my rather poor post count on AVS Forum, only 451 posts in about ten years? :o

Things I heard in confidence over the past few days, combined with what I viewed as unnecessary disrespect rekindled some old very deep wounds from many years ago. Wounds that were serious enough to cause me to come very close to leaving a profession that I love and aside from a few teenage summer jobs, the only career I have ever known. A few of you were there with me when these things occurred and know how it hit me. It seriously took me many years to once again find my passion in this, as girgle hinted at, completely insane industry.

I feel Brandon and Terry really put themselves out there, trying very hard to accommodate everyone, but things simply got too big. Too many people, too many speakers. For an informal GTG, or a party, as I used to call it many moons ago, – the more the merrier. However, scorecards were handed out and the term “shootout” started to be thrown around -- things then changed. Not for the people attending, but for the hundreds if not thousands of people following the event. The problem is that when everything is posted publicly in an audio forum, there is an incredible amount of hype generated and personal biases build hope that a particular model or brand comes out "on top". When that doesn't happen -- things get out of control, and they always do, be that a speaker or subwoofer shootout. It is human nature to need self-assurance, assurance that "I made the right purchase"...

Years ago, I made it our company policy to stop providing products for "shootouts" like these because it is just not worth it in the long run. It is a familiar trend, if for example, our product comes out on top, the other camp or camps are going to find flaws in the procedures, if our products ends up at the bottom, you can expect the same response from our side etc. I am certainly not saying that any or all of the issues in this GTG aren't real (I have found technical problems with many similar types of shootouts in the past), but technical issues can be found in anyone's personal audio system -- always.

Terry, for example, has put in a huge amount of time and expense into optimizing his system and it is something he is most proud of. I have had many conversations with him in the past and he has very specific tastes as to his performance preferences and he also has very good ears such that he can quickly detect things that don't sound right to him... Problems have now been detected in Terry's much lauded system that he was not aware of.

I spent a good 3-4 years of my career troubleshooting transistor based power amplifiers and if a transistor is bad, you can be well assured that you will hear it, especially someone as critical as Terry. Just this past Saturday afternoon I repaired a bass amp (transistor based) for a friend of mine. I am not saying that there is/was nothing wrong with Terry's amp -- my point is that if the GTG never happened, Terry would have never known. However, if Terry and Brandon were comparing two speakers at Terry's place (which has happened many times), and one speaker did not sound right (perhaps the same reported amp distortion heard at the GTG), the immediate consensus from the both of them would be that the speaker doesn't sound quite right or just isn’t up to par, and as I have learned, these results are shared by way of private messages and absolutely influence purchase decisions. Another example, I remember a while back that Terry brought his speakers over to someone else's house to listen. He did not like the way his speakers performed there, stating possible flaws in this persons system. Which system is actually the one with problems? Might have been Terry's but his system is what he is used to listening to and it appeals to him. Our own system becomes our personal reference standard, flaws and all....

Our Sierra Towers performed very well amongst 3rd party attendees (those that do not own any of the brands) and I am not the least bit surprised by this.

In the $2K - $3K price range, I think many consumers expect one brand to simply crush another. As I believe Jim Salk once similarly mentioned, amongst the top-tier ID manufacturers, this is simply not going to happen, regardless of the hype. Salk, Phil, Ascend, JTR, Seaton -- we each have different design philosophies and goals but we all know what we are doing.

My hope is that a few owners of the other brands will recognize the 3rd party results and while I don't expect them to ever recommend Ascend (I would be floored), but to at least not try to influence and change someone’s decision when they are interested in our products.

Thanks again guys!

Dave, I SOOOO much appreciate your insight, and candor! I understand your frustration, I was truly dismayed to read the comment concerning the implementation of the RAAL tweeter in the Towers, something I could not possibly disagree with more.

Terry and I obviously disagree on a basic concept concerning source material. I suggested using the highest quality source recordings, and he feels that he wants to evaluate not so good material as well, to ensure that flaws aren't overly exposed. I actually could not possibly care less how bad a recording sounds, I avoid those like the plague LOL! I went so far as to bring some of my very best SACDs with me, and asked if we could spin a couple of them after the main course, and was informed the OPPO was in the bedroom system so there was no way to do that!? I noticed several instances of dynamic compression apparent in the tracks played, it made it very difficult for me to try and evaluate what I was hearing as a result.

It was frustrating to me to know what a speaker is capable of, and not to hear it in it's best light, how can anything be evaluated well when the signal chain is compromised?

In any case, I enjoyed the overall experience, and enjoyed meeting, and talking with the other audio enthusiasts. Jim Salk was a fascinating personality, sharing many interesting personal experiences. He was out on the patio, close to where I was at as we took the pizza break. This might well have been my favorite part of the experience, as all of us just got to unwind and get acquainted.

I don't really consider the speaker evaluation sheets that were available to be score sheets, they were more to give the folks that wanted to use them a reminder of parameters of the speakers they might want to consider. Joe printed these out and made them available as a courtesy.

Edit: I suppose with the damaged monoblock, it might well be that some of the unpleasant sounds were amp related, although much of my listening was done from the far right hand side where the dynamic compression was still quite obvious. I was on the right hand side couch basically right inline with the right speaker when the JTRs played, and I could clearly hear the high frequencies "beaming" as I moved from center to off center. I liked the picture of the "redo" button posted, this GTG seems to be taking on less significance as time passes.

Jay

[GirgleMirt]

Dave, I SOOOO much appreciate your insight, and candor! I understand your frustration, I was truly dismayed to read the comment concerning the implementation of the RAAL tweeter in the Towers, something I could not possibly disagree with more.
I was actually a bit surprised ;) As I said, this is nothing new, for the last 10 years this kind of thing has been going on! And yeah, when I first posted I didn't really had read far enough for the bit where the towers had implementation problems or whatever... But even then, I mean, it's really not surprising to see such comments, and I wasn't really shocked about them, just the usual...

The thing is... Audio is crazy. You can have 10 people, sitting in the perfect spot in perfect room in front of perfect speakers with perfect amp/source, each listening one at a time, and get responses like: "Best speaker ever! Unbelievable!" and the 2nd "lifeless, not involving" 3rd: "way too harsh, hurts my ears", 4th: "missing sparkle and high end" 4th: "hated this speaker, bloated mids, singer way too back in the mix", 5th: "speaker has no bass whatsoever", 6th: "bloated bass". 7: "hated the hardness of the cd player, would have sounded so much better with a turntable" 8: "too forward presentation" 9: "not forward enough" 10: "sounded ok but nothing special, need tubes, otherwise it sounds like crap"

I mean, this is the reality of audio, where people all too often have messed up tastes/expectations (to them speakers = subjective, not objective...)... Too much bass = good, perfect bass = not enough bass or too much, low bass response = bloated bass... Man...

Then you have a GTG, where the speakers aren't optimally setup, in a particular room which might play better with certain speakers vs others... People aren't sitting in the sweetspoot, some are standing up with their backs to the rear wall, some on the left, I mean... Each person has its subjective taste and expectations, bias towards certain speakers or types of speakers, or brand, sish... How does anyone expect to have realistic results??? It's impossible...

Trouble is expectations. You can't get objective results from a GTG like that... Impossible!!! Anyhow, I think Dave, no need to get stressed or anything about that... Can't say that I know for certain the motivations of some posters, but I'd like to think some of the comments were just badly voiced and of 'honest' intentions... (ex: Didn't really mean speakers badly implemented, simply, something might have sounded off to them at that time... Which most probably has something to do with them than the speakers themselves... What they're used too..) Just listening to one speaker after another can skew things... Listen to a bright speaker for a while, then a neutral speaker, and the neutral will seem to be missing something... Or listen to the same song 20 times on flawed speakers, that's how you'll think the sound should should, and it'll sound off on other speakers... I mean, weird to say, but the human hearing is just plain bad for evaluating audio... Might sound silly, but that's really the problem IMHO... (and that's without taking into consideration all other issues; room/setup/etc.)

Anyhow, but as said, with the politics, agendas, and all... (products pushed by pm & all of that...) Who knows what the intentions are... In the end, can affect a business (with lost sales), I just don't know what to say on that... I guess just that some (hoping many...) can see through that 'game'...


Terry and I obviously disagree on a basic concept concerning source material. I suggested using the highest quality source recordings, and he feels that he wants to evaluate not so good material as well, to ensure that flaws aren't overly exposed. I actually could not possibly care less how bad a recording sounds, I avoid those like the plague LOL! I went so far as to bring some of my very best SACDs with me, and asked if we could spin a couple of them after the main course, and was informed the OPPO was in the bedroom system so there was no way to do that!? I noticed several instances of dynamic compression apparent in the tracks played, it made it very difficult for me to try and evaluate what I was hearing as a result.

It was frustrating to me to know what a speaker is capable of, and not to hear it in it's best light, how can anything be evaluated well when the signal chain is compromised?


Not just that, the more detailed speakers might be able to reproduce the distortion more accurately than other speakers, and that might simply make them sound plainly worst...

Ex: Like glasses, and someone looking at models: One pair of glasses gives you 10/10 vision, so you see all the flaws of a person's skin, another 9/10 making seem the skin smoother and showing less imperfections... Which glasses are better? The one that shows the model's flaws or the one which blurs everything a little bit and makes it appear like they have smooth skin even if they don't? Maybe the problem isn't the glasses in that case but the model's skin??? (analogy, MP3/source = bad skin, speakers = glasses).

It's just plain stupid to demo speakers with compressed/lesser quality recordings... It's ok if it was say one out of 10 recordings, and it's highlighted: "This is crappy MP3 let's see how it sounds!", but for female vocals use a crappy mp3... I mean come on... Maybe not what happened in GTG, but just another possible issue to add to the list... And that's on top of all the other stuff, about the room, listening positions, clipping amp, loud volumes, etc etc. all the other possible problems with the GTG which makes the test 'invalid' as a shootout... (but that's not new, was always the case)


Some of the silly comments by some individual posters (which are often silly like when someone tries to pretend like they can hear baffle step compensation missing or some other 'flaw' they think they can attribute to drivers/crossovers/whatever) and GTG issues aside, what I took away from that GTG is that the Sierras was pitted vs big ID names, speakers costing significantly more, and they held their own. I think that's what most readers will come away with... No need to stress about what 1 person wrote as it's really of not much importance... My impressions after reading was that the Sierras did quite well... FWIW :)

[petmotel]

It's just plain stupid to demo speakers with compressed/lesser quality recordings... It's ok if it was say one out of 10 recordings, and it's highlighted: "This is crappy MP3 let's see how it sounds!", but for female vocals use a crappy mp3... I mean come on... Maybe not what happened in GTG, but just another possible issue to add to the list... And that's on top of all the other stuff, about the room, listening positions, clipping amp, loud volumes, etc etc. all the other possible problems with the GTG which makes the test 'invalid' as a shootout... (but that's not new, was always the case)



Just to clarify, music tracks were ripped from disc to FLAC files on a media server, so the resulting tracks were exactly as taken from the source discs. Again, average volume level was comfortable, certainly not unreasonably loud.

I had brought a McCoy Tyner SACD with me to play, a Grammy winner from 2004 titled "Illuminations". How ironic in hindsight ;).

Jay

[petmotel]

I thought it might be prudent to mention why I made reference to the JTRs in this thread. It was not meant as a detrimental comment at all, just something I noticed, as I was very curious about the high sensitivity HT type speakers. Not sure if this is improper forum protocol, I will be happy to remove this content if so.

I have read several times about the proclivity of large cone/compression driven co-axial speakers to exhibit the "beaming" phenomenon. Being as I was seated about dead center of the right speaker when the JTRs were auditioned, it was a simple matter to move on and off axis. When I heard a noticeable shift in the high frequencies, I thought it would be interesting to see the polar response plots of these speakers.

I had originally entertained the idea of trying the JTRs, and PMd a few different folks whose opinion I trusted what they thought, and came to the conclusion this type of speaker might not be optimal for a system mostly used for music. I have pretty much confirmed this to my own satisfaction, ultimately the intended use of a speaker system is an important consideration.

Jay

[davef]

There's also a Judge Reinhold scene where he's an inept hi fi salesman, can't quite remember the movie yet. Dave, you must know all these scenes by heart, yes? (Sorry to be off topic--feel free to move this)

And that would we one of the alltime greats, "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" :)

Judge played "Brad" in that movie --- ahh, the memories of Phoebe Cates coming out of the pool....;)

[Sonic Ray]

Agreed FT at RH is an alltime great--especially considering I'm 46 now and was in hs when it was out. I can still remember a dozen or so quotes. Not to mention the infamous Phoebe scene w Brad in the bathroom (Jesus, doesnkt anybody knock?!). And Sean Penn + Forrest Whittaker to boot.
However, Brad worked at a fast food burger joint--I think the speaker salesman character was another movie. I'm seein Danny DeVito in it too.

[choirbass]

Just chiming in, but from what I've seen, an informal GTG under less than ideal conditions (with exceptional equipment no less) is really only intended to showcase how unrealistically poor something 'great', can sound.

Loudly blaring a mediocre quality source under those conditions only emphasizes that, possibly even causing damage as a result, sadly. It's really only to make something sound as bad as possible, by the sounds of it. The more unnoticeable a piece of equipment is under those conditions is, the better off it is, IMO.

Ironically, subjecting something in this way doesn't seem all that much different from using much cheaper gear for the same purposes. You'd get nearly the same result.

[davef]

Agreed FT at RH is an alltime great--especially considering I'm 46 now and was in hs when it was out. I can still remember a dozen or so quotes. Not to mention the infamous Phoebe scene w Brad in the bathroom (Jesus, doesnkt anybody knock?!). And Sean Penn + Forrest Whittaker to boot.
However, Brad worked at a fast food burger joint--I think the speaker salesman character was another movie. I'm seein Danny DeVito in it too.

you are right, Brad worked at "All American Burger" -- it was someone else who dated Brad's sister (Jennier Jason Leigh) who was a lot older... I think I am going Netflix it tonight :)

[Sonic Ray]

This, from "Ruthless People". Still searching for Cheadle's scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19CvEO3Riy0

[Galwin]

This, from "Ruthless People". Still searching for Cheadle's scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19CvEO3Riy0

Hilarious! Dave, I think you now have a new marketing slogan for Ascend: "30 inches of thigh slappin, blood pumpin, nuclear brain damage".

[Blutarsky]

When I had my Genesis 6.1 speakers, my friends teased me by calling them the Dominators.

I sold all of that big stuff, and now am in smug bliss with my Sierra-1 system.

[Sonic Ray]

OK, here we go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR6UYc5GUsw&feature=related

[Blutarsky]

LOL....

Country Western has never passed through my cables.

[pegleg]

Now from 2013, did you ever choose? I', also thinking about the RAAL Towers and the Philharmonic 3s or Slims.