Sierra-1 NRT vs Towers. No comparison??? A friend got me thinking.

[Pianist718]

As times goes on, I am more and more happy with my new Sierra-1 NRT L/C/R speakers. My apologies to Dave for poo pooing the sound initially as now I notice how bad other speakers sound when I compare them to Sierras-1.

I have yet to replace my SUB and surrounds. Planning on that update this week possibly.

A friend came by last week, looked at my speakers, was impressed, BUT said that if I put those Sierra-1 as surrounds and get the Sierra Towers for the front, THAT will be the ultimate set up.

My question is .... in terms of quality of sound, volume, depth, etc .... is the sound from the Sierra Towers (with RAAL) in a different ballpark when compared to Sierra-1 NRT?

My room is just 13x18 with 8.5 ceiling and I do have neighbors so I'd never blast my music or movies. I do 60% music and 40% movies. I sit about 7-10ft away from speakers. Center channel is about 6-7 feet away from me ... pretty close. That's why I am thinking that in this situation Towers may be an overkill.

[merrymaid520]

My opinion, YES the Towers especially with the RAAL tweeter will be a definite step up all around over and above the sierra-1 NrT's. You gain the dedicated midrange driver and better tweeter of course. Plus, the towers offer more bass:)

again, someone else may not believe the added investment is worth the improvement. If you can, try and demo a RAAL Tower.


As times goes on, I am more and more happy with my new Sierra-1 NRT L/C/R speakers. My apologies to Dave for poo pooing the sound initially as now I notice how bad other speakers sound when I compare them to Sierras-1.

I have yet to replace my SUB and surrounds. Planning on that update this week possibly.

A friend came by last week, looked at my speakers, was impressed, BUT said that if I put those Sierra-1 as surrounds and get the Sierra Towers for the front, THAT will be the ultimate set up.

My question is .... in terms of quality of sound, volume, depth, etc .... is the sound from the Sierra Towers (with RAAL) in a different ballpark when compared to Sierra-1 NRT?

My room is just 13x18 with 8.5 ceiling and I do have neighbors so I'd never blast my music or movies. I do 60% music and 40% movies. I sit about 7-10ft away from speakers. Center channel is about 6-7 feet away from me ... pretty close. That's why I am thinking that in this situation Towers may be an overkill.

[curtis]

My question is .... in terms of quality of sound, volume, depth, etc .... is the sound from the Sierra Towers (with RAAL) in a different ballpark when compared to Sierra-1 NRT?
IMO...yes.

The Tower simply has better midrange detail to begin with...due to the dedicated and purpose designed/built midrange driver.

I like the RAAL tweeter over the NrT tweeter. It offers more detail over the NrT, and is smoother. Others will like the NrT for it's more forward nature.

And the Tower does player lower and can play louder.

For your sized room, and seating distances, I think the Towers would work fine, but of course, consult Ascend.

edit: I see merrymaid beat me to it... :)

[Pianist718]

so future upgrade would be to ...... spend $4,000 on towers and center speaker and place Sierras-1 NRT (L/R) as surrounds. And sell Sierra-1 NRT center channel speaker.

result .... dream set up?

[RicardoJoa]

so future upgrade would be to ...... spend $4,000 on towers and center speaker and place Sierras-1 NRT (L/R) as surrounds. And sell Sierra-1 NRT center channel speaker.

result .... dream set up?
I dont think the tower is going to be overkill.
The tower should through out a more realitic and consistant sound base on the raal review and the polar response. The vertical coverage should be larger as well.

[Mag_Neato]

Another option would be to wait and see what uber-upgrade Dave is cooking up for the Sierra-1 & NrT. Should be much cheaper than buying the towers. We don't know what this is truly going to be, but it may offer another viable alternative. If it is worhwhile, you could upgrade your L/R Sierra's, replace the Sierra-NrT center with the Tower center, then just pick up some CBM-170's or HTM-200's for surrounds(maybe even the 340's!).

I'd estimate the upgrade will be available around Spring, but what do I know!:o

[Pianist718]

Another option would be to wait and see what uber-upgrade Dave is cooking up for the Sierra-1 & NrT. Should be much cheaper than buying the towers. We don't know what this is truly going to be, but it may offer another viable alternative. If it is worhwhile, you could upgrade your L/R Sierra's, replace the Sierra-NrT center with the Tower center, then just pick up some CBM-170's or HTM-200's for surrounds(maybe even the 340's!).

I'd estimate the upgrade will be available around Spring, but what do I know!:o

You think it could be an additional section making the speaker look like a tower? I doubt it.

[Mag_Neato]

You think it could be an additional section making the speaker look like a tower? I doubt it.

I don't know whether or not it will convert the Sierra-1 to a tower, but I'd doubt that as well. If you are set on a tower speaker, then the Sierra Tower is the only offering from Ascend.

It may be possible that this upgrade will bring the Sierra-1/NrT(Which Dave mentioned would become the Sierra-2) That much closer to the Towers' performance. We will just have to wait and see.:confused:

[Sam1000]

You think it could be an additional section making the speaker look like a tower? I doubt it.
You never know :-) I'm thinking an additional sphere shaped enclosure to place on top of sierra for dedicated midrange.. That would be an uber upgrade :-)

[Dark Ranger]

You never know :-) I'm thinking an additional sphere shaped enclosure to place on top of sierra for dedicated midrange.. That would be an uber upgrade :-)

That would make me a very happy guy. :D

I guess we'll see, eh?

[Pianist718]

it's just that after spending $1800 I am thinking that for another $2K I could have had towers with center channel. Question is .... would it be a huge difference?

OR I can just go buy the 170s for surrounds, get Rythmik F12 for sub and call it a day. I guess a friend coming in and surprisingly saying "Oh, these are reference monitors??" got me a bit sad here :-)

[Sam1000]

it's just that after spending $1800 I am thinking that for another $2K I could have had towers with center channel. Question is .... would it be a huge difference?

OR I can just go buy the 170s for surrounds, get Rythmik F12 for sub and call it a day. I guess a friend coming in and surprisingly saying "Oh, these are reference monitors??" got me a bit sad here :-)

Since you do 60% music, I think Towers would be an upgrade. Will it be a huge difference? only you can decide that. Most folks would be very happy with Sierra-1 + Rythmik combo. In this hobby, it's a law of diminishing returns after a certain point. If you can get an audition for Towers and compare the notes, you can decide for yourself.

Which speakers your friend own or compared to when he made that comment?

[Jonnyozero3]

My question is .... in terms of quality of sound, volume, depth, etc .... is the sound from the Sierra Towers (with RAAL) in a different ballpark when compared to Sierra-1 NRT?

My room is just 13x18 with 8.5 ceiling and ....I am thinking that in this situation Towers may be an overkill.


I had L/C/R Sierra-1's and upgraded to Sierra Towers w/NRT. And I am 100% with Curtis and Merrymaid on this - the Towers really are a whole new ball park of game above the Sierra-1's. As Curtis said, that dedicated midrange makes all the difference, plus they punch deeper. After only a few moments of playing them, I immediately noticed the improvement and thought it was *well* worth the money invested. :)

I put the Sierra-1's on surround duty (7.1) and I eventually picked up the new monster Sierra Tower Center...which is amazing. I don't know how or why, but it is more cohesive and impacts cleaner than even the standard towers. Must be Dave's black magic.

So, I have exactly the system you describe (plus a pair of D-15SE subs)...my room is roughly 17x24ish (one corner is closed) and I sit about 12 ft from the speakers. I enjoy it so much I'm considering a RAAL upgrade :) And tempted to upgrade the subs to F25's. What else to do with tax returns, right? In my opinion, it's not overkill. I could still use more headroom (heh).

Anyhow, where are you located? I'd be happy to demo the system if you are in my neighborhood (Nebraska).

Also, "kwarny" (nickname on this forum and AVS) came over to check out my system recently so you can ask him for thoughts - he's heard a lot of gear I think. Same goes for "tesseract67" on AVS, he had very positive things to say about my overall setup.

Edit - call me crazy, but I do love having the Sierra-1's as surrounds. It's a bit of a guilty pleasure, but between them and the monster STC, I *really* enjoy multichannel music...even just CD's hopped up on Dolby PL-IIx. I also think that Sierra-1's for surrounds are awesome with a medium (50-60hz) crossover for movies...get things a bit more punchy all around. I'm very happy I have it all set up that way.

[natetg57]

I guess a friend coming in and surprisingly saying "Oh, these are reference monitors??" got me a bit sad here :-)

I wouldn't be too concerned about what other people think. (I know, easier said than done) Some people expect 'Reference Sound' to be very bright or whatever they're used to. **** is quite popular, some people think it's the best. :D I love how realistic voices sound with Sierra's and that they're non-fatiguing compared to other speakers I've heard. And as you've experienced sometimes it takes some time to acclimatize to a new sound.

[merrymaid520]

Unrelated question. How big of a difference did having 2 D15SE subs versus one make for you if you have tried it this way? I have just one with a now larger room and need more headroom and impact. I'm hoping adding a matching Rythmik will be enough?


I also agree with you that sierras make great surrounds and the STC is amazing:)



I had L/C/R Sierra-1's and upgraded to Sierra Towers w/NRT. And I am 100% with Curtis and Merrymaid on this - the Towers really are a whole new ball park of game above the Sierra-1's. As Curtis said, that dedicated midrange makes all the difference, plus they punch deeper. After only a few moments of playing them, I immediately noticed the improvement and thought it was *well* worth the money invested. :)

I put the Sierra-1's on surround duty (7.1) and I eventually picked up the new monster Sierra Tower Center...which is amazing. I don't know how or why, but it is more cohesive and impacts cleaner than even the standard towers. Must be Dave's black magic.

So, I have exactly the system you describe (plus a pair of D-15SE subs)...my room is roughly 17x24ish (one corner is closed) and I sit about 12 ft from the speakers. I enjoy it so much I'm considering a RAAL upgrade :) And tempted to upgrade the subs to F25's. What else to do with tax returns, right? In my opinion, it's not overkill. I could still use more headroom (heh).

Anyhow, where are you located? I'd be happy to demo the system if you are in my neighborhood (Nebraska).

Also, "kwarny" (nickname on this forum and AVS) came over to check out my system recently so you can ask him for thoughts - he's heard a lot of gear I think. Same goes for "tesseract67" on AVS, he had very positive things to say about my overall setup.

Edit - call me crazy, but I do love having the Sierra-1's as surrounds. It's a bit of a guilty pleasure, but between them and the monster STC, I *really* enjoy multichannel music...even just CD's hopped up on Dolby PL-IIx. I also think that Sierra-1's for surrounds are awesome with a medium (50-60hz) crossover for movies...get things a bit more punchy all around. I'm very happy I have it all set up that way.

[Pianist718]

Since you do 60% music, I think Towers would be an upgrade. Will it be a huge difference? only you can decide that. Most folks would be very happy with Sierra-1 + Rythmik combo. In this hobby, it's a law of diminishing returns after a certain point. If you can get an audition for Towers and compare the notes, you can decide for yourself.

Which speakers your friend own or compared to when he made that comment?


He is looking to buy a soundbar ... one of those from Yamaha for $2K.
he did have a home theater system from Yamaha I believe with towers. Not in a thousands price range but he has been into home theater sound for years.

To me Sierra-1 nrt sounds great and the only time it sounds bad is when recordings I play are of bad quality.

It's just that I am a perfectionist. If I know that something is much better than what I bought, I won't rest until I perfect it.

Going from my 10Yr old HTiB from Onkyo to Sierra-1 (L,C,R) still using sub and rears from HTiB was a noticeable improvement but not like Oh MY God, How did I live before? you know what I mean? Sounds is great but at almost $2K I expected even better.

So maybe it really takes $4K (Sierra towers with center speaker) to get that real WOW>?

if so, then maybe I should get the (L/R) towers with RAAL and keeping Sierra-1Nrt center?

[curtis]

Going from my 10Yr old HTiB from Onkyo to Sierra-1 (L,C,R) still using sub and rears from HTiB was a noticeable improvement but not like Oh MY God, How did I live before? you know what I mean? Sounds is great but at almost $2K I expected even better.
I will guarantee you that the sub is not of the same quality of the Sierra's. Change it out, and you will have another "Wow" moment.

I am not sure how you have it integrated, but I am sure that it is bringing down the overall experience when it is used in conjunction with the Sierras.

From and HTiB to Sierra standpoint, I would expect a considerable improvement...and I mean CONSIDERABLE. Perhaps there is a configuration/setup issue.

You will spend a long time trying to achieve perfection. There are SO MANY factors. Speakers play a big roll, but there is so much more that contributes to the sound in your room.

[Pianist718]

I will guarantee you that the sub is not of the same quality of the Sierra's. Change it out, and you will have another "Wow" moment.

I am not sure how you have it integrated, but I am sure that it is bringing down the overall experience when it is used in conjunction with the Sierras.

From and HTiB to Sierra standpoint, I would expect a considerable improvement...and I mean CONSIDERABLE. Perhaps there is a configuration/setup issue.

You will spend a long time trying to achieve perfection. There are SO MANY factors. Speakers play a big roll, but there is so much more that contributes to the sound in your room.


Yea, a SUB is a must and I have been looking for one for a month now. First wanted to get Rythmik F12 sealed. Then after realizing that I do 40% music and 60% movies and TV shows .... maybe I need a ported one.

Since I have neighbors (apartment building) I am not looking for big output. Can't have my walls shake. Want accuracy and sound quality.

Do I get a F12? wait for the replacement of the old FV12 ?
room is 13x18 and 8.5 ceiling.

Any suggestions?
My next upgrade is to also change my surrounds as I do listen to music in 7 Channel option and I am sure that my 2 old rear speakers are messing with the overall sound.

[curtis]

Yea, a SUB is a must and I have been looking for one for a month now. First wanted to get Rythmik F12 sealed. Then after realizing that I do 40% music and 60% movies and TV shows .... maybe I need a ported one.

Since I have neighbors (apartment building) I am not looking for big output. Can't have my walls shake. Want accuracy and sound quality.

Do I get a F12? wait for the replacement of the old FV12 ?
room is 13x18 and 8.5 ceiling.

Any suggestions?
My next upgrade is to also change my surrounds as I do listen to music in 7 Channel option and I am sure that my 2 old rear speakers are messing with the overall sound.
You will realize more WOW at louder volumes compared to the HTiB speakers.

In that space and what I think your listening levels are, I would think the F12 will more than suffice in terms of output, and will have better sound quality.

If you posted it before, I missed it, but where are you located?

[Pianist718]

You will realize more WOW at louder volumes compared to the HTiB speakers.

In that space and what I think your listening levels are, I would think the F12 will more than suffice in terms of output, and will have better sound quality.

If you posted it before, I missed it, but where are you located?

I am in brooklyn, NY

I just thought that maybe a sub like FV12 (ported) was better in my situation. No?

Also ... what's the benefit of F12SE (signature edition)

[curtis]

I am in brooklyn, NY

I just thought that maybe a sub like FV12 (ported) was better in my situation. No?

Also ... what's the benefit of F12SE (signature edition)
I don't see any benefit in your situation with the FV12. What advantage do you see in it ? We can discuss.

The "SE" difference is just in the finish...piano black.

[Pianist718]

I don't see any benefit in your situation with the FV12. What advantage do you see in it ? We can discuss.

The "SE" difference is just in the finish...piano black.

I thought that I can do good with less spend and plus, I hear ported sub is better for movies. Rythmik are known for their Ported subs sounding as good as other sealed subs for music.

[curtis]

I thought that I can do good with less spend and plus, I hear ported sub is better for movies. Rythmik are known for their Ported subs sounding as good as other sealed subs for music.
Ported subs can play louder around the tuning of the port, in the lower octave their capabilities. This is especially good in larger rooms.

Your room is not big, and you don't play at loud levels, so this advantage is lost.

If you want save money, then the FV12 is a good option. It just won't sound as great as the F12, but that isn't to say it isn't great in its own right.

[Pianist718]

So a final verdict .... Spend $1,000 to have Towers (L/R), sierra-1 NrT center and old HTIB sub

Or

Spend $1,000 on a Rythmik f12 sub and keep my (l/c/r) Sierra-1 NrTs?

What do u guys think?

[choirbass]

Just going based on what Dave had mentioned, the center 'should' be the most ideal speaker when it comes to surround. The HTIB sub seems more out of place given that.

It does seem upgrading the sub is a better idea.

[RicardoJoa]

I thought that I can do good with less spend and plus, I hear ported sub is better for movies. Rythmik are known for their Ported subs sounding as good as other sealed subs for music.
Ported is going to be louder, if that what is you need or want.
The peq version is very handy, it can help you tailor a better sound with the different settings like damping and extension and the peq.

[Dark Ranger]

Hi Pianist, :)

If I remember correctly, you enjoy listening to a subwoofer for music and movies, and you'd like to keep it that way. While it is true that the Sierra Towers/Horizon will be a step up in performance over your Sierra-1 NrT, the fact remains that the Onkyo HTIB sub is not contributing on the same level of your Sierra-1s. If I can be more blunt, it's basically a weak link in the chain. Therefore, my suggestion would be to upgrade your subwoofer since you want the bass reinforcement for music and movies.

Since you're still considering Rythmik, I agree with Curtis and recommend the sealed version (F12) instead of the ported. In your own words:


Since I have neighbors (apartment building) I am not looking for big output. Can't have my walls shake. Want accuracy and sound quality.

As Curtis pointed out, the usual benefits of a ported subwoofer don't blend with your requirements. The sealed sub will give you the accuracy and sound quality you're looking for. Trust me on that. Last year, I upgraded my old 250 watt Acoustic Research 12" sealed subwoofer (with passive radiator) and bought a 15" sealed Rythmik. The difference was literally night and day. I had the "wow" moment that Curtis mentioned.

BTW, there is basically no difference in SQ between the current 12" and 15" Rythmik models due to the design and servo architecture. The only reason I bought the 15" was to "future proof" my setup and because I've always wanted a 15" subwoofer. :p

You also asked about the "SE" difference. Curtis mentioned the gloss finish, but you also have the choice of cone/driver colors: either black or silver. I have the F15SE model to match my piano black Sierra-1s, and went with the standard black cone instead of the silver (it was back-ordered). I've seen the silver cone in a few setups and it looks great.

Upgrade subwoofer. Final answer. :cool:

[Pianist718]

Yea i am leaning towards upgrading as my bonuses come in :). Today buy the sub. In 3 month I'll get right and left towers thus moving Sieras nrt to surrounds. Next upgrade will be new big center speaker thus will sell my Sierra-1 center speaker and my last piece of the puzzle will be a new receiver.

Total cost after all is done, around $6,500. How good will that be? :)

[billy p]

I dunno my ported av12x sounds awesome... if you ask me. I've compared it against other highly regarded subs(ported) and I preferred it over the pb13u and vtf15h. There is little reason that a well built & designed ported sub within its limits couldn't hold up to a sealed sub....or better it...YMMV.

Just my 2 cents...:)

[curtis]

Ported subs definitely have their advantages, but in my experience, there are definitely different sound characteristics.

[billy p]

Ported subs definitely have their advantages, but in my experience, there are definitely different sound characteristics.

Hi Curtis...I heard Avs member PBC dual, dual av15hs and I understand how sealed units can pressurize a room...not sure what you mean by sound characteristics being different other than sealed units with second order harmonics are able to acheive those last few octaves which separate the 2 designs from a performance standpoint.

However...to me both sub playing within their limits sounded mostly simliar and both provided very tight accurate tacle bass(I know sounds like a cliche'..sorry:o) without missing a beat...especially in the mid to upper mid bass domain where most music is usually concentrated.

Ps: One day I'd like to hear a Rythmik sub and judge them for myself...if they weren't quality subs...Ascend likely wouldn't be afilited with them...:cool:

Regards...Bill

[curtis]

If you hear a sealed sub playing 16hz organ note, and a ported sub (port tuned to 16hz) playing the same note, the sound isn't the same.

Illka in his test of a Rythmik noted how it sounded "drier", lack of overhang.

[Pianist718]

Just saw that center speaker is 23" wide. My max space is 22" unless i hang my plasma on the wall and give full stand space to center speaker.

Opinion on having towers NrT with center Sierra-1NrT ???
Movies and music?

[JustaSheep]

Just saw that center speaker is 23" wide. My max space is 22" unless i hang my plasma on the wall and give full stand space to center speaker.

There are several people who have opted for hanging the plasma and using the top of the stand to hold the STC (self included). I am very happy with the results. Take a look at the last 7 or so pages of the photo thread. WAF is very high in my case.

There is no compromise in sound quality and the center is a nice piece of furniture. Why hide it?!;)

[Gov]

There are several people who have opted for hanging the plasma and using the top of the stand to hold the STC (self included). I am very happy with the results. Take a look at the last 7 or so pages of the photo thread. WAF is very high in my case.

There is no compromise in sound quality and the center is a nice piece of furniture. Why hide it?!;)

include me as well.....hang that TV and get the HTC!! You won't regret it.

[Pianist718]

I am thinking .... Is keeping Sierra-1 NrT as surrounds an overkill?

I do listen to music in 7ch receiver mode, so if for movies it may be an overkill, is it also too much for 7ch music listening? Could i have been more than happy with lets say the HTM 200?

[Jonnyozero3]

I am thinking .... Is keeping Sierra-1 NrT as surrounds an overkill?

I do listen to music in 7ch receiver mode, so if for movies it may be an overkill, is it also too much for 7ch music listening? Could i have been more than happy with lets say the HTM 200?


Sample size of one (me): I don't think it's overkill at all, not for music or movies in 7ch. I'd say you'd easily be happy with an HTM 200, but the Sierras are very punchy, dynamic, more refined, and a pleasure to use as surrounds. It depends on your pocketbook...using them as such is a luxury, but it's great.

[Pianist718]

Poket allowes me to do it but having money is not a reason to overspend or spend where it's not needed. For home theater it is probably an overkill but for music in All speakers mode it may not. Just wanted to see what others think. Thanks

[natetg57]

I use HTM-200's for surrounds and I don't feel like I'm missing anything. But there is no doubt that 170's and especially Sierra's would be an upgrade. It's definitely not where I would spend my money and more importantly I don't have the space to properly set 170's or Sierra's up.
So, if you have the room and feel like you want the 'best', than go with the Sierra's for surrounds. DVD-A and SACD discs will sound FANTASTIC!
If all of you music is two channel than Sierra's for surrounds might not be worth it.

[Pianist718]

I am still torn between RAAL vs NrT.

Currently I have (L/C/R) Sierras-1 NrT.

I am thinking .... for two kinds of sounds will I hear a big improvement from the RAAL tweeter. Those 2 sounds are ...... a leading saxophone in a smooth jazz music and human voice in movies. How bit of an improvement will this be for those specific sounds?

[natetg57]

music in All speakers mode

Are you planning on using all of your speakers for stereo music sources? I know individuals who think that's the best way to use their system to the fullest.
IMO the center and surround speakers should only be used for sources that contain those discrete channels. Spreading the two channels into 'all speakers' mode results in a degradation of sound. (IMO)
If two speakers are set up properly they will present a wide and seamless soundstage along with precise detail.

[Alleric]

If you hear a sealed sub playing 16hz organ note, and a ported sub (port tuned to 16hz) playing the same note, the sound isn't the same.

Illka in his test of a Rythmik noted how it sounded "drier", lack of overhang.

I've nothing to really contribute to the original topic of the thread (though I would agree that given the situational constraints, a subwoofer upgrade is probably where I would go), but this made me chuckle a bit. I grant you that evaluating a test pitch at the port tuning of enclosure A relative to the same pitch on a sealed enclosure B should by definition sound different (phase shifts, etc...) but at 16hz... noticing one as being drier? If only my stomach could be so precise. :)

Actually, now that I think about it... I dunno that I'd want anything sub-sonic to sound... dry. Something for me to ponder I suppose.

I'm just being a goof on this. With the size of my room and how open it is, it would be a dicey proposition indeed to get a sealed sub to compress air in any meaningful way below 20hz. So wet and wild (ported) it is for me. :)

Ok, I fibbed... I can comment on the topic:

Anyway, OP... you already own speakers that handle the top 9 octaves of human hearing with what I feel is solid ability. You could indeed replace them, but you'd be improving 9 octave you already have stellar representation for. I'm not saying it's an unjustified improvement (I actually wouldn't know... haven't heard the towers... OR the Sierra 1 NRT's). Your sub... I suspect heavily that if you got in there with testing material and a db meter you'd find your sub is crapping out at or just above 30hz (and I fear even higher).

Just like a rock solid tweet can put a beautiful shine on the upper registers of a speaker, a quality subwoofer can put a shine on the bottom. Subs are not complex animals. They don't have to do much (especially if you cross them over as low as I usually do), but what they have to do they need to do well to keep up with the mains. And if you have one that can indeed keep up with the mains, it will actually make the mains sound better. Even when it's not hammering you through the wall during movie time, it will be expanding your perception of the sound field during music. Well-integrated, it will sound like it should've always been there, this unconscious envelopment, dainty, pillowy soft hammer of the gods buildng the foundation of whatever you're listening to.

Anyway, if you've got the cash to upgrade all this stuff, and want to, go for it. If it was me? I'd start with the sub. Even at low volume levels, having a solid subwoofer is night and day even for basic watching of tv. I've had two maniacal caclke moments in my audio life in the past year. Sierra's a few weeks ago... and a monster sub a year ago. Weakest link fist. :)

[curtis]

If you plan on listening to DVD-A's, SACD's...and have the disc player to do so, and BluRay music discs, then I think using Sierra-1's as surrounds is a good idea. This stuff is often called "hi-res multi-channel" music.

If you are just going to listen to "all channel" stereo, which is something your receiver creates, then I think I might spend the money elsewhere.

I currently use Sierra-1's as my mains, and HTM-200SE's for surrounds. Works very well for hi-res multi-channel music. The HTM-200SE's are also much easier to mount/place because of their size and design.

[billy p]

I've nothing to really contribute to the original topic of the thread (though I would agree that given the situational constraints, a subwoofer upgrade is probably where I would go), but this made me chuckle a bit. I grant you that evaluating a test pitch at the port tuning of enclosure A relative to the same pitch on a sealed enclosure B should by definition sound different (phase shifts, etc...) but at 16hz... noticing one as being drier? If only my stomach could be so precise. :)

I base my comments with little techenical or background experience in speaker or sub design. The sealed vs. ported arguement was put to task in the KC Blind subwoofer shootout thread. It's a very interesting read that some of the actual owners had a difficult time discerning which is which....:)

Food for though....:cool:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1387178/archaeas-kansas-city-blind-subwoofer-shootout-2012

[Alleric]

I base my comments with little techenical or background experience in speaker or sub design. The sealed vs. ported arguement was put to task in the KC Blind subwoofer shootout thread. It's a very interesting read that some of the actual owners had a difficult time discerning which is which....:)

Food for though....:cool:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1387178/archaeas-kansas-city-blind-subwoofer-shootout-2012

Oh I've browsed that thread numerous times. Numerous, numerous times. Now, I fully... fully concede I've never sat down and done a full double blind test of numerous subwoofer options. I don't have the facilities in my home, and I don't have funds free to execute such extravagant exercises (I'd totally do it though if I could, of course). I can only really go by my anecdotes based on DIY subs I've built among other things.

All I can really say is that once it gets below say... 50hz for me? My ability to tell the difference starts going down as frequency does. And above that it's way more to do with me knowing the recording I'm listening to than anything else, as the response curve below the port tuning rolls off very steep. So if there's a portion of the experience I can tell is missing, that's my clue that a driver has uncoupled from the enclosure below a tuning frequncy.

Anyway, another reason I'm a big fan of subs with larger enclosures and way low port tunings, coupled with crossing the sub over as low as you can.

[curtis]

Yes..I agree that the KC GTG thread was/is very interesting.

[phlw]

Let me say up front that I listen to music almost exclusively with just a little HT. I do not own a subwoofer. I am posting because I used to own Sierra-1 Nrt but now own a pair of towers with the Nrt domes instead.

The Towers are distinctly different sounding in many ways, but both speakers are much better than anything else I have auditioned in their price range. Like others have said, the towers have more mid-range detail, and at middle to higher volume levels the bass is simply less strained sounding than the Sierra-1 (I am filling quite a large room with music). The Sierra-1's are a bit more layed-back, and in a few cases were just plain more fun to listen to than my Towers. With that said, I would never dream of selling my Towers and going back to the Sierra-1's, but I would definitely consider buying another pair of Sierra-1' someday for a second system.

As far as the OP's question. I think Sierra-1's with a good sub woofer will get you a nice smooth-yet-crisp sound, with deeper but less-tight bass. The Sierra Tower will definitely bring out more detail in a movie without being irritating, and tighter bass that will not go as deep as a subwoofer.

I do not think the Towers would be an acoustic over-kill in a smaller room. As a matter of fact, I think the Towers can be played successfully at a lower volume than the Sierra-1's. Before I bought my original Sierra-1's I did audition some speakers that were similar in size to the Towers. Some were were overkill even for my large room. I believe they were designed to have a deep, loose bass, but with loss in bass detail, and that is what gave me the "overkill" impression. The Towers have a tight detailed bass that I think is fantastic!

IMHO there is really no "wrong" decision here.

[Pianist718]

2 days ago I added a Rythmik F12 subwoofer to my system and wow, what a sound.

When I started thinking about upgrading to towers, some people suggested that I'll notice a bigger difference is sound if I spend that $1,000 on a better Receiver (refurbished ... so true price would be around $1,700)

what do you guys think? With the system I have ... next step ... better Receiver?

[Jonnyozero3]

2 days ago I added a Rythmik F12 subwoofer to my system and wow, what a sound.

When I started thinking about upgrading to towers, some people suggested that I'll notice a bigger difference is sound if I spend that $1,000 on a better Receiver (refurbished ... so true price would be around $1,700)

what do you guys think? With the system I have ... next step ... better Receiver?

Well, you already have 105 watts per channel, and all the bells and whistles of HDMI and blu-ray specs, so I'd say easy kill: towers would make the biggest difference. They are as much a step above the Sierra 1's as those are above the CBM/CMT's, if you ask me. The dedicated midrange and dual woofers make things effortless.

Plus, they are more sensitive and will be easier to drive with your AVR.

And just think, you could have overkill Sierra-1 surrounds! Lol (I do).

You could also swap your surrounds to HTM's...

[Pianist718]

Well, you already have 105 watts per channel, and all the bells and whistles of HDMI and blu-ray specs, so I'd say easy kill: towers would make the biggest difference. They are as much a step above the Sierra 1's as those are above the CBM/CMT's, if you ask me. The dedicated midrange and dual woofers make things effortless.

Plus, they are more sensitive and will be easier to drive with your AVR.

And just think, you could have overkill Sierra-1 surrounds! Lol (I do).

You could also swap your surrounds to HTM's...


Strange. Half the people say that receiver is crucial. If it's not, why do people spend thousands on them???

[Jonnyozero3]

Strange. Half the people say that receiver is crucial. If it's not, why do people spend thousands on them???

You're right, the receiver still makes a difference, sometimes an important one.

But a speaker change/upgrade will almost always be much more noticeable.

[phlw]

My experience has been that a good receiver can make quite a difference. I had an AMC R9 (MSRP $800) which was nice, but found an older Marantz SR18 (MSRP ~$1800) on Craigslist for $175 and bought it. The Marantz had more detail and power while sounding smoother. Both my wife and I noticed quite a difference. It does a very good job at driving my Sierra Towers.

I had a similar experience when I compared my previously-owned Rotel RA-960BX integrated amp (I bought brand new at $500) with a Marantz PM17 integrated amp (Craigslist find $125, but was originally $1200 MSRP). I only bought the Marantz because it was a good price had a remote which my Rotel didn't. Both amps are 60W, and I was not expecting much of a difference, but boy was I wrong! The Rotel was a great amp, but the Marantz just sang music in comparison. Bass was definitely much better on the Marantz as well. This was not a placebo situation where "the more expensive amp was more expensive, so it has to sound better", because I actually payed much less for the Marantz.

Like others have said, upgrading to the Towers would make more of a difference, but a better amplifier makes more of a difference than I used to think in would. I would probably go for the Towers first, and would keep in mind upgrading the electronics later.

[choirbass]

Agreed. For instance, if the speakers themselves are incapable of discerning between good quality and bad, then a receiver's quality (or components otherwise) simply wont really matter much. But if the speakers themselves 'can' tell the difference, and are even made to, then 'everything' between the source material and speaker can have a fairly obvious affect on the overall quality of the source material.

[Pianist718]

Agreed. For instance, if the speakers themselves are incapable of discerning between good quality and bad, then a receiver's quality (or components otherwise) simply wont really matter much. But if the speakers themselves 'can' tell the difference, and are even made to, then 'everything' between the source material and speaker can have a fairly obvious affect on the overall quality of the source material.

Yea but I am talking about replacing Sierra-1 NrT which is a pretty good speaker. It's not like I am upgrading from HTiB to Towers. Plus ... room is pretty compact 13x18

[choirbass]

Oops, lol. Was adding to the above comment, but it would seem to be even more so with the towers, since mid range clarity is apparently that much improved. :)

Personally I'm waiting to see what the Sierra-2 offers, being in a fairly small room now too. Hoping a modified RAAL can be used, so that mid-range is improved too.

[GirgleMirt]

Strange. Half the people say that receiver is crucial. If it's not, why do people spend thousands on them???
I would certainly hope it's features... But realistically, why do people believe in astrology, homeopathy, bigfoot, santa claus, ghosts, angels, an invisible being living in the sky watching everything they do, etc.?

One of the most important concept in audio that you have to understand is the placebo effect. The human brain/hearing really aren't adequate to evaluate amplifiers.

Blind tests:

http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm

1 -------- Pre Amplifier Mark Levinson No. 38S + Stage Mark Levinson No. 333
Amplifier CARVER PXM 2 -------- 450 PRO (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=es&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://www.matrixhifi.com/mlcarverpro.htm&usg=ALkJrhg0B3PiBPQi_WACDfDqaBhvXHYvEQ)
-- No differences were found


1 ----------- Pre Amplifier Mark Levinson No. 38S + Stage Mark Levinson No. 333 JML
2 ----------- Stage Amplifier tube (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=es&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://www.matrixhifi.com/contenedor_mljml.htm&usg=ALkJrhjKLBFy9TX6g21z80wDo2NvMrA8HA)
-- No differences were found

1 -------- Pre Amplifier No. 38S + ML ML No. 333 Stage
-------- Yamaha P7000S Amplifier 2 (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=es&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://www.matrixhifi.com/contenedor_mlyamahapro.htm&usg=ALkJrhhCvwhE8LKsJ_TiFUFk0-LEbSBdvg)
-- No differences were found

1 -------- Pre Amplifier Mark Levinson No. 38S + Stage MARK LEVINSON No. 333
2 -------- Amplifier YAMAHA RX-V 540 (AV Basic) (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=es&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://www.matrixhifi.com/mlyamahaav.htm&usg=ALkJrhiNoO_dwyE9HUfJuuhUvi-BoEqplw)
-- No differences were found


1 -------- Pre Amplifier Mark Levinson No. 38S + Stage MARK LEVINSON No. 333
2 -------- Amplifier NAD C 370 (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=es&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://www.matrixhifi.com/contenedor_mlnad.htm&usg=ALkJrhhJM9e0rlh7MdiGtaiqKxDcFrIHPA)
-- No differences were found

'crap' vs overpriced (http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=es&tl=en&twu=1&u=http://www.matrixhifi.com/contenedor_ppec.htm&usg=ALkJrhhPg515sDoYYDTomZh9TZRkDYx1rA)


Agreed. For instance, if the speakers themselves are incapable of discerning between good quality and bad, then a receiver's quality (or components otherwise) simply wont really matter much. But if the speakers themselves 'can' tell the difference, and are even made to, then 'everything' between the source material and speaker can have a fairly obvious affect on the overall quality of the source material.

You're giving human attributes to an audio component... You have to remember that an amplifier simply amplifies a signal. If it does so accurately, then it does so accurately... Today, year 2012, the technology of amplifiers is quite advanced (the technology is not in its infancy) and engineers have understood how to make amplifiers which will amplify a signal very accurately. There are bad amplifiers out there, but properly designed amps non clipping amps will simply sound indistinguishable from one another, as blind tests conclude.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/12752-blind-listening-tests-amplifiers.html


For a recent non-believer, I used an Onkyo SR500 Dolby Digital receiver--purchased reconditioned for $200 (they're $250 - $300 new) against some well regarded separates. It's rated at 65 watts x 2 stereo per the FTC guidelines into 8 ohms. Distortion is 0.08% from 20-20k from 1 watt to 65 watts into 8 ohms. It has a "direct" bypass feature that supposedly bypasses all the digital/DSP for analog stereo signals.

The Onkyo was put up against the well regarded Bryston 4B 300 wpc power amp and a Bryston 2 channel pre-amp. They were driving a pair of expensive floor standing KEF speakers and the source was a high-end Marantz CD player. The person who owns this system is very proud of it and has spent a lot of time getting what he considers to be the best sound possible.

I had the Bryston owner pick the level he wanted to do the comparison at while listening to his system. I then used pink noise to level match the Onkyo to his system while he was out of the room. The Onkyo was running in its "Stereo Direct" analog mode.

I called him back in to listen, he sat down in the sweet spot and I replayed the same CD track he'd used to pick the levels. He immediately started complaining about how bad the Onkyo sounded. He said it sounded thin, compressed, harsh and a few other things. I smiled and turned the Onkyo off and the music kept playing. He'd said all those negative things about his own Bryston gear!

With him red faced, we proceeded to do at least an hour of listening with me swapping cables, or only pretending to, when he requested a switch. He listened to his favorite audiophile CDs. I did lots of swaps and fake swaps and during each would ask him which he thought he was listening to. In the end, his answers were roughly 50% correct which is the same as if he'd been randomly guessing. He even finally admitted, he couldn't tell which was which and WAS only guessing! I took his place and also couldn't hear any difference between the lowly receiver and his prized Bryston gear.

Tom Nousaine has set up a number of self-professed golden-eared audiophiles with an ABX comparator in their own home using their own system and allowed to run tests at their own leisure over periods of months or more.

So far, none have been able to statistically discern any differences once basic issues such as distortion, frequency response and level matching have been addressed.

Of course this isn't necessarily what I'd call definitive. But I have always been amused at how "night and day" differences tend to simply vanish once the listener is simply denied the knowledge of which component they're listening to.

They're absolutely sure they hear a difference when switching between A and B. And they're often just as absolutely sure when they compare to X. Yet when the results are examined, no statstically significant correct (or incorrect for that matter) responses seem to manifest.

I would like to think that anything described as "night and day" should be able to be distinguished 100% of the time seeing as there are many "subtle differences" which are easily distinguished by certain individuals 100% of the time in such tests.

Links: http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=82777


Strange. Half the people say that receiver is crucial. If it's not, why do people spend thousands on them???
Anyhow, I'll let George Carlin sum things up:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xgBFPRZeyMQ/TwU_lFpKylI/AAAAAAAAGZo/abwUUYkeYWI/s1600/red_man_in_the_mirra%2Bcarlinstupidquote.jpg

But yeah not all amps sound the same. Some sound different by design or maybe just because it's not a competent amp... Some have more power and will distort sooner/later than others, etc.

[phlw]

Pianist 718... perhaps home-loan, or purchase off of Craigslist a different receiver and see what you think. I suggest that the receiver be from a different company and cost well more than twice the price of your current receiver. An older, but high-quality receiver can be picked up for pretty cheap nowdays! If you don't hear much of a difference, then you have saved quite a bit of money.

IMHO, the differences in amplification quality is usually not as discernible at lower volume levels. Since you do not play that loud, and have a smaller room, it may turn out not to be a worthwhile investment.

Simply just give it a try and see what you think.

Have fun :)

[hearing specialist]

I can share this in reference to the 465, it has the guts and power with that signature Yamaha sound but lacks advanced video processing, any kind of volume processing, guided on screen display, more audio options, advanced adjustability, various surround adjustments, bi-amping abilities, multi point standing wave measures to name a few. I was shocked at the difference going to a different receiver with all the mentioned features added. With all the same and plugging new rec. in the video was dramatically better (DirectTV), the default HD Dolby Digital was dramatically clearer, just everything was so clean and clear. That alone was the realization of just because it can decode the same all the added processing abilities added so much more and made the 465 seem so lacking. I loved my 465 but it was until I experienced a higher level of precision and adjustability that gave me a appreciation of all these added programs. My 465 is still for sale and in the garage for someone to snag it. It is a great product with great amplification but lacks all the added features now available.

[phlw]

GirgleMirt... I agree that the outcomes of these studies showed that there was no statistically significant difference between amplifiers, but my experience has shown otherwise.

I see two issues with these listening sessions...

1) They are really testing the person, and not the electronics. The fact that a person knows that he/she is being evaluated on their accuracy to pick out the better electronics is a placebo effect in itself that distorts the study (read Test Anxiety).

A better test would be either...

A) The person sitting in their own living room relaxing with a shot of fine scotch and nobody around.

or

B) A study with people that could care less about audio or the outcome.


2) I know this is cheating when trying to normalize out variables in a test, but the test taker should have full use of the volume control at all times. This is more realistic to the listening environment.

[Dark Ranger]

I'm going to give you my subjective belief on specific improvements. :p

1) Speakers & Listening Room

I consider this duo to be yin-yang and to provide a majority percentage of audio improvements. Speakers have a very difficult job to do: they must convert electrical signals into sound waves. The better your speakers are at doing this, the better sound overall you will get.

The listening room is the receptive or destructive partner of the speaker. If the room thwarts the speaker's energy and accuracy in certain areas, the listener will (likely) pick up on these arguments and overall quality will be diminished. However, if the listening room is treated such that it resolves the conflict and fully supports the speaker's strengths, then a harmonious and satisfying listening experience will ensue. :)

2) Electronics (pre/pros, amplifiers, receivers, analog source like turntables, and digital to analog sources like SACD players)

This area is where the source electrical signals are handled, processed, and amplified. If the input signal is degraded here in any way, the final content delivered to the speakers will suffer.

3) Source recording

Some folks believe the source recording should have priority above the electronics. In my experience, the best recordings cannot be played back accurately unless the entire system is capable of resolving subtle details. I believe in the Garbage In, Garbage Out concept, and I believe that listeners should purchase high-quality recordings. Nevertheless, in my experience, the difference between a high-quality recording and a low-quality recording is much more apparent in a system with upgraded electronics.

4) Digital sources

This category includes devices like CD transports, Squeezebox, iPods, etc. As long as the signal stays within the digital domain from input to output, there is minimal negative impact to the overall sound quality.

5) Cables and interconnects

I believe one should purchase quality, well-made cables for several reasons. Poorly-made cables can be more susceptible to external noise and interference. With speakers cables, small gauge wire can restrict current/voltage delivery over longer runs. There are very minimal sonic improvements to be made here. Focus on build quality instead of sound quality in this area.


With all of that said, if I had to choose between upgrading to Sierra Towers and upgrading a receiver, I would pick the towers hands down. It's an absolute no-brainer. In my experience, there is little difference in sound quality with most low- to mid-fi receivers. Buying a receiver is more about features than it is sound quality in my opinion. A receiver is an all-in-one device designed with compromises. You typically give up performance in the amplification and analog section (although most flagship receivers do better) compared to true separates. The brand new receivers continue to improve the overall sound quality compared to older models, so upgrading an aging receiver very well could help you there.

If you really want to try a receiver upgrade, I'd recommend you figure out what features you need/want. Get a model that suits your checklist, and see what improvements it offers. If you aren't happy, bring it back and get the Towers instead.

My fifty-two cents. :p

[GirgleMirt]

I see two issues with these listening sessions...

1) They are really testing the person, and not the electronics.
Not really... They're testing to see if people can or can't hear a difference under blind conditions. The same people who fail the blind listening tests are usually the ones who claim that the differences are blatantly obvious, until you remove the bias/placebo and then they find themselves unable to differentiate a 300$ and a 20000$ amplifier...

It's not so much to test if a person is able to hear the differences, more to find out (test) if two pieces of electronics are distinguishable under blind conditions; when people don't know which they're listening to and can't be fooled by things like bias and placebo. It's to test whether listeners are really able to reliably differentiate the 'sound' of two amps for instance.


The fact that a person knows that he/she is being evaluated on their accuracy to pick out the better electronics is a placebo effect in itself that distorts the study (read Test Anxiety).
Well I did mention Tom Nousaine's tests in a quote... Or the guy who thought he was listening to a crap amp and started to denigrate it when it was in fact his own Bryston playing... But anyway. Performance anxiety is rather moot imho. Let's say you were nervous, would you fail a test to distinguish a red from a blue ball? Probably not... green and red? Nope... It would be easy because they would look very different.

What if the balls were really closely matched though, pure red for one while the other had a very subtle hint of yellow, making the colors barely distinguishable... One person could claim that the difference is very obvious, and the one with the label "pure red" is indeed pure red and that it's obvious that the other color isn't pure red. But can he really or does he just imagine it? Can he really tell those two colors apart? He claims he can, how can we know? Blind test or DBT :)

By removing the label identifying the colors and shuffling the balls, it would be easy to see if the person really could. Nervous or non-nervous he should be able to do do so. If they're really different it would be easy to tell them apart, but if they're very similar then then the person might not be able to correctly identify the 'pure' red... If the person could reliably(statistically) correctly identify the pure red, bang, we know he can and we know the colors are different, case closed. If not, it wouldn't mean there's no difference, just that people couldn't tell them apart when they didn't know which was which beforehand; when bias/placebo was removed. In that case, you could easily conclude that their color was closely matched or at least very similar.

That's what seems to be going on with audio and amps. One sells a 500$ 'pure' red ball and everyone loves the pure red color, while others sell a 50$ non-pure red ball and everyone hates it because it's not pure red and it's really not as red as the other... Yet nobody can tell them apart if their colors are not clearly labeled! lol That's audio my friend... So no, imho, it's not performance anxiety, it's just two things which are indistinguishable from one another under blind conditions because they basically sound exactly the same...


A better test would be either...

A) The person sitting in their own living room relaxing with a shot of fine scotch and nobody around.

or

B) A study with people that could care less about audio or the outcome.

Yeah these tests are very common and have been done, and they reach the same conclusions... Read up on the Matrix-hifi or other blind tests, very common.


2) I know this is cheating when trying to normalize out variables in a test, but the test taker should have full use of the volume control at all times. This is more realistic to the listening environment.
Yeah they often do.. If an amp is tested, the volume is via pre which is often the same for both power amps. Most tests have details on test procedure, and the people who actually bother to do the tests make sure that the test is adequate because they know that if not they're simply wasting their time, so they make it as 'fair' and agreeable as possible.

Anyhow, audio is very much like religion, where you have some people who believe and you have people who don't. The data is there, the tests/proofs are there, yet, some people want to continue to believe one way or another. Some (snakeoil vendors for instance) have interest in pushing the myths just like church has pushing the religion.

There are so many similarities it's scary. When an 'audiophile' is told that his 10000$ amp doesn't sound any better than a 200$ special, they are basically shocked, offended, angry and reject the possibility. How could this person be wrong! He heard the differences so clearly! This is impossible, and they simply reject and refuse to believe it, they even refuse to consider it! Just impossible! It reminds me of this man right here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8VaBCikHGs Was he an audiophile and told his overpriced amp isn't better than a budget amp, he would say the same thing, he can't afford to make such error in his audio hobby, if it sounded the same he would never have purchased the amp, so of course it sounds different and the 10000$ amp is so much better! It just HAS to be!

People who think they can hear difference most definitely believe amps do not sound the same. But in many cases it's placebo/bias (interesting read if you're not familiar with them, lots of info to be found with google!) they are mistaken/imagining things. But anyhow, as I said, some amps are still better than others. Some can't drive 2-4 ohms speakers, some will clip sooner, some have higher THD&N, some have a skewed FR and act as an EQ, some have different features, maybe a better/worst crossover for the sub, EQ, etc. So not all amps sound the same, but proficient amps do, because they all do the same thing well; amplify an electrical signal.

And even again, in audio, take tube amps which unarguably have more distortion than solid state... How many people prefer tubes? How many prefer vinyls? Sigh...


GirgleMirt... I agree that the outcomes of these studies showed that there was no statistically significant difference between amplifiers, but my experience has shown otherwise.
I bet you 10$ no DBT, and only subjective opinion; placebo/bias error prone test ;) :p I think this simply supports my point... If you walked down the street for a few hours, you could probably find a handful of people who have recently seen Jesus or Elvis... People who claim to be able to hear differences between amps, cd players, DACs, etc., are many, but how many have ever bothered to test out their theories/beliefs? If someone posted that he saw Elvis with his own eyes in a bar 3 days ago, would that sway your opinion on the death of Elvis?

I'm not saying you're wrong, there could have very well been differences between the amps you've tested, or, there might have been none and you were simply mistaken; placebo/bias. It would only have been human... And there is the rub and the whole point. It's why blind tests exist and why people who care about the validity of their beliefs do DBTs.

I remember reading a stereophile review of some very high end speakers and the measurements found glaring faults in the speaker, and the reviewer mentioned that the speakers were designed by ear. Well there you go. Sounded fantastic to the speaker designer, but turns out it was actually 'crap' according to the measurements. You just can't rely on your ears/brain to identify minute differences between for instance 2 amps or drivers/woofers/croosovers/cdplayers/etc. Even if 2 things are exactly the same, you're likely to hear differences...

That's why DBTs exist, to remove bias and placebo... So that you can validate your listening results in a way that you can say with certainty that you are absolutely sure that you really did hear differences and weren't simply mistaken or imagining differences where there are none...

But not all amps sound the same ex: http://home.provide.net/~djcarlst/abx_pwr.htm fact of the matter is that technically most amps measurements/specs indicate that they should sound the same and they do... Audiophile amps to me are largely like supernatural claims. People claim to be able to read minds or find water using sticks of wood or whatnot, and really believe they do, yet, when tested with a bit of rigor, all those supernatural powers surprisingly vanish, and the people are always so quick to find many excuses of why their supernatural powers failed.

I guess amps are a bit touchy because some do sound different... I personally don't know which is good/bad and which sound the same or different.. According to DBTs, most amps from big name companies should be more than decent. But who knows... sigh

[mchrisbrown]

What a great post- should be stickied. I've done a ton of research on this as well and came to the conclusion. One interesting thing to google is "richard clark amp challenge" where many have tried to distinguish amps but can't.

Since we humans can't hear the differences in amps the absolute best way to maximize audio performance is to spend the money where it really matters - super high end interconnect cables :D No flames or responses required - just having a little fun :D

[Pianist718]

I will guarantee you that the sub is not of the same quality of the Sierra's. Change it out, and you will have another "Wow" moment.

I am not sure how you have it integrated, but I am sure that it is bringing down the overall experience when it is used in conjunction with the Sierras.

From and HTiB to Sierra standpoint, I would expect a considerable improvement...and I mean CONSIDERABLE. Perhaps there is a configuration/setup issue.

You will spend a long time trying to achieve perfection. There are SO MANY factors. Speakers play a big roll, but there is so much more that contributes to the sound in your room.

Curtis ..... changing my HTiB sub to Rythmik F12 has been the biggest WOW I had with this system.

[Blutarsky]

I think that when you get into the highest end of audio, with all components, and connections of the finest quality, any flaws will become apparent.

I have heard top systems, set up by the best in the business. I could practically hear the musicians heart beat. There must have been something done right.

Nontheless, most of us take pride in extracting value, along with quality, and have a lot of fun. Ascend is practically a guilty pleasure in this regard.

Blutarsky

[choirbass]

I was tempted to go upstairs to bring down the JVC RX-8030VBK AVR, to make comparisons again, for my own benefit no less.. I hope I wasn't imagining the static that was present when it was used as a pre-amp for the Emotiva UPA-7. Distortions, when using Direct to bypass any added processing were annoyingly obvious then, at least when the UPA-7 was added those things weren't there before. Dunno if unbearably annoying could be considered a good thing then, but all else being equal now, I shouldn't hear any difference except that I'm wanting there to be..

This sucks, *shrug*, lol.

[GirgleMirt]

hehe thx chris if you were referring to my post.. :D Interesting the R.C. amp challenge! http://tom-morrow-land.com/tests/ampchall/index.htm


Amplifier requirements

The amplifiers in the test must be operated within their linear power capacity. Power capacity is defined as clipping or 2% THD 20Hz to 10kHz, whichever is less. This means that if one amplifier has more power (Watts) than the other, the amplifiers will be judged within the power range of the least powerful amplifier .

The levels of both left and right channels will be adjusted to match to within .05 dB. Polarity of connections must be maintained so that the signal is not inverted. Left and Right cannot be reversed. Neither amplifier can exhibit excessive noise. Channel separation of the amps must be at least 30 dB from 20Hz to 20kHz.

All signal processing circuitry (e.g. bass boost, filters) must be turned off, and if the amplifier still exhibits nonlinear frequency response, an equalizer will be set by Richard Clark and inserted inline with one of the amps so that they both exhibit identical frequency response. The listener can choose which amplifier gets the equalizer .
The last paragraph would scare me though if I was hosting the challenge... Not sure how many bands the EQ would have, but I'd be worried that even with the EQ there might be residual audible FR aberrations between the two amps to make it so that they could be differentiable...

Anyhow, another good article and test: http://www.hometheaterfocus.com/receivers/amplifier-sound-quality.aspx "Futterman Monoblock Amplifier array couldnt beat the $200 Pioneer"

From R.C.:

Does this mean all amps sound the same in a normal install?

No. Richard Clark is very careful to say that amps usually do not sound the same in the real world. The gain setting of an amplifier can make huge differences in how an amplifier sounds, as can details like how crossovers or other filters are set. When played very loud (into clipping), the amplifier with more power will generally sound better than a lower powered amp.

Most people perceive slight differences in amplitude as quality differences rather than loudness. The louder component sounds “faster, more detailed, more full”, not just louder. This perceptual phenomenon is responsible for many people thinking they liked the sound of a component when really they just liked the way it was set up.

[davef]

I mostly agree with Girgle on this one, however – there are definite, audible differences between different classes of amplifiers. For example, “digital amplifiers”, while being much more efficient, do so at the cost of switching noise. The power supply actually turns on and off at a very fast rate and this can be audible (ICE Power is a good example of well implemented class D technology). I once listened to a full range amp based on BASH technology and it was awful for full range music, which I believe is why they are so popular for use as subwoofer amplifiers (switching noise is typically very high in the frequency spectrum). There can be considerable differences in audio quality based on the design of the amplification stage.

That said, most amplifiers and receivers these days are class A/B and if this technology is implemented properly, you will not hear a difference from one to another provided that the amp is designed to function as a true power amp (no frequency response tailoring) and has the output power to reach the dynamic peaks required.

Receivers these days are a bit different because of all of the different DSP processing. A consumer may “upgrade” from one receiver to another and the new receiver might sound better, but in nearly all cases – this is due to the implementation of the different codec’s and various DSP modes. Dolby Volume is a good example of this. At lower volume levels, the receiver with Dolby Volume will typically “sound” better than one without it but this is technically not a case of one receiver sounding better than another, although for most consumers – that is exactly what they perceive it to be. The reality is that one receiver simply has a feature that another does not have. There are additional factors to consider based on the DSP chipsets, how bass management is implemented, auto EQ or lack thereof etc.

For 2-channel audio (assuming bypassing various DSP processing), I strongly doubt anyone would hear a difference between your basic $300 2-channel class A/B receiver (say a HK-3490) and a $2000 top of the line fully featured AVR.

Ascend customers generally fall into two camps – we have audio purists who avoid all the bells and whistles and strive for audio accuracy for music listening, purest analog signals possible. Then we have those who strive to achieve what sounds best to them and thus utilizing the digital domain (which unavoidably results in a less pure analog signal at the final stage) and AutoEQ. Those who strive for purity would be wasting money on receiver/amplifier upgrades provided that their existing equipment is up to par. Those who want to achieve what sounds best to them, receiver upgrades can be worthwhile based on newer feature sets that alter the original signal.

There is no right or wrong with this, just a matter of what you want to achieve.

For me, for music listening – I am an extreme purist and want to hear as much as the original (unaltered) analog source as possible, whether I like how it sounds or not.

All that said, nothing influences the overall performance more than the actual speakers themselves. They are the component that converts electrical energy into sound waves, the last chain in the system. Think about it this way, in a receiver – the only aspects that affect the way something sounds is:

1. Frequency response (if the receiver alters the original frequency response of the source)

2. Power capability – if not enough power, dynamics will be limited and signal peaks will be compressed.

3. Distortion (including the conversion for analog to digital and back again)

That is really it.

With a loudspeaker, there are so many variables that influence the way something sounds.

1. Frequency Response of the speakers themselves.
2. Phase integration / phase response
3. Off-axis dispersion (power response)
4. Power handling capability
5. Distortion
6. Transient / Impulse response
7. Stored energy
8. Cabinet resonance
9. Driver resonance

…and many more. Each of these variables is audible. For example, even the most advanced DSP system can not change the dispersion characteristics of a loudspeaker and many professionals believe (including this one) that this aspect has more influence over the way something sounds than anything else. When considering transient accuracy, resonance control and phase integration between the drivers – (all factors that DSP processing in a receiver can not influence) it becomes quickly apparent that HiFi starts and ends with the loudspeakers. It is why more than half of our customers prefer to avoid using any digital processing and look to the loudspeakers as the critical component.

Of course, from there we must consider power cord upgrades ;)

[Pianist718]

David .... Then what a guy from another forum wrote is verry accurate. Here is what his suggestion is.....

"

More expensive receivers usually offer the following:
Better remote
More features (you may desire or not)
Bigger beefier power amplifiers
Possibly better sound.
More channels (9.1 or 11.1 versus 5.1 or 7.1 etc)

It depends what you want to do with it. People like to buy the big expensive receiver and often never use the added features or never needed the power.

What I would look for is the least expensive receiver you can find that offers the surround features you need and channels you need (and possibly one with preouts so you can add power amps.

Receivers are basically disposable toasters with horrid resale value. Stereo shops are littered with $3000 receivers 8-10 years ago that sell for $200 now.

Once the feature set is out of date they're pretty much worthless. I would treat a receiver like a laptop - in three years they're pretty much obsolete junk.

So if you buy a $700 current just released receiver you will pretty much get 90% of the features you would get from a $2100 receiver. If you run reasonably efficient speakers it's doubtful you'll notice an audible difference (in the same line - comparing say a Marantz to a Marantz or Deonon to Denon etc). Then in 3 years you buy another $700 receiver - chances are that new $700 receiver will blow the current $2000 receiver away in terms of features. But even if it's "just on par" you have now equaled the $2100 receiver and over 6 years you've spent $1400. Plus three years after that if you spend $700 you can be pretty much guaranteed that any $700 receiver in 2018 will beat any current $2100 receiver in terms of remote feature set and perhaps power and sound as well all for the same money spread over three purchases.

Further you were able to sell the previous 2 receivers or use them in second and third systems. So over 9 years you have three amplifiers. Or one receiver that had to last 9 years (buying one now for 9 years or buying one now - for 3 years, another for 3 more years, and another for 3 more years). The $2100 one will be out of date in 3-6 years. But with the three receivers - you will always be "up to date" on technology and in year 9 when or if they've replaced HDMI with something else your machine will have the connections or if they're up to 20.2 you're machine will have the connections.


As for the power amp section - if the receiver has the preouts you could buy yourself some good well built power amps that probably beat any in the receivers and you can cart them along to every receiver in the future or buy surround processors instead.


A Receiver is like an all in one printer. It does everything but nothing particularly well. Their reason for being is features. But if the features are passe every few years you may as well go as cheap as possible with all the features you require and treat them as disposable.

Further if the $700 one blows up after the warranty it is easier to swallow than the $2,100 or $5,000 beastie if it fails.

Receivers have very high failure rates. I worked at McDonalds - we went through 3 receivers in a year - Yamaha, Denon, and Sony and they only ran two speakers. I had the flagship Pioneer Elite in the mid 95 - (the first one was DOA) - the second one was okay but my current 2003 $350 Marantz sounds every bit as good (in some ways better) and is far more advanced in every way. 8 year later a $350 receiver embarrasses an over $2,000 receiver.

Frankly I would look at something like this.

http://www.crutchfield.com/S-guT4TWbv7mV/p_642NR1603/Marantz

* "

Makes sense???

[phlw]

Great info everyone! I am usually a very data-driven guy and can't believe I am saying this, but my experience is there is definitely a perceivable difference in spite of these studies.

For a long time I owned a very nice Rotel RA-960BX 60W/Ch integrated amp I bought new.

Years later I was looking for a new CD player on Craigslist and found a Marantz CD-17 for $100 (MRSP $1000). He was also selling a matching Marantz PM-17 60W/Ch integrated for $125 (MSRP$ 1200).

I just wanted the CD player, and was not going to waste my money on the Marantz integrated because I though there would be very little, if any, difference. After long thought, I decided to get the Marantz integrated as well because it had a remote (Rotel didn't), and I would have a nice matching set.

When I got home I tried the Marantz CD player, and couldn't be sure if I could hear any difference from my current (much cheaper) CD player. I was a bit disappointed, but no big loss as it was in very good shape, looked cool, and only cost $100. Also, now I had a matching amplifier with a remote that would run both units.

A few days later I hooked up the Marantz integrated in place of my Rotel as I was now going to sell the Rotel to a friend. I was fully not expecting any difference at all, but all I can say was the difference was immediately apparent.

The vocals were a bit more up front and harmonized better, plus the bass was tighter and deeper. Was the difference worth $700 to me (the diff in the two amps' new price), probably not, but it was it worth the $375 less I payed for the Marantz... of course! My point here is that I had absolutely no vested interest in the Marantz sounding any different than the Rotel, and it sure surprised me that it did.

Maybe I am living in ignorant bliss here. That is why I only buy my electronics off of Craigslist. If I am kidding myself, then it isn't breaking the bank :)

Again, thanks much for you very thoughtful and informative posts. I find this very interesting. I have to admit my experience is opposite of the usually skeptical approach I have to subjects such as this.

[Blutarsky]

Maybe buy a high quality multi channel amp, and get a new processor, or receiver as needed. That way you could keep up with the features, and spent the bucks where it matters.

Blutarsky

[Pianist718]

Maybe buy a high quality multi channel amp, and get a new processor, or receiver as needed. That way you could keep up with the features, and spent the bucks where it matters.

Blutarsky

Exactly what i quoted a guy on. See post 68 above

[Blutarsky]

I noticed that. I am a speed reader. I caught myself later. Sorry.

Still....It is something I am actively pursuing.

Wyred 4 Sound is going to let me audition one of these

http://www.wyred4sound.com/webapps/p/74030/117839/339143

I think my Towers could use more power. And the idea of using a moderately priced receiver on top is logical.

B.

[GirgleMirt]

I mostly agree with Girgle on this one, however – there are definite, audible differences between different classes of amplifiers. For example, “digital amplifiers”, while being much more efficient, do so at the cost of switching noise. The power supply actually turns on and off at a very fast rate and this can be audible (ICE Power is a good example of well implemented class D technology). I once listened to a full range amp based on BASH technology and it was awful for full range music, which I believe is why they are so popular for use as subwoofer amplifiers (switching noise is typically very high in the frequency spectrum). There can be considerable differences in audio quality based on the design of the amplification stage.
Interesting... So are digital amps are inherently inferior to A/B for the top end or is it just a case of implementation? Is it still audible/measurable in the audible range in case of the good implementations?


Ascend customers generally fall into two camps – we have audio purists who avoid all the bells and whistles and strive for audio accuracy for music listening, purest analog signals possible. Then we have those who strive to achieve what sounds best to them and thus utilizing the digital domain (which unavoidably results in a less pure analog signal at the final stage) and AutoEQ. Those who strive for purity would be wasting money on receiver/amplifier upgrades provided that their existing equipment is up to par. Those who want to achieve what sounds best to them, receiver upgrades can be worthwhile based on newer feature sets that alter the original signal.

There is no right or wrong with this, just a matter of what you want to achieve.

For me, for music listening – I am an extreme purist and want to hear as much as the original (unaltered) analog source as possible, whether I like how it sounds or not.
Hmmm... Somewhat surprised, but yeah that makes sense given you'd want to achieve it via speakers rather than electronics/software. :p It's amazing what can be achieved with DSP/room correction and whatnot, one of the best sounds I've heard at a recent show (2y ago, so don't recall specifics) was simply studio monitors in a big room but with correction. Think they were $5-8k and correction hardware/software was like $2.5-5k, but the sound was pretty amazing, and I'm saying that in comparison with other systems costing 20-100k or more... Still that's a lot of money, and IMHO it's a better idea to just go with good amp/speakers/etc and room treatment. But even then, I'd expect you could still improve things with DSP, it's just cost/performance upgrade somewhat still isn't quite there, 3-5k for the DSP is a lot of money...

I think it's a bit weird that active speakers haven't really become popular or caught on in the audiophile market. NHT had the XT or XD I think it was, I think there's the Linkwitz Orion, but other than that I can't think of anything... And the NHT isn't sold anymore and the Orion is more of a kit than a full speaker... Anyway, weird that in the pro realm they've caught on really fast (studio monitors), yet audiophiles are still stuck in the 70s, 80s or 90s with their vinyls, tube amps, passive crossovers, etc...

For enthusiasts and DIY community, I think the prohibitive factor is cost of the crossover/DSP unit (think it's >1000$ for a good/transparent one) and amplification, but with current receivers, it would be awesome if one marketed an affordable 100% transparent active crossover that could be used with cheap receivers... Hmm.. Anyhow lol

Agreed on speakers being most important in the chain! (though every part is important too)

For example, even the most advanced DSP system can not change the dispersion characteristics of a loudspeaker and many professionals believe (including this one) that this aspect has more influence over the way something sounds than anything else.
And there lies the attractiveness of an active crossover? I'll have to admit I'm not 100% certain of the advantages of an active crossover vs a passive, but, the greatest advantage from what I understand is the flexibility and ease of 'design'. I'm fairly sure you could 'tailor' settings like delays and whatnot not possible with a passive crossover...


When considering transient accuracy, resonance control and phase integration between the drivers – (all factors that DSP processing in a receiver can not influence) it becomes quickly apparent that HiFi starts and ends with the loudspeakers. It is why more than half of our customers prefer to avoid using any digital processing and look to the loudspeakers as the critical component.

Of course, from there we must consider power cord upgrades ;)
yeah, because the last 1 meter of the electrical wiring in your house/street/city is the most critical and this is where the invisible radiations and radio frequencies ruins your power! :D

Half serious question: What about power conditioners though? I know in some cases where you could have 'issues' it might help clear things out, oh no I remember now the power supplies in amps/pres/cd players/etc are all designed to filter things out and power conditioners are useless... hahaha :D

[phlw]

It is a good question why there are not more speakers with active crossovers/DSP and built in amplifiers.

Wouldn't this go a long way fix many of the issues caused by a passive crossover? Could driver deficiencies be compensated for as well? There must be some reason why this has not caught on.

Is it the difference in sound quality (if any) simply doesn't justify the extra cost?

Just thinking outloud :)

[GirgleMirt]

Yeah I was thinking a bit later I think it just comes down to cost... Although if they can do it for studio monitors, why not hifi? Hmmm... Well most studio monitors are expensive I guess...

I guess also market. Maybe the audiophile community just isn't ready for such change, if they're powered, how great is the amp and I mean, how can it compare to an amp like Krell or Bryston which costs 5x the price of the powered speakers? I mean, for sure the amps aren't as good... (sarcasm) Well I guess people also have amps already, and with the number of upgrades most folk go through, maybe having one amp is better for savings, although they'll most likely upgrade their amps a few times too...

Nah but I'm pretty sure it's cost. So maybe the solution would be to sell a cheap/transparent crossover/DSP unit, which you could couple with a receiver type amplifier with many channels. But even then for a 5.1, if you have a 3 way speaker, that would be like going from 5 channels to 15, so 3x the receiver... Ouch... Lots of wiring too...

I guess price/performance, passive is still where it's at.

[davef]

Interesting... So are digital amps are inherently inferior to A/B for the top end or is it just a case of implementation? Is it still audible/measurable in the audible range in case of the good implementations?

With Class D amps, the ultimate goal is to achieve class A/B sound quality but with the added dynamics of having almost limitless power reserves. Digital amps are considerably less expensive to manufacture (compared to class A/B and especially Class A) due to requiring MUCH less cooling (much smaller heat sinking, if any) Think inexpensive power...



Interesting... So are digital amps are inherently inferior to A/B for the top end or is it just a case of implementation? Is it still audible/measurable in the audible range in case of the good implementations?

It depends on the design, but I have found in most cases, switching noise is easily measurable and audible. There are various techniques to try and reduce this noise, most employ a basic low pass filter.

The noise is relatively simple to see using a basic oscilloscope and running the amp into an appropriate load.

[davef]

David .... Then what a guy from another forum wrote is verry accurate. Here is what his suggestion is.....

"

Makes sense???

Yes, I think that is very reasonable advice.

[Veda]

With Class D amps, the ultimate goal is to achieve class A/B sound quality but with the added dynamics of having almost limitless power reserves. Digital amps are considerably less expensive to manufacture (compared to class A/B and especially Class A) due to requiring MUCH less cooling (much smaller heat sinking, if any) Think inexpensive power...

Dave, you should check out the new NAD C390DD "power DAC". Amazing product, far better than any ICE amps I've owned or TI based Class D's or any other amps I've owned.

[davef]

Dave, you should check out the new NAD C390DD "power DAC". Amazing product, far better than any ICE amps I've owned or TI based Class D's or any other amps I've owned.

Thanks for the recommendation. I am now considering picking one of these up for our sound room :)

[Veda]

Thanks for the recommendation. I am now considering picking one of these up for our sound room :)

Dave, NAD just announced 3 new integrated networked amps with one of which uses the same power DAC technology as the C390DD and M2 but only 50W@8ohm and costs $900. It's called the D7050. Might be a better alternative for a small demo room:

http://www.stereophile.com/content/nad%E2%80%99s-d-series-offers-beauty-and-brains

"Finally, the D 7050 UPnP network receiver uses NAD’s Direct-Digital technology, is rated to deliver 50Wpc into 8 ohms, and offers an asynchronous USB input, AirPlay, WiFi, Ethernet, and aptX Bluetooth functionality. Sweet: beauty and brains."

[JustABrah]

you guys really find a clear noticeable sound difference between the tower and Sierra-1 with the same tweeter? I remember comparing the Studio 60 to the studio 20s, I came away with that it didn't make that much of a difference and maybe towers were just needed for bigger spaces, then I heard the Seirra-1s in a large room and they had no problem. I should say that a sub was used when comparing but I spent some good time a/bing the studio 60 to the 20s from the same source, same movie scene and songs with all the same equipment and if I was blind folded I would have a really hard time picking them apart. You guys are finding a clear and noticeable difference between NrT Sierra-1s to the NrT towers? with a good sub in play you think you could easily pick them apart blind folded?

[billy p]

you guys really find a clear noticeable sound difference between the tower and Sierra-1 with the same tweeter? I remember comparing the Studio 60 to the studio 20s, I came away with that it didn't make that much of a difference and maybe towers were just needed for bigger spaces, then I heard the Seirra-1s in a large room and they had no problem. I should say that a sub was used when comparing but I spent some good time a/bing the studio 60 to the 20s from the same source, same movie scene and songs with all the same equipment and if I was blind folded I would have a really hard time picking them apart. You guys are finding a clear and noticeable difference between NrT Sierra-1s to the NrT towers? with a good sub in play you think you could easily pick them apart blind folded?

I compared my Energy RC 30’s being a 2.5 way design with my Sierra and they easily kept pace but did it better. The Towers have a dedicated mid-range and that alone to my ears easily distinguished them apart from the Sierra 1’s….having the ability to play louder at lower volumes and providing the separation of voices and sounds for the listener to discern is one advantage. Another one comes with the bass….the Towers have a more controlled or tactical approach whereas the Sierra 1 seem more punchy in presentation. I recall Dave mentioning the materials found in the Sierra 1 driver are more rigid which allows them to produce and preform the way they do.

IMO the Towers are better in those 2 facets blind folded or not….YMMV…of course.:)

Bill

[Veda]

You guys are finding a clear and noticeable difference between NrT Sierra-1s to the NrT towers? with a good sub in play you think you could easily pick them apart blind folded?

The real question would be whether it is better to use monitor+sub instead of towers. Some people swear by the tunability of a movable sub.

[curtis]

Do not discount the difference the dedicated midrange makes.

[Blutarsky]

If you have a smaller room, the Sierra-1 speakers will work fine.
I loved mine, but traded up to Towers.because we really have a large space.

B.

[davef]

you guys really find a clear noticeable sound difference between the tower and Sierra-1 with the same tweeter? I remember comparing the Studio 60 to the studio 20s, I came away with that it didn't make that much of a difference and maybe towers were just needed for bigger spaces, then I heard the Seirra-1s in a large room and they had no problem. I should say that a sub was used when comparing but I spent some good time a/bing the studio 60 to the 20s from the same source, same movie scene and songs with all the same equipment and if I was blind folded I would have a really hard time picking them apart. You guys are finding a clear and noticeable difference between NrT Sierra-1s to the NrT towers? with a good sub in play you think you could easily pick them apart blind folded?


Do not discount the difference the dedicated midrange makes.

Curtis is correct. The midrange driver in the tower is specifically designed for midrange performance. It has much less mass and a considerably more advanced motor system than the woofer in the Sierra-1 (which is designed for both midrange and low end performance) The mids on the towers offer much more detail combined with better dispersion and a much faster transient response.