Introducing the Luna Mini Monitor!

[davef]

*** Now available for ordering. Please use this link: Sierra Luna (https://ascendacoustics.com/collections/sierra-series-pairs/products/luna-v2-mini-monitor-pair?variant=40387513909302)


The Sierra-2 and Sierra Tower continue to be huge successes for us. We have been receiving many requests for smaller matching true ribbon tweeter based speakers to be used as surrounds, both with the Sierra-2 and our Sierra Ribbon Towers.

It should come as no surprise that we have been working on this for a while now. After much modeling and discussion with the engineers at SEAS, we have concluded that not only is this doable, but when paired with a quality subwoofer, the Sierra Sat will make for a wonderful set of smaller main speakers, while also being a lesser expensive entry into the world of RAAL ribbons.

Much like with the custom SEAS woofer we use in the Sierra-2, our nearly 2 decades worth of experience working closely with the world-class engineers at SEAS, has afforded us the privilege of having them “jump right into this” for us, no questions asked.

And, just like with our Sierra-2 – not a single off-the-shelf or OEM component will be used. The Sierra Sat will feature the jointly developed custom Sierra-2 RAAL ribbon tweeter, a fully custom SEAS Curv 4.5” woofer, advanced crossover – all combined into our class leading US-Built layered bamboo cabinets. It is our firm intention to, once again, raise the performance bar for what was previously possible in a small speaker.

This speaker won’t outperform the Sierra-2, it is meant more to enhance our current line of true ribbon speakers. It will prove an ideal solution for those who want “ribbons all the way around” and for others who seek the highest performance possible in a true sub / sat system.

Let’s use this thread for discussion, just like we have in similar new product threads. Obviously, we can not divulge full details just yet but I am personally very excited about this new speaker. It brings back fond memories of the much suggested Sierra .5 which never took shape – but, let’s not forget, that we designed the Sierra-2 tweeter with the same faceplate and cutout dimensions as the dome tweeter in the Sierra-1 ;) ;)

Enjoy!!!

[curtis]

Sweet!!

ported or sealed?

[MusicHead]

My suggestions/wish list :D :

- Make it sealed
- Make it less than 12" tall
- Bottom extension down to the 60-70Hz range

I admit I am being selfish, because in my case I would be interested in them as main with a sub. In other words, a HTM-200 on steroids :)

[Mag_Neato]

If you are targeting the SVS Prime Sat size-wise, the Sierra-2 RAAL faceplate will dictate a taller cabinet than the Prime due to that model's dome tweeter's faceplate having the top and bottom squared off, allowing close spacing to the woofer and top of cabinet. I'd imagine the baby Sierra will require about 1" - 1 1/2" taller. The width could be similar which was the big deciding factor for me when I got the SVS Sats for my HT setup.

Can't wait to see this evolve!

[Mag_Neato]

I was just wondering.....which is dangerous......will this be similar to the Sierra-2 where you would simply rotate the tweeter for use as a center?

[Johnny_Mac_III]

Very nice!

Could you make them no more than 6 inches deep and sealed to minimize SBIR? This is one of the reasons I went with the HTMs for surrounds and CMTs to timbre match.

I would love to be able to upgrade to the Sierra 2s with a sealed compact version for surrounds.

[curtis]

Similar in size to the HTM-200SE would be great.

[davef]

Sweet!!

ported or sealed?

Since our plan is to be able to use these with an 80Hz crossover, the cabinets will be ported. However, I do also plan on investigating a sealed version. Much depends on what SEAS is able to accomplish for us. Presently, not a single SEAS 4.5" Curv woofer exists, and while we are able to come fairly close to predicting the response by modeling, I really won't know for sure until the prototypes are here (which should be quite soon).

[davef]

My suggestions/wish list :D :

- Make it sealed
- Make it less than 12" tall
- Bottom extension down to the 60-70Hz range

I admit I am being selfish, because in my case I would be interested in them as main with a sub. In other words, a HTM-200 on steroids :)

Reaching that type of extension in a sealed enclosure with a single 4.5", while also being able to have decent efficiency and power handling would, unfortunately, be nearly impossible. That said, I will be investigating various possibilities with this new woofer, and potential variations of the woofer. Much depends on the what options SEAS is able to come up with for cone mass, motor strength, and coil length.

[davef]

If you are targeting the SVS Prime Sat size-wise, the Sierra-2 RAAL faceplate will dictate a taller cabinet than the Prime due to that model's dome tweeter's faceplate having the top and bottom squared off, allowing close spacing to the woofer and top of cabinet. I'd imagine the baby Sierra will require about 1" - 1 1/2" taller. The width could be similar which was the big deciding factor for me when I got the SVS Sats for my HT setup.

Can't wait to see this evolve!

Definitely not targeting any currently existing product. This is not a knock on the SVS Sat's - but in my estimation, just a single Sierra-2 tweeter costs more than all of the components in a pair of the Sat's combined (excluding the cabinets). The Sierra Sat's will obviously cost considerably more. Frankly, our 200's (with dual cast frame 4" woofers + custom SEAS dual chambered neo soft dome tweeter) already do more than simply compete with the Prime Sat's ;)

In addition, it is relatively simply for us to tool a different faceplate for the Sierra-2 tweeter to allow for a shorter overall cabinet height. Once we are able to finalize the requirements for cabinet volume, i'll throw out a few cabinet dimension options and feedback from our forum members will decide it. It should be fun :)

[davef]

I was just wondering.....which is dangerous......will this be similar to the Sierra-2 where you would simply rotate the tweeter for use as a center?

Yep -- but depending on what our final costs on the woofer will be, we could make a very slim WTW center where we should be able to get woofer space close enough such that off-axis lobing will not be an issue.

[Blutarsky]

I would like to see them wall mountable. Find a good mount and make the Sat with mounting holes that fit it. Sell the mount via Ascend.

Some think there is room for a bi/di pole wall mount speaker in the line also.

Thanks to D. for finding time to make new product.

[Mag_Neato]

Definitely not targeting any currently existing product. This is not a knock on the SVS Sat's - but in my estimation, just a single Sierra-2 tweeter costs more than all of the components in a pair of the Sat's combined (excluding the cabinets). The Sierra Sat's will obviously cost considerably more. Frankly, our 200's (with dual cast frame 4" woofers + custom SEAS dual chambered neo soft dome tweeter) already do more than simply compete with the Prime Sat's ;)

In addition, it is relatively simply for us to tool a different faceplate for the Sierra-2 tweeter to allow for a shorter overall cabinet height. Once we are able to finalize the requirements for cabinet volume, i'll throw out a few cabinet dimension options and feedback from our forum members will decide it. It should be fun :)
I have no doubt that one RAAL tweeter costs more! I should've figured swapping faceplates was an option. If the HTM200's would have fit my application physically I would have definitely considered them.

[davef]

I would like to see them wall mountable. Find a good mount and make the Sat with mounting holes that fit it. Sell the mount via Ascend.

Some think there is room for a bi/di pole wall mount speaker in the line also.

Thanks to D. for finding time to make new product.

Yep - easy wall mounting is planned.

[davef]

I have no doubt that one RAAL tweeter costs more! I should've figured swapping faceplates was an option. If the HTM200's would have fit my application physically I would have definitely considered them.

The 200's are definitely larger than the Prime Sat's -- the Prime's are indeed quite small with a nice form factor. I actually just finished up a rather long listening session between a bunch of speakers. It has been a while since I spent quality time listening to the 200's as mains (no sub) -- and with several pairs of speakers I demoed, found myself wanting to keep putting the 200's back up. The 200's are so darn good, I should have introduced these at a much higher price, probably would have been more popular. component quality of the 200's at this price is just off the charts, we make a 33% margin on them, lol.

[MusicHead]

The 200's are definitely larger than the Prime Sat's -- the Prime's are indeed quite small with a nice form factor. I actually just finished up a rather long listening session between a bunch of speakers. It has been a while since I spent quality time listening to the 200's as mains (no sub) -- and with several pairs of speakers I demoed, found myself wanting to keep putting the 200's back up. The 200's are so darn good, I should have introduced these at a much higher price, probably would have been more popular. component quality of the 200's at this price is just off the charts, we make a 33% margin on them, lol.

You are an honest man, Dave!

[MusicHead]

Reaching that type of extension in a sealed enclosure with a single 4.5", while also being able to have decent efficiency and power handling would, unfortunately, be nearly impossible. That said, I will be investigating various possibilities with this new woofer, and potential variations of the woofer. Much depends on the what options SEAS is able to come up with for cone mass, motor strength, and coil length.

Make a sealed vertical WTW? :-)

[justthinking]

It would be nice to incorporate a custom wall mount bracket for flush mount against the wall..

If it has to be ported, can it be front ported design?

[Mag_Neato]

The 200's are definitely larger than the Prime Sat's -- the Prime's are indeed quite small with a nice form factor. I actually just finished up a rather long listening session between a bunch of speakers. It has been a while since I spent quality time listening to the 200's as mains (no sub) -- and with several pairs of speakers I demoed, found myself wanting to keep putting the 200's back up. The 200's are so darn good, I should have introduced these at a much higher price, probably would have been more popular. component quality of the 200's at this price is just off the charts, we make a 33% margin on them, lol.

I can only imagine having never really heard the 200's.

I am currently demoing a pair of Wavecrest HVL-1's which you designed. Curtis was gracious enough to send a new pair for me to check out, and will be taking to a local GTG of AV nutheads! I hooked them up in my stereo 2.1 system in place of my Sierra-2's crossed to my 12" Rythmik. I know they are in different worlds but I'm not in a hurry to put the -2's back up. For $199/pr they are excellent!

So, the 200's have to be even better!

[dtsequoia]

Yep -- but depending on what our final costs on the woofer will be, we could make a very slim WTW center where we should be able to get woofer space close enough such that off-axis lobing will not be an issue.

That would be awesome. I for one would be very interested in that!

[MusicHead]

It would be nice to incorporate a custom wall mount bracket for flush mount against the wall..

If it has to be ported, can it be front ported design?

+1 for a front port, if sealed with a single midbass speaker does not allow to hit the other design goals. Something not bigger than the CBM-170 SE, maybe even a tad narrower, would be ideal!

[Mag_Neato]

I'd like to see something smaller than the 200's. Something about 5" or less in width. Height is not the big issue so a taller cabinet is ok to accommodate a front port. If height is an issue for some then maybe a bottom firing port would work?

[N Boros]

This is great news! I have recently purchased some Sierra 2s for my main speakers using some old outdoor Aperion audio outdoor speakers as surrounds. They sound pretty good together, but I know that down the line I want to get some Ascend speakers to fill out the surround and surround back speakers. I really thought ribbon tweeters were out because the price was just too high to justify. If we can get the same performance as the Sierra 2s in a smaller speaker at a cheaper price only giving up maybe a little bit in output and low end extension, then this sounds like a winner. I'm not sure if I would go with them for surround backs, but definitely for surrounds.

[Mag_Neato]

Pricing for these could be tricky. If too close to the 170's or 340's they could pull sales away from those, if too close to the Sierra-1's then the same may be true. Depends on the customer's requirements for ultimate performance I suppose.

Dave, you mentioned a possible WTW center. What about a vertical WTW (MTM) mini tower like the 340's?

[N Boros]

Pricing for these could be tricky. If too close to the 170's or 340's they could pull sales away from those, if too close to the Sierra-1's then the same may be true. Depends on the customer's requirements for ultimate performance I suppose.

Dave, you mentioned a possible WTW center. What about a vertical WTW (MTM) mini tower like the 340's?

I was wondering the same thing. if they are priced between the 340s and the Sierra 1s, I would be very happy. But, it seems like interest in the Sierra 1s would be greatly diminished. My initial gut reaction is, how could that be possible, though. I would guess they would be priced between the Seirra 1s and Sierra 2s. But, then why not go with the Sierra 2s if they price is that close to them.

You nailed it. I think pricing will be tricky.

[davef]

I was wondering the same thing. if they are priced between the 340s and the Sierra 1s, I would be very happy. But, it seems like interest in the Sierra 1s would be greatly diminished. My initial gut reaction is, how could that be possible, though. I would guess they would be priced between the Seirra 1s and Sierra 2s. But, then why not go with the Sierra 2s if they price is that close to them.

You nailed it. I think pricing will be tricky.

Indeed - pricing is going to be tricky. These will likely cost more than the Sierra-1, just not possible to offer this level of component quality at Sierra-1 prices. RAAL ribbons and Seas Curv woofers are expensive, as are bamboo cabinets. This will definitely be somewhat of a niche product, perfect for someone who wants RAAL ribbon surrounds (we get a lot of requests for this) and ideal for someone looking for best-in-class performance for small satellites.

[davef]

I can only imagine having never really heard the 200's.

I am currently demoing a pair of Wavecrest HVL-1's which you designed. Curtis was gracious enough to send a new pair for me to check out, and will be taking to a local GTG of AV nutheads! I hooked them up in my stereo 2.1 system in place of my Sierra-2's crossed to my 12" Rythmik. I know they are in different worlds but I'm not in a hurry to put the -2's back up. For $199/pr they are excellent!

So, the 200's have to be even better!

Yeah - those HVL-1's are really something. I preferred them, by a large margin, to the new Elac B5 - although the B5 has much deeper bass. 200's and HVL-1's are different -- hard for me to say which one is actually better, and I think Curtis would agree. Our 200's are more detailed and accurate, more dynamic, faster transients -- more of the "Ascend" sound. The HVL's offer a lusher sound, warmer, perhaps more musical and really sound terrific in a small space without a sub. 200's definitely need a subwoofer, but I was actually quite impressed yesterday running the 200's full range.

[rsmt2000]

Hi Dave

When can we expect these speakers to be available? Summer, fall or winter of 2016?

Thanks
Ron

[davef]

Hi Dave

When can we expect these speakers to be available? Summer, fall or winter of 2016?

Thanks
Ron

Hoping late 1st quarter in 2016.

[FirstReflect]

No one else has stuck their neck out with a guess at the prices yet? :eek:

Well then, let me be the first :D

So I am going to take a stab that Dave F. will end up creating two new speaker models: The Sierra Sat (1x RAAL ribbon tweeter + 1x 4.5" SEAS CURV mid-woofer), and the Sierra Sat Center (1x RAAL ribbon tweeter + 2x 4.5" SEAS CURV mid-woofers).

I'm making a guess that a pair of Sierra Sat mini-monitors will cost $1168/pair

And I'm going to guess that the Sierra Sat Center ends up being $698 each.

Total guesses! I hope I don't end up putting Dave in a sticky situation if they end up costing more (which they bloody well should! :p ). But I'm taking a somewhat educated guess based upon prior price points and margins, as well as how these price points would fit in amongst the other Ascend models at their current price points.

Some of my reasoning here (aside from guessing at component costs and margins) is that at $1168/pair, the Sierra Sats would cost just a tiny bit more than the Sierra-1 NrT (which they should), but they'd be a substantial savings vs. the Sierra-2.

For the Sierra Sat Center, I'm much more unsure. Maybe it would make sense for it to cost more than a Sierra-2 Center since it will have 2x 4.5" mid-woofers? But I figure that the Sierra-2 will still play lower in the bass, and I figure the Sierra Sat Center will have a smaller cabinet. So I've guessed that it will end up costing less than a Sierra-2 Center.

Anyways, that's me taking a stab at guessing the price points. Obviously, my guesses are for the least expensive finish option - whatever that ends up being - most likely matte black, I would assume.

Definitely going to be cool to have these as an option for on-wall Surrounds as well as on-ceiling Atmos speakers!

- Rob H. - AV Rant Podcast co-host

[eliwankenobi]

Definitely interested in the development of these!!!

Size of the sattelite would be good to know too! I hope Dave is considering going at least half the size of the current Sierra cabinet

[RicardoJoa]

IMO, people who buy these are the ones who is looking a speaker with ease of placement, likely to put it on shelfs, good wife acceptance. If these are rear ported they may not be to suitable to be put up against wall. Would a front ported be better? I even think a front slotted port is a much better way to go.

[merrymaid520]

IMO, people who buy these are the ones who is looking a speaker with ease of placement, likely to put it on shelfs, good wife acceptance. If these are rear ported they may not be to suitable to be put up against wall. Would a front ported be better? I even think a front slotted port is a much better way to go.

Dave, I would have to agree with the above! My interest in a Sierra-Sat would likely be in a confined space up against a wall, in a cabinet, or on the wall as a surround speaker. The option to have them front ported or sealed is more interesting to me rather than a rear port.

Just a thought.......

Im likely going to end up with a pair at one point or another to keep the streak going of owning I believe every Ascend speaker model made (minus the original 170/200 - I had the SE's).


Brandon

[pj-]

Any chance of a Gloss Espresso version for us folks who have the old shiny sierras?

[MusicHead]

Dave, I would have to agree with the above! My interest in a Sierra-Sat would likely be in a confined space up against a wall, in a cabinet, or on the wall as a surround speaker. The option to have them front ported or sealed is more interesting to me rather than a rear port.

Just a thought.......

Im likely going to end up with a pair at one point or another to keep the streak going of owning I believe every Ascend speaker model made (minus the original 170/200 - I had the SE's).


Brandon

Same here, another vote for front-ported or sealed! :)

[donaldekelly]

Interesting news - I haven't checked in in a while. Not sure I need surround sound being more music oriented. But it is something to consider.

[sonicboom]

Hi Dave,

How do you envision the Sierra Sats performing as mains? I imagine putting together 5 of these for a 5.1 system.

[sonicboom]

Here's one more vote in favor of front porting and a width narrower than the CBM.

[davef]

Any chance of a Gloss Espresso version for us folks who have the old shiny sierras?

Regrettably, this is unlikely at this point in time. This type of finishing has become extremely expensive and high gloss finishes seem to have lost their appeal.

[davef]

Hi Dave,

How do you envision the Sierra Sats performing as mains? I imagine putting together 5 of these for a 5.1 system.

Yes, this is the current plan and they should perform very well - but these would need to be paired with a sub.

[davef]

SEAS has finished the first batch of prototypes and I am *slowly* starting on the cabinet design. I should have a good estimate on cabinet size and porting requirements within a week or so -- if we can ever get caught up with fulfilling holiday orders.

The bad news is that pricing on these woofers has come back a bit higher than I anticipated. The Curv cones are expensive and we will also have to invest in some new tooling. That said, I will be looking into ways to cut some costs here and there.

[pj-]

SEAS has finished the first batch of prototypes and I am *slowly* starting on the cabinet design. I should have a good estimate on cabinet size and porting requirements within a week or so -- if we can ever get caught up with fulfilling holiday orders.

The bad news is that pricing on these woofers has come back a bit higher than I anticipated. The Curv cones are expensive and we will also have to invest in some new tooling. That said, I will be looking into ways to cut some costs here and there.

I have no idea how these things work but would it help to have presales so you can commit to a larger/cheaper order?


Regrettably, this is unlikely at this point in time. This type of finishing has become extremely expensive and high gloss finishes seem to have lost their appeal.

Understandable. It is odd to me though since I think my speakers look better than the satin ones. Maybe looking at them every day for 6 years has biased me..

[bkdc]

This is exactly what I've been looking for. I hope they can be front-ported to facilitate placement of the speakers. As satellites, i'll be happy if frequency response hits 100Hz because the sub will take care of the rest.

[sonicboom]

Dave,

How about a CBM 170 RAAL?

[Blue Dude]

If these will replacing my current surrounds, I'd prefer them to be plain black matte. In fact, if I replace my Sierra-2 fronts, those replacements will be matte black vs. the current piano gloss. The surrounds will blend in better and the fronts won't reflect off the projection screen if they're matte. Gloss is pretty but the shininess causes its own problems.

[davef]

Dave,

How about a CBM 170 RAAL?

I honestly hadn't really thought about this. My concern would be directivity issues with crossing the 170 woofer at a higher point than this woofer was designed for. It wouldn't be a problem if we used the 70-20 ribbon (what we use in the towers and can be crossed very low) - but then this speaker would be nearly the same price as the Sierra-2.

[davef]

First batch of prototype woofers have arrived from SEAS. For a 4.5" woofer, these things are massive!

Interestingly enough, these will work very well in a very small enclosure (-3dB at 60Hz) The challenge now becomes how to design this enclosure to meet the goals stated in this thread, while also employing the proper port tune... This is quite a challenge.

[Drowningshrimp]

First batch of prototype woofers have arrived from SEAS. For a 4.5" woofer, these things are massive!

Interestingly enough, these will work very well in a very small enclosure (-3dB at 60Hz) The challenge now becomes how to design this enclosure to meet the goals stated in this thread, while also employing the proper port tune... This is quite a challenge.

Awesome, I can't wait to see a frequency chart for these speakers. Roll-off is supposedly great due to the rigidity of the CURV woofers. When do you think you will have a unit put together?

[davef]

I have no idea how these things work but would it help to have presales so you can commit to a larger/cheaper order?

We already purchase in large enough quantities to receive the maximum volume discounts that our vendors offer, especially when it comes to SEAS.


Understandable. It is odd to me though since I think my speakers look better than the satin ones. Maybe looking at them every day for 6 years has biased me..

I too liked the old gloss wood finishes, but it just isn't popular these days.

[Arro]

This is quite a challenge.

I have a feeling this is one of the reasons to love (or hate) designing and building speakers.

[H.Kh]

Hi Dave.

How about naming it "Sierra mini"; so as to better suggest the possibility of using them as mains, specially in a small desktop setup.

Keep up the good work!:)
Best wishes.

[Mag_Neato]

I think "Sat" works just fine, especially given the market segment these are aimed at, which includes (to some degree) the new SVS Prime Sat. If someone is searching for satellite type speakers these will come up in a search. I have a pair of small 2-way bookshelf speakers that are named Micromonitors" that are substantially larger than the intended size for these.

[davef]

Awesome, I can't wait to see a frequency chart for these speakers. Roll-off is supposedly great due to the rigidity of the CURV woofers. When do you think you will have a unit put together?

This is exactly why we are going with the Curv woofers. We tested dozens of other woofers, with different materials and varying types of motors -- the SEAS Curv woofers offer incredible rigidity combined with the best self damping I have yet to measure in woofers this size. In addition, they are much lower mass which greatly improves transient accuracy and stored enery. I feel they are the perfect match to our Sierra-2 RAAL ribbon tweeter (which requires a higher crossover point), even compared to more expensive - "more exotic" woofers ;)

It will be a while before we have a fully functional prototype...

[MusicHead]

I volunteer as a beta tester!!!!! :-)

[davef]

I think "Sat" works just fine, especially given the market segment these are aimed at, which includes (to some degree) the new SVS Prime Sat. If someone is searching for satellite type speakers these will come up in a search. I have a pair of small 2-way bookshelf speakers that are named Micromonitors" that are substantially larger than the intended size for these.

I have to agree... For me, "Sierra Mini" conjures up something entirely different than what we are at least trying to accomplish. However, we certainly are not there yet so who knows ;)

[H.Kh]

Thanks for your response.

You have my best wishes.:)

[Mag_Neato]

I have to agree... For me, "Sierra Mini" conjures up something entirely different than what we are at least trying to accomplish. However, we certainly are not there yet so who knows ;)

Dave, if the new sat will be intended to act as a center as well just be sure to design the baffle symmetrically like the rest of your speakers. The only gripe I have with the SVS sat is that the baffle has chamfered sides that taper from bottom to top with a matching grill. They look sharp vertically but not so hot horizontally. Can't even remove the SVS logo to try relocating it.

[sonicboom]

My listening area necessitates that my speakers are wall-mounted.

Currently I have a pair of CBM 170-SEs, a pair of CMT-340 SEs and a CMT 340 center. Oddly, due to the mounting situation, the smaller CBMs are presently serving as mains, while the bigger CMTs are doing surround duty.

The reason for that is I have found the CMT's sound to be muddy (boxy, bass-heavy and indistinct) in my front wall-mounted set-up. This is due to the CMT's depth, which does not allow enough space between the back wall. I wish my wall mounting hardware had longer arms. I have around 2 inches of space between the port hole and the front wall. I am crossing my speakers to my sub at 80hz.

In contrast, the CBMs are not suffering from the same problem.

My question is:
Will the Sierra 1 or 2 pose the same problem (when wall-mounted) as the CMTs due to their identical footprint? Please advise. I am looking to upgrade.

Or... will the Sierra Sats be the solution? Will they provide an obvious upgrade from my present set-up?

Thanks,
Daniel

[davef]

My question is:
Will the Sierra 1 or 2 pose the same problem (when wall-mounted) as the CMTs due to their identical footprint? Please advise. I am looking to upgrade.

Or... will the Sierra Sats be the solution? Will they provide an obvious upgrade from my present set-up?

Thanks,
Daniel

Hi Daniel,

For the Sierra-1 / Sierra-2 -- we offer this solution which works extremely well: http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?3781-Announcement-A-Sierra-1-add-on-enhancement!

For the forthcoming Sierra Sat, the problem you are having now will definitely not be an issue :)

[N Boros]

Hi Daniel,

For the Sierra-1 / Sierra-2 -- we offer this solution which works extremely well: http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?3781-Announcement-A-Sierra-1-add-on-enhancement!

For the forthcoming Sierra Sat, the problem you are having now will definitely not be an issue :)

Dave,

I'm a little confused. I thought I remembered you mentioning in a previous thread, maybe a year ago, not to use the port plugs in the Sierra 2s, since they were designed specifically for the Sierra 1. I thought I remembered you saying to just cross them over at 80Hz, if you want to place the Sierra 2s close to the wall. I could have remembered this completely wrong but I just wanted to check with you. Thanks.

[natetg57]

Dave,

I'm a little confused. I thought I remembered you mentioning in a previous thread, maybe a year ago, not to use the port plugs in the Sierra 2s, since they were designed specifically for the Sierra 1. I thought I remembered you saying to just cross them over at 80Hz, if you want to place the Sierra 2s close to the wall. I could have remembered this completely wrong but I just wanted to check with you. Thanks.

Here is the exact quote from the Sierra-2 thread:

I apologize for the delay on this question. I had to do some testing... Q-Plugs work fine with the Sierra-2, however -- since the bass response of the Sierra-2 is different -- in general, the use of Q-Plugs with Sierra-2 will be less likely. For those who have Q-Plugs, I suggest experimenting.

[sonicboom]

Hi Daniel,

For the Sierra-1 / Sierra-2 -- we offer this solution which works extremely well: http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?3781-Announcement-A-Sierra-1-add-on-enhancement!

For the forthcoming Sierra Sat, the problem you are having now will definitely not be an issue :)

Thanks for the response, Dave.

Next question is:
For my wall-mounted set-up, what would you recommend... Sierra 2 with Q plugs or wait for the Sierra Sats?

[natetg57]

Thanks for the response, Dave.

Next question is:
For my wall-mounted set-up, what would you recommend... Sierra 2 with Q plugs or wait for the Sierra Sats?

I'm not Dave but I would recommend waiting for the Sats if possible. I'm using the Sierra-2s as surrounds and they work well. The Q-plugs also help a great deal because I'm so close to the corners.1248

[smurraybhm]

Dave - has anyone told you just how awesome you are lately. Curtis just pointed me to this thread today, if you need a beta tester/early purchaser let me know. I will have to figure out what to do with my Sierra 1s - just can't bring myself to sell any of your speakers let alone my first pair.

By the way I was using a pair of 200s for my one pair of my tops - Atmos - just swapped them out and plan to use them at work with a Emo Mini X - can't wait to hear how they really sound and rock the office - plus see inability to sell comment :)

[sonicboom]

I'm not Dave but I would recommend waiting for the Sats if possible. I'm using the Sierra-2s as surrounds and they work well. The Q-plugs also help a great deal because I'm so close to the corners.1248

That looks really close to the corner. Please describe the difference in the sound before and after using the Q-plugs. Thanks.

[natetg57]

That looks really close to the corner. Please describe the difference in the sound before and after using the Q-plugs. Thanks.

I ran Audyssey both with the plugs in and out. I went with the plugs in because Audyssey doesn't have to cut the 63 and 125 frequencies as much. Especially at 63hrtz. I figure the less Audyssey has to do, the better.

[steveting99]

For an all RAAL ribbon setup in a Atmos/DTS:X/Auro3D 7.1.4 speaker configuration, the Sierra Sat are an interesting option.

It will much depend on the Sierra Sat being ceiling mountable and if it can be painted to match the decor.

When will the Sierra Sat specs and frequency response graph be available?

[sonicboom]

Hi Dave,

What will you recommend as a clear upgrade from my current SE set-up, wall-mounted all around? Debating between Sierra-2s + Q-plugs (as LCR) and waiting for the Sierra Sats (identical speakers all around for a 5.1). Thanks.

Daniel

[davef]

Hi Dave,

What will you recommend as a clear upgrade from my current SE set-up, wall-mounted all around? Debating between Sierra-2s + Q-plugs (as LCR) and waiting for the Sierra Sats (identical speakers all around for a 5.1). Thanks.

Daniel

Hi Daniel,

I would definitely go with Sierra-2's -- but you should consider the forthcoming Sierra Sat for use as the rears (just to save a few $$$)

[davef]

Dave,

I'm a little confused. I thought I remembered you mentioning in a previous thread, maybe a year ago, not to use the port plugs in the Sierra 2s, since they were designed specifically for the Sierra 1. I thought I remembered you saying to just cross them over at 80Hz, if you want to place the Sierra 2s close to the wall. I could have remembered this completely wrong but I just wanted to check with you. Thanks.

The Q-Plugs work fine with Sierra-2's -- but because the bass alignment between Sierra-1 and Sierra-2 are different, in most close proximity placements, the plugs won't be needed with the 2's...

[sonicboom]

The Q-Plugs work fine with Sierra-2's -- but because the bass alignment between Sierra-1 and Sierra-2 are different, in most close proximity placements, the plugs won't be needed with the 2's...

Hi Dave,

This is interesting. In my wall-mounted set-up, the CMTs sounded muddy, even when crossed-over at 80Hz. I attribute this to the speakers' close proximity to the wall. My speaker mounts only allow about 2 inches between the port and the wall. Because of this, I am using the CBMs as my wall-mounted mains. For some reason they are not plagued by the same muddiness.

Now, I understand that the Sierra line is more bass-capable than the SE series. Please enlighten me as to why the Sierra-2 will not pose problems in close proximity placements unlike the CMTs.

Thanks, Dave.

Daniel

[jahjd2000]

Dave,

Will the sat be available with the NrT tweeter by chance? I know I could just use a Sierra-1 with NrT, but I'd prefer something in a smaller form factor that would match my Sierra Towers and Horizon (NrT).

Jason

[davef]

Hi Dave,

This is interesting. In my wall-mounted set-up, the CMTs sounded muddy, even when crossed-over at 80Hz. I attribute this to the speakers' close proximity to the wall. My speaker mounts only allow about 2 inches between the port and the wall. Because of this, I am using the CBMs as my wall-mounted mains. For some reason they are not plagued by the same muddiness.

Now, I understand that the Sierra line is more bass-capable than the SE series. Please enlighten me as to why the Sierra-2 will not pose problems in close proximity placements unlike the CMTs.

Thanks, Dave.

Daniel

Daniel,

I am not sure how the 340's entered into the discussion when comparing the bass response of the Sierra-1 and Sierra-2, but I will address your question.

First off, there is a great misunderstanding in the general public regarding rear ported speakers and the clearance behind them. Most people seem to think that clearance is needed because the output of the port fires directly into the wall behind the port and then bounces off causing things to sound muddy when the port is too close.

Clearance behind the port is needed so as to not hinder the airflow in and out of the port. Hindering the airflow will change (lower) the port tune frequency which would typically result in changing the low frequency response by lowering the -3dB point but with less output above this point. As a rule of thumb, it is recommended to provide enough clearance behind the rear port that is equal to the diameter of the port to provide unhindered airflow.

That said, for all of our speakers, the port tune frequency is at least 2 octaves lower than the baffle step frequency such that all audible wavelengths produced by the port travel in all directions around the cabinet - not just towards the back of the speaker, but to the front as well. It would be the same if the speaker had the same bass response but was sealed, the same low frequencies produced by the front woofer would also wrap around the cabinet - not just project forward.

I can understand your assumption that the Sierra-2 would sound even muddier than the 340's in the same positioning in your room (because the Sierra-2 have deeper bass), but you really can't make this assumption. There is much more to bass response than simply how deep the speaker will go. There are all of the frequencies above that -3dB point and the energy of those frequencies is determined by the bass alignment of the speaker. For ported speakers, there are many different types of bass alignments - which is precisely why one ported speaker might have a -3dB at 40Hz and another at 60Hz, yet the speaker with -3dB at 60Hz might sound warmer or sound like it even has more bass.

The bass alignment of the Sierra-2 is tuned for the most accurate transient response, which is different than the bass alignment of the Sierra-1 and the CMT-340. So while the Sierra-2 has a lower -3dB point than the 340, the 340 is tuned differently so it will have more output at certain higher bass frequencies than the Sierra-2. It is in these upper bass frequencies (typically in the 60-110Hz range) that bass reinforcement occurs with close wall proximity (nothing to do with the rear port) such that a speaker might start to sound muddy as it gets closer to that wall.

There are additional factors as well but I hope this at least provides a general explanation.

[davef]

Dave,

Will the sat be available with the NrT tweeter by chance? I know I could just use a Sierra-1 with NrT, but I'd prefer something in a smaller form factor that would match my Sierra Towers and Horizon (NrT).

Jason

We are planning on offering all (3) tweeter options. Sierra-1 dome, NrT dome, and Sierra-2 ribbon :)

[eliwankenobi]

Is it official that the Sierra Sat will be rear ported?

[davef]

Is it official that the Sierra Sat will be rear ported?

No --not sure why you drew this conclusion. Currently in the lengthy process of cabinet design.

[jahjd2000]

We are planning on offering all (3) tweeter options. Sierra-1 dome, NrT dome, and Sierra-2 ribbon :)

Sweet! Thanks Dave.

A few more inquires. And are you able to share what the recommended x-over frequency will be for the sat? And since I have you, what is the lowest recommended x-over for the Sierra-1, again for HT use? I ask because I read a thread today describing the merits of full range surrounds. Apparently some users swear by it. I've been debating getting b-stock Sierra-1s for my surrounds (to pair with my NrT towers and Horizon) but I'm intrigued by the sat.

[eliwankenobi]

No --not sure why you drew this conclusion. Currently in the lengthy process of cabinet design.

Thanks for the reply Dave.

I wasn't sure if final cabinet design was done. Thanks for confirming that. I remember a sealed cabinet was in consideration, and btw, your comments about the Sierra-2 rear port, make me feel better about having my speakers less than a foot a away from the front wall

[sonicboom]

Daniel,

I am not sure how the 340's entered into the discussion when comparing the bass response of the Sierra-1 and Sierra-2, but I will address your question.

First off, there is a great misunderstanding in the general public regarding rear ported speakers and the clearance behind them. Most people seem to think that clearance is needed because the output of the port fires directly into the wall behind the port and then bounces off causing things to sound muddy when the port is too close.

Clearance behind the port is needed so as to not hinder the airflow in and out of the port. Hindering the airflow will change (lower) the port tune frequency which would typically result in changing the low frequency response by lowering the -3dB point but with less output above this point. As a rule of thumb, it is recommended to provide enough clearance behind the rear port that is equal to the diameter of the port to provide unhindered airflow.

That said, for all of our speakers, the port tune frequency is at least 2 octaves lower than the baffle step frequency such that all audible wavelengths produced by the port travel in all directions around the cabinet - not just towards the back of the speaker, but to the front as well. It would be the same if the speaker had the same bass response but was sealed, the same low frequencies produced by the front woofer would also wrap around the cabinet - not just project forward.

I can understand your assumption that the Sierra-2 would sound even muddier than the 340's in the same positioning in your room (because the Sierra-2 have deeper bass), but you really can't make this assumption. There is much more to bass response than simply how deep the speaker will go. There are all of the frequencies above that -3dB point and the energy of those frequencies is determined by the bass alignment of the speaker. For ported speakers, there are many different types of bass alignments - which is precisely why one ported speaker might have a -3dB at 40Hz and another at 60Hz, yet the speaker with -3dB at 60Hz might sound warmer or sound like it even has more bass.

The bass alignment of the Sierra-2 is tuned for the most accurate transient response, which is different than the bass alignment of the Sierra-1 and the CMT-340. So while the Sierra-2 has a lower -3dB point than the 340, the 340 is tuned differently so it will have more output at certain higher bass frequencies than the Sierra-2. It is in these upper bass frequencies (typically in the 60-110Hz range) that bass reinforcement occurs with close wall proximity (nothing to do with the rear port) such that a speaker might start to sound muddy as it gets closer to that wall.

There are additional factors as well but I hope this at least provides a general explanation.

Hi Dave,

Your response is deeply appreciated. I did not expect my post to get such a comprehensive answer. The way you treat forum members is an excellent expression of top notch people relations.

Thank you, sir.

Daniel

[davef]

Sweet! Thanks Dave.

A few more inquires. And are you able to share what the recommended x-over frequency will be for the sat? And since I have you, what is the lowest recommended x-over for the Sierra-1, again for HT use? I ask because I read a thread today describing the merits of full range surrounds. Apparently some users swear by it. I've been debating getting b-stock Sierra-1s for my surrounds (to pair with my NrT towers and Horizon) but I'm intrigued by the sat.

An 80Hz crossover would be ideal for the sat's, that is the design goal. Depending on the final cabinet design and port tuning (which is very complicated for this speaker - how do you fit a 10" long port in a 5" deep cabinet? lol) - it might be possible to even cross lower, 70 or even 60. Keep in mind that the deeper I tune the bass, the larger the cabinet will be and I am aiming for something at least as compact as the HTM-200 (hopefully a bit smaller).

[davef]

Hi Dave,

Your response is deeply appreciated. I did not expect my post to get such a comprehensive answer. The way you treat forum members is an excellent expression of top notch people relations.

Thank you, sir.

Daniel

You are most welcome!

[MusicHead]

Hi Dave,

Your response is deeply appreciated. I did not expect my post to get such a comprehensive answer. The way you treat forum members is an excellent expression of top notch people relations.

Thank you, sir.

Daniel

Dave, I share Daniel sentiment. Have you ever thought of writing a book on speaker design? Seriously, you obviously know what you are doing (results speak for themselves) and you certainly have the ability to explain and articulate design concepts.

[davef]

Dave, I share Daniel sentiment. Have you ever thought of writing a book on speaker design? Seriously, you obviously know what you are doing (results speak for themselves) and you certainly have the ability to explain and articulate design concepts.

Thanks for the compliment :o I have probably written enough over the years in forum posts, emails, and various other scattered locations to easily fill a full length novel (a rather boring one at best) Perhaps one day, when I retire - but my enjoyment in this industry really comes from design and just listening :)

[MusicHead]

Dave, you have been really quiet lately. How are those Sierra Sat coming along?

Need beta testers yet? :-)

[SGCSG1]

Very exciting news!

I'm hoping for something maybe 12" high, 8" wide and 9" deep.

[davef]

Very exciting news!

I'm hoping for something maybe 12" high, 8" wide and 9" deep.

The cabinet will be quite a bit smaller :)

[SGCSG1]

The cabinet will be quite a bit smaller :)


'Quite a bit' covers a lot of territory, I'll be interested in hearing what the actual dimensions will be.

[MusicHead]

This could be an interesting game... I say 9-10" height. It will be smaller than the HTM-200.

Anybody else?

[GunmetalR56]

I'm hoping for that. I'm using Prime sats for Atmos heights now but if the Sierra Sat footprint is even close to the Prme sat and is offering a ribbon? I'll be in for 4 of them!

[davef]

This could be an interesting game... I say 9-10" height. It will be smaller than the HTM-200.

Anybody else?

I am hoping to nail down the dimensions this weekend :)

[jahjd2000]

I am hoping to nail down the dimensions this weekend :)

I can't wait! I'm in need of surrounds and was leaning towards the Sierra-1s but will wait for the Sierra Sat.

[sonicboom]

Smaller than the HTMs and still hit +/-3dB 70Hz will be awesome.

[loopy]

I just wish they could work as a Left front and center in a 20 x 25 room and with two 15 inch subs and set about 12 foot away. But i keep thinking i will have to get either the Towers or the 340's with 15 inc subs I don't think 2 twelve inch subs would work in a room that big

[MusicHead]

I am hoping to nail down the dimensions this weekend :)

Dave, still nailing down? :-) Pleeeease, this wait is killing us!

[gojirasf]

Yep -- but depending on what our final costs on the woofer will be, we could make a very slim WTW center where we should be able to get woofer space close enough such that off-axis lobing will not be an issue.

I haven't heard anything in awhile, but is "a very slim WTW center" still a possibility? If so, is it still possible that it could be developed/released along with the Sat?

[davef]

I just wish they could work as a Left front and center in a 20 x 25 room and with two 15 inch subs and set about 12 foot away. But i keep thinking i will have to get either the Towers or the 340's with 15 inc subs I don't think 2 twelve inch subs would work in a room that big

This isn't such a large room... Sierra-2 with subs will be terrific.

[SGCSG1]

Dave, still nailing down? :-) Pleeeease, this wait is killing us!

Word.

[jahjd2000]

Word.

What he said :D

Can't wait for further details.

[rsmt2000]

Quote Originally Posted by rsmt2000
Hi Dave

When can we expect these speakers to be available? Summer, fall or winter of 2016?

Thanks
Ron



Hoping late 1st quarter in 2016.

Do you think we are still on target??

[stickx]

Hi Dave,

Just found this thread. Currently have 2 Sierra-2's as mains with 2 SVS 2000 subs. Assuming you make a center Sat, would that work in my setup? Due to room limitations the Sierra-2 center is just too big for wife approval.

Thanks,
Bob

[davef]

Sorry for the delays... This is a tough one to nail down but we are just about there. It is looking like dimensions will be ~ 10.5" high x 5.75" wide x 6" deep (not including grille).

Attached is a quick render comparing the front baffle of the Sierra Sat vs Sierra-1 / Sierra-2

1264

Cute little bugger -- should end up being -3dB at around 65Hz.

[Blue Dude]

It IS cute. What does it look like against the HTM-200?

[davef]

It IS cute. What does it look like against the HTM-200?

It's a bit smaller than the 200's...

[curtis]

Nice...front slot port!

[davef]

Nice...front slot port!

Proper port tuning for this speaker is incredibly challenging... Port length needs to be 9" deep.... this is going to be a rather complex cabinet.

[davef]

.... and then somehow also fit a crossover in there, :confused:

[curtis]

.... and then somehow also fit a crossover in there, :confused:
I know I can speak for many others....we have the utmost confidence in you!

[davef]

I know I can speak for many others....we have the utmost confidence in you!

Just hope this little guy doesn't end up costing MORE than a pair of Sierra-2.

[SGCSG1]

If only we could make that the classic 7.5" wide (same as the LS3/5a) and maybe 7 or 8 inches deep.

[davef]

If only we could make that the classic 7.5" wide (same as the LS3/5a) and maybe 7 or 8 inches deep.

Why would you want a larger cabinet?

[davef]

I haven't heard anything in awhile, but is "a very slim WTW center" still a possibility? If so, is it still possible that it could be developed/released along with the Sat?

Once this speaker is complete, we will start investigating the possibility of a very slim WTW center...

[MusicHead]

Nice...front slot port!

+1 for the front slot port! That and the dimensions makes it PERFECT for my space.

Hoping I do not have to sell my firstborn to buy a pair :-)

[davef]

Quote Originally Posted by rsmt2000
Hi Dave

When can we expect these speakers to be available? Summer, fall or winter of 2016?

Thanks
Ron




Do you think we are still on target??

I am thinking middle to late May of this year...

[surroundnewbie]

I am thinking middle to late May of this year...

W00t! Looks like my "Nose-rhymers" will be getting replaced sooner than I thought :D

[SGCSG1]

Why would you want a larger cabinet?

Efficiency, bass extension, maximum SPL.

[curtis]

Efficiency, bass extension, maximum SPL.
Then why not a Sierra-2 for you?

[davef]

Efficiency, bass extension, maximum SPL.

The woofer has been designed for a very specific cabinet volume. Placing this woofer in a significantly larger cabinet will actually reduce maximum spl, have no effect on efficiency, and it would end up providing an overdamped bass response.

The cabinet of the Sierra-2 is similar in size to the Rogers LS3/5A -- just a bit taller and deeper, and far exceeds the LS3/5A in max SPL, bass response and efficiency.

Keep in mind that the LS3/5A was a sealed enclosure, tuned by ear for portable monitoring. As hugely popular as it was, I am not sure how well the LS3/5A (or any of the variants) would do against today's similar sized speakers. The Rogers LS3/5A had an underdamped bass response with a -3dB point of approximately 80Hz with high impedance and very low efficiency.

[MusicHead]

The woofer has been designed for a very specific cabinet volume. Placing this woofer in a significantly larger cabinet will actually reduce maximum spl, have no effect on efficiency, and it would end up providing an overdamped bass response.

The cabinet of the Sierra-2 is similar in size to the Rogers LS3/5A -- just a bit taller and deeper, and far exceeds the LS3/5A in max SPL, bass response and efficiency.

Keep in mind that the LS3/5A was a sealed enclosure, tuned by ear for portable monitoring. As hugely popular as it was, I am not sure how well the LS3/5A (or any of the variants) would do against today's similar sized speakers. The Rogers LS3/5A had an underdamped bass response with a -3dB point of approximately 80Hz with high impedance and very low efficiency.

Very interesting, as always :-)

Dave, what efficiency do you estimate for the Sierra sat?

[sonicboom]

Sorry for the delays... This is a tough one to nail down but we are just about there. It is looking like dimensions will be ~ 10.5" high x 5.75" wide x 6" deep (not including grille).

Attached is a quick render comparing the front baffle of the Sierra Sat vs Sierra-1 / Sierra-2

1264

Cute little bugger -- should end up being -3dB at around 65Hz.

The slot port looks very nice. I imagine the internal anatomy being more complex than the Sierra 1/2 due to the port being integrated in the woodwork as opposed to a tube. A bonus is the added rigidity the woodwork will provide.

Dave, do you expect the Sats to sound at least as "big' as the CBMs? I have a 5.1 all-CBM set up and just love the "big-speaker" sound the CBMs make in my room.

Lately, however, I have been looking for a smaller box footprint and tried the RSL CG4 speakers. They are almost exactly of the same dimensions as the proposed Sats but unfortunately their sound seemed to have "shrunk" in my listening area. The "big speaker" sound of the CBMs were gone. What I liked, though, was the small footprint of the RSLs.

If the Sierra Sats can match the CBM's "big" sound I will be very interested.

[smurraybhm]

The slot port looks very nice. I imagine the internal anatomy being more complex than the Sierra 1/2 due to the port being integrated in the woodwork as opposed to a tube. A bonus is the added rigidity the woodwork will provide.

Dave, do you expect the Sats to sound at least as "big' as the CBMs? I have a 5.1 all-CBM set up and just love the "big-speaker" sound the CBMs make in my room.

Lately, however, I have been looking for a smaller box footprint and tried the RSL CG4 speakers. They are almost exactly of the same dimensions as the proposed Sats but unfortunately their sound seemed to have "shrunk" in my listening area. The "big speaker" sound of the CBMs were gone. What I liked, though, was the small footprint of the RSLs.

If the Sierra Sats can match the CBM's "big" sound I will be very interested.

Not Dave but based on his post you quoted those are almost the exact same size of the HTM200s. As for the big sound you'd be surprised what the HTM can put out despite being a sealed design and having 2 4" woofers along with the same tweeter found in the CBMs. These sats are are a first day buy for me, just what to do with my 1s, can't give any of my Sierras up.

[loonytunes]

Imagine my exuberance when I saw this thread. I can now get those wonderful RAALs all the way around in a smaller package. :cool:
Have you been able to nail down sensitivty and impedence rating yet?

[davef]

Imagine my exuberance when I saw this thread. I can now get those wonderful RAALs all the way around in a smaller package. :cool:
Have you been able to nail down sensitivty and impedence rating yet?

Impedance will essentially be the same as the Sierra-2, a very easy and stable 8ohm average load. Sensitivity will likely be an honest 85dB anechoic.

[davef]

The slot port looks very nice. I imagine the internal anatomy being more complex than the Sierra 1/2 due to the port being integrated in the woodwork as opposed to a tube. A bonus is the added rigidity the woodwork will provide.

100% correct. The "slot" itself is actually going to be ~ 9" in total depth.


Dave, do you expect the Sats to sound at least as "big' as the CBMs? I have a 5.1 all-CBM set up and just love the "big-speaker" sound the CBMs make in my room.

Tough to say. As the design stands right now, the CBM's do offer deeper bass extension. However, once we start the crossover design, some overall efficiency can be sacrificed in order to give the sats a bigger sound. Our goal is to try and match the overall tonality and balance of the Sierra-2 as closely as we can...


Lately, however, I have been looking for a smaller box footprint and tried the RSL CG4 speakers. They are almost exactly of the same dimensions as the proposed Sats but unfortunately their sound seemed to have "shrunk" in my listening area. The "big speaker" sound of the CBMs were gone. What I liked, though, was the small footprint of the RSLs. If the Sierra Sats can match the CBM's "big" sound I will be very interested.

We have demoed a lot of "satellite" speakers with 4" - 4.5" woofers recently. Sadly, not a single set has even come close to matching published manufacturer specs... Not even close. I found our 200's to demolish these speakers in every category and our published specs of the 200's are accurate, even a bit conservative.

While we are not aiming for a "big sound" from these sat's, that same "big sound" was never a design goal for any of our speakers. It comes from a combination of bass extension and midbass, which is all related to bass tuning and overall voicing. While more complicated due to the small size, our design philosophy will not be compromised in any regard with these sat's. These fully custom made 4.5" woofers from SEAS are extremely capable, a beast of a 4.5" woofer.

[loonytunes]

Thanks for the info Dave. I will be keeping an eye on the site for ordering info. Get a set of 4 ready in Satin Espresso. I cant wait.

[davef]

Hi Dave,

Just found this thread. Currently have 2 Sierra-2's as mains with 2 SVS 2000 subs. Assuming you make a center Sat, would that work in my setup? Due to room limitations the Sierra-2 center is just too big for wife approval.

Thanks,
Bob

Absolutely -- it would work very well :)

[SGCSG1]

' Our goal is to try and match the overall tonality and balance of the Sierra-2 as closely as we can...'

That's an excellent goal.

[sonicboom]

Our goal is to try and match the overall tonality and balance of the Sierra-2 as closely as we can...



Wow! Looks like these speakers are really worth waiting for. A 5.1 set-up with the Sierra Sats all around is in my future.

I currently have an all-CBM 5.1 set-up, all wall-mounted. While they have a sound that is tough to beat in my room, the CBM's size is beginning to look really big on my walls, especially the front. It's true that I can go with the 200s to have a smaller footprint, but I am looking at an upgrade path to the RAALs.

Hats off to you again, Dave, for your excellence in speaker design. This hobby brings gratification to a lot of us because of companies like Ascend.

[holt7153]

wow-REALLY looking forward to these.

[davef]

Hats off to you again, Dave, for your excellence in speaker design. This hobby brings gratification to a lot of us because of companies like Ascend.

Thank you for the wonderful compliment, it truly means a lot to us over here. I am keeping my fingers crossed that we will have the final mechanical drawings completed this evening. It is taking a bit longer than anticipated as it is a complex cabinet design with very little room. Ultimately, we might have to make the cabinet slightly larger but we won't know until we get into the crossover design phase.

[MusicHead]

Thank you for the wonderful compliment, it truly means a lot to us over here. I am keeping my fingers crossed that we will have the final mechanical drawings completed this evening. It is taking a bit longer than anticipated as it is a complex cabinet design with very little room. Ultimately, we might have to make the cabinet slightly larger but we won't know until we get into the crossover design phase.

Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

No, seriously, any update on the cabinet design? Thanks Dave!

[L3G10NA1R]

Tell me about it, I have Sierra 2 LCR and Outlaw Audio Ultra x12. I was about to purchase some more for surrounds, but this sat sounds like the perfect companion. I cannot wait! :D

[ajs2001]

I can't wait for photos of the finished product or prototype!

[SGCSG1]

Ultimately, we might have to make the cabinet slightly larger but we won't know until we get into the crossover design phase.

Not a problem for me. :)

[wineguy]

100% correct. The "slot" itself is actually going to be ~ 9" in total depth.



Tough to say. As the design stands right now, the CBM's do offer deeper bass extension. However, once we start the crossover design, some overall efficiency can be sacrificed in order to give the sats a bigger sound. Our goal is to try and match the overall tonality and balance of the Sierra-2 as closely as we can...



We have demoed a lot of "satellite" speakers with 4" - 4.5" woofers recently. Sadly, not a single set has even come close to matching published manufacturer specs... Not even close. I found our 200's to demolish these speakers in every category and our published specs of the 200's are accurate, even a bit conservative.

While we are not aiming for a "big sound" from these sat's, that same "big sound" was never a design goal for any of our speakers. It comes from a combination of bass extension and midbass, which is all related to bass tuning and overall voicing. While more complicated due to the small size, our design philosophy will not be compromised in any regard with these sat's. These fully custom made 4.5" woofers from SEAS are extremely capable, a beast of a 4.5" woofer.

Out of curiosity, was one of these speakers the Salk WOW1? They have positive comments from reviewers/users regarding fullness of sound and low end output. Granted, no ribbon tweeter option here. Have never heard them myself.

[curtis]

Out of curiosity, was one of these speakers the Salk WOW1? They have positive comments from reviewers/users regarding fullness of sound and low end output. Granted, no ribbon tweeter option here. Have never heard them myself.
The sensitivity for the WOW1 is pretty low, probably due to getting more bass.

For a satellite meant to be used with a subwoofer, I doubt Dave has the same design goals.

[davef]

Out of curiosity, was one of these speakers the Salk WOW1? They have positive comments from reviewers/users regarding fullness of sound and low end output. Granted, no ribbon tweeter option here. Have never heard them myself.

No, my reference was not directed towards the WOW1. I would not actually consider the WOW1 a satellite speaker, it is more like a mini-monitor. Either way, the Sierra Sat will compare very favorably...

[davef]

Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

No, seriously, any update on the cabinet design? Thanks Dave!

All drawings are finished and with our cabinet maker. 2-3 weeks for first prototype... Keeping fingers crossed that the Sat will perform as well or better than the modeling predicted.

I am thinking R-Sat for the ribbon version. N-Sat for the NrT dome version. D-Sat for standard dome version. Thoughts?

[tknice]

All drawings are finished and with our cabinet maker. 2-3 weeks for first prototype... Keeping fingers crossed that the Sat will perform as well or better than the various models.

I am thinking R-Sat for the ribbon version. N-Sat for the NrT dome version. D-Sat for standard dome version. Thoughts?
I like it Dave. Easy to understand and sounds good saying them.

[Todd WI]

All drawings are finished and with our cabinet maker. 2-3 weeks for first prototype... Keeping fingers crossed that the Sat will perform as well or better than the modeling predicted.

I am thinking R-Sat for the ribbon version. N-Sat for the NrT dome version. D-Sat for standard dome version. Thoughts?

This may be one of few marketing cases where "if you build it, they will come". Call them dog poo and I bet they still sell. However, with other speakers named things like WOW1, somehow R-Sat, N-Sat and D-Sat just sounds too utilitarian to me. They need to be something special like Satinators or FabriSats or something.

[davef]

This may be one of few marketing cases where "if you build it, they will come". Call them dog poo and I bet they still sell. However, with other speakers named things like WOW1, somehow R-Sat, N-Sat and D-Sat just sounds too utilitarian to me. They need to be something special like Satinators or FabriSats or something.

LOL - FabriSat. ;)

Sierra R-Sat does have a nice ring to it IMO but we are open to anything.

[stickx]

Dave,

I would be all in for a WTW center and 2 Sierra R-Sat to go with my L-R Sierra 2's. I am thinking that a WTW would be a better choice for a center than one R-Sat (Sierra 2 is too big for my available space). Do you agree that I should wait for the WTW? And do you have a rough idea when you might get to the WTW center?

[monkuboy]

My two cents about the name, I think Sierra SatX (X being the R, S or D designation) rolls off the tongue better than putting the designation before "Sat." Like Sierra SatR rather than Sierra R-Sat. Or some other mark rather than a hyphen. Like Sat|R.

[pj-]

I'm no brand naming guy, but would it make sense to keep the sat names consistent with the full sierras?

E.g. Sierra 1 + sierra sat 1, Sierra 1 nrt + sierra sat 1 nrt, Sierra 2 + sierra 2 sat.

Or, rename Sierra 1 to Sierra D/N, and Sierra 2 to Sierra R and then also name the sats D/N/R

I've typed the word "sierra" too many times and now it looks weird to me.

[merrymaid520]

Or, rename Sierra 1 to Sierra D/N, and Sierra 2 to Sierra R and then also name the sats D/N/R

I've typed the word "sierra" too many times and now it looks weird to me.

Might caution you using DNR in the naming........Do Not Recessitate :)

These sats are already dead on arrival:). Ha!

[justthinking]

How about Sierra-M (Mini) or Sierra-S (Satellite)??

Personally I like Sierra-S which is in line with Sierra-1 & Sierra-2..

You can name them Sierra-S (dome version), Sierra-S w/ NrT and Sierra-S w/ RAAL

Dave, other than the name of the new satellite speakers, have you thought about placement options?

If these satellites are intended to be used as surrounds, will you offer flush mount option?

I am thinking maybe you can design sound kind of bracket mount system and flush mount to wall by first secure the bracket to wall then hung the satellite on the brackets?

[davef]

How about Sierra-M (Mini) or Sierra-S (Satellite)??

Personally I like Sierra-S which is in line with Sierra-1 & Sierra-2..

You can name them Sierra-S (dome version), Sierra-S w/ NrT and Sierra-S w/ RAAL

Dave, other than the name of the new satellite speakers, have you thought about placement options?

If these satellites are intended to be used as surrounds, will you offer flush mount option?

I am thinking maybe you can design sound kind of bracket mount system and flush mount to wall by first secure the bracket to wall then hung the satellite on the brackets?

Excellent! I really like Sierra-S, can further expand to Sierra -SR (for ribbon). Somewhat reminds of a stunning Carrera S that I just drove past ( a sign perhaps ;) )

We will definitely have a flush mount option.

[white_darren]

I really like Sierra-S, can further expand to Sierra -SR (for ribbon).

Hmmm, might want to stay away from Sierra-SNrT.... While there's a certain humor, you probably don't want to be the guy to market a speaker known as the "snort". :)

[tknice]

Sierra-S is perfect Dave!

[SGCSG1]

All drawings are finished and with our cabinet maker. 2-3 weeks for first prototype... Keeping fingers crossed that the Sat will perform as well or better than the modeling predicted.

I am thinking R-Sat for the ribbon version. N-Sat for the NrT dome version. D-Sat for standard dome version. Thoughts?

Will there be enough of a price/performance differentiation to make it worthwhile to have three models?

Speaking of price, any recent thoughts on that?

[Mag_Neato]

Will there be enough of a price/performance differentiation to make it worthwhile to have three models?

Speaking of price, any recent thoughts on that?

The main reason, I suspect, for the three versions is to offer a matching Satellite for each version of regular Sierra ("-1", "NrT" & "-2").

I too am curious as to final pricing.

[holt7153]

Since the 1st Sierra was called the Sierra-1 and the 2nd Sierra was called the Sierra-2, shouldn't these be called the Sierra-3?

Regardless, I'll be calling them "surrounds." :cool:

[KevinC39]

Then shouldn't the Towers be the Sierra 3 and these would be the Sierra 4? ;)

[MusicHead]

Since the 1st Sierra was called the Sierra-1 and the 2nd Sierra was called the Sierra-2, shouldn't these be called the Sierra-3?

Regardless, I'll be calling them "surrounds." :cool:

Or rather "Sierraounds" :-)

[SGCSG1]

The main reason, I suspect, for the three versions is to offer a matching Satellite for each version of regular Sierra ("-1", "NrT" & "-2").

I too am curious as to final pricing.

Final pricing is, I'm sure, quite a ways off. I'd be happy with ballpark pricing.

[davef]

Dave,

I would be all in for a WTW center and 2 Sierra R-Sat to go with my L-R Sierra 2's. I am thinking that a WTW would be a better choice for a center than one R-Sat (Sierra 2 is too big for my available space). Do you agree that I should wait for the WTW? And do you have a rough idea when you might get to the WTW center?

I will be better able to answer this once I have the prototype cabinets in hand (2-3 week estimate). At this time, my recommendation would be to just sit tight :)

[Mag_Neato]

Back to the naming convention.....

To matchup with the regular Sierra's, I propose the following:
1) Sierra-1 = Sierra Sat-1(SS-1)
2) Sierra-1 w/NrT = Sierra Sat-1N (SS-1N)
3) Sierra-2 = Sierra Sat-2 (SS-2)

Simple, and is easy to understand I think.

[natetg57]

Back to the naming convention.....

To matchup with the regular Sierra's, I propose the following:
1) Sierra-1 = Sierra Sat-1(SS-1)
2) Sierra-1 w/NrT = Sierra Sat-1N (SS-1N)
3) Sierra-2 = Sierra Sat-2 (SS-2)

Simple, and is easy to understand I think.
I like it. It makes sense to match the Sat's names with the corresponding Sierras.

[dtsequoia]

Just my two cents here but...

I like where everyone is going with this. Here are my suggestions:

Sierra Sat: Standard dome
Sierra Sat-N: W/ NrT
Sierra Sat-R: W/ RAAL

Simple naming convention that doesn't confound customers and implies which tweeter is used.

[loonytunes]

Just my two cents here but...



Sierra Sat: Standard dome
Sierra Sat-N: W/ NrT
Sierra Sat-R: W/ RAAL



Plus 1 from me on this. Sat-S, Sat-N and Sat-R.

What about the center?
C-Sat-S and so on?

[dtsequoia]

Plus 1 from me on this. Sat-S, Sat-N and Sat-R.

What about the center?
C-Sat-S and so on?

Maybe:
Sierra Sat Center (Standard)
Sierra Sat Center N (NrT)
Sierra Sat Center R (RAAL)?

[Mag_Neato]

Maybe:
Sierra Sat Center (Standard)
Sierra Sat Center N (NrT)
Sierra Sat Center R (RAAL)?

My suggestion:

Sierra-1 C-SAT
Sierra-1N C-SAT
Sierra-2 C-SAT

As was my line of reasoning with the non-center Sats, match the numeric designation with the full size Sierra line.

So.....
Sierra-1 SAT
Sierra-1N SAT
Sierra-2 SAT

[justthinking]

Dave,

Another member asked about Ascend speakers as studio monitors, I like the idea but find Sierra-1/2 to be a bit too big to placed on desk

IMO, the upcoming Sierra Satellite is just the perfect size and I am curious to hear your assessment on how it will perform as studio monitors or near field monitors placed on computer desk..

[Remonster]

Dave,

Another member asked about Ascend speakers as studio monitors, I like the idea but find Sierra-1/2 to be a bit too big to placed on desk

IMO, the upcoming Sierra Satellite is just the perfect size and I am curious to hear your assessment on how it will perform as studio monitors or near field monitors placed on computer desk..

I know this doesn't really answer your question but I bought my Sierra 1s for use as my desktop computer speakers and I'm actually listening to them right now. I had them upgraded to Sierra 2s and both versions worked absolutely perfectly in the nearfield (roughly 3' in front of my face on either side of my iMac). The original Sierra 1s sounded best with a port plug because I keep my desk fairly close to the wall (just under 1' between the speaker and back wall), the 2s don't need the port plugs and do fine near the wall.

[davef]

Dave,

Another member asked about Ascend speakers as studio monitors, I like the idea but find Sierra-1/2 to be a bit too big to placed on desk

IMO, the upcoming Sierra Satellite is just the perfect size and I am curious to hear your assessment on how it will perform as studio monitors or near field monitors placed on computer desk..

I will have a very good grasp on overall performance of the Sierra Sat by the end of next week. The cabinet prototypes should be ready early next week (or so I have been told)

[loopy]

How good would a CMT 340 left front and center work with a 18 inch sealed sub?

I was just kinda scared that it may be to much sub for it

[theophile]

How good would a CMT 340 left front and center work with a 18 inch sealed sub?

I was just kinda scared that it may be to much sub for it

Higher efficiency in a sub is an easy control to match balance output with the mains-center-surrounds...through the output level setting of the sub amp.

"How Deep" it can play, even sub audible frequencies, is NEVER an issue!! :)

Ted

[sludgeogre]

I will have a very good grasp on overall performance of the Sierra Sat by the end of next week. The cabinet prototypes should be ready early next week (or so I have been told)

Excited to hear how it's going. The more I live with my Klipsch R-15 speakers as surrounds the more I hate them. The tweeters are SOOOO harsh on them by comparison to the RAALs and I can't get the timing on them to match up perfectly either. Need those sats stat!

[Jaybeez]

I think it was mentioned earlier, but people have a way of abbreviating virtually everything anyway so maybe:

Sat - Sierra 1
nSat - with NrT
rSat - with Raal

At first I was intrigued by naming in parallel with the "big brothers" (Sierra 1, Sierra 2) but to me these are a different animal so the name should probably reflect that.

Bummed the prototype isn't done just yet, as picking up my Sierra 2's on Friday.

[Mag_Neato]

I think it was mentioned earlier, but people have a way of abbreviating virtually everything anyway so maybe:

Sat - Sierra 1
nSat - with NrT
rSat - with Raal

At first I was intrigued by naming in parallel with the "big brothers" (Sierra 1, Sierra 2) but to me these are a different animal so the name should probably reflect that.

Bummed the prototype isn't done just yet, as picking up my Sierra 2's on Friday.

The name Sierra should be incorporated in the Sat naming, otherwise there could be some confusion as to what speaker line they are matched with, i.e. CBM-170, CMT-340, etc.

Sierra SAT-1
Sierra SAT-N(or -NrT)
Sierra SAT-2

Just another idea to kick around.

[davef]

Here ya go!!!

Sample cabinet came out absolutely perfect and so far my modeling has proven accurate. The complex porting and tuning is ideal and this little dude has some serious kick! I am honestly not sure a speaker this small with this level of performance has ever been produced and this guy feels like you are literally holding a brick. Likely come in at about 9 pounds each and I don't believe we will have to make any changes to the cabinet. 10 5/8" high x 5 3/4" wide x 6" deep.

Enjoy the pics!

[ajs2001]

Awesome!! When will you know the price?

[surroundnewbie]

Absolutely beautiful, Dave! Super congrats!

[Jaybeez]

Beautiful! Bet those will go very very well with a set of RAAL towers.

Keep them around a few years for when it's time to upgrade my HT set up!

[MusicHead]

Wow, look at that!!! The baby Sierra is born! :D Have you measured efficiency yet?

[justthinking]

WOW they look amazing!

Can we get a couple pictures showing the back of the baby Sierra?

[rsmt2000]

Awesome Dave. Congratulations on the new addition the family. I am sure the dude will keep you awake for a while now. When are you uploading the video of them playing " boom boom pow " ? LOL.

[curtis]

That natural Sat has my name all over it!!!

[Blutarsky]

Way to go Dave. A lot of people will buy these for several applications.

The only comparable speakers that I can think of were my old Infinity Infinitesimals. The proto Brick Speaker. Arnie Nudell is still loving being active in the audio community.
http://hificollector.blogspot.com/2009/03/speakers-infinity-infinitesimal.html

[sludgeogre]

I want two for surrounds and two for desktop speakers. You really should consider marketing them as desktop speakers as well, with the little mounts that aim them at your ears similar to what Emotiva sells. Those are the PERFECT dimensions for a killer desktop speaker. I cannot WAIT to get mine in satin black!!!

[Mag_Neato]

Looking good Dave!

I noticed that the new, smaller woofer has a 6-hole pattern Vs. the larger woofer in the Sierra-2 having only a 4-hole pattern. Any particular reason for this?

Also, since you took the time to design a front ported design to allow near/on wall placement, are the binding posts recessed?

[curtis]

I noticed that the new, smaller woofer has a 6-hole pattern Vs. the larger woofer in the Sierra-2 having only a 4-hole pattern. Any particular reason for this?

For the Sierra-2, remember, Dave had paid for the tooling to have SEAS match the hole pattern of the Sierra-1/NrT woofer, to make upgrades easier.

[Elco1965]

Also, since you took the time to design a front ported design to allow near/on wall placement, are the binding posts recessed?

I too was thinking about this. But given the port design assumed this would not be the case.

Looking forward to owning a couple sets.

[Chucka]

Now a center of this design would fill out the family. :D

Congratulations on your new Baby!!!

[monkeyblues]

It's beautiful! Dave, will all of the finishes have the reveal lines (which i LOVE!), or just the cabinets made in the US? I can't wait to order a pair (or two) of those in Espresso to match my RAAL Towers!

[SGCSG1]

Wow, those look great. I'm thinking a pair of these with a nice sub in a smallish room would be an outstanding 2.1 system for music.

[MusicHead]

Wow, those look great. I'm thinking a pair of these with a nice sub in a smallish room would be an outstanding 2.1 system for music.

I have been planning to get a pair of CBM-170SE to upgrade my L/R mains (supported by the L12 Rythmik sub I already have), but now I MUST wait and see at what price point the baby Sierras will be.

I have height and depth constraints given my room layout and furniture, so if I can get a pair of small speakers that would sound even better than the CBM-170SE, I do not mind spending the extra money if the price is reasonable :D

[rsmt2000]

but now I MUST wait and see at what price point the baby Sierras will be.


Naming conventions are gone with the wind. Looks like every one likes calling them baby seirras :cool:

[MusicHead]

Naming conventions are gone with the wind. Looks like every one likes calling them baby seirras :cool:

That's only because the father has not yet picked a name!

[Jaybeez]

Wondering when these will be ready for a listen? I'm heading back from San Diego next week and would be happy to take one for the team, stop in, and write up a brief review. :cool:

[SGCSG1]

If there's any thoughts on finish yet I'm hoping for satin black bamboo. I think that would work really well on such a small speaker. Also it's good for folks who like to go grill-less - the inserts for the grill plugs stand out less.

I'm seeing that as an option for the towers, but not the Sierra 2's?

[sludgeogre]

If there's any thoughts on finish yet I'm hoping for satin black bamboo. I think that would work really well on such a small speaker. Also it's good for folks who like to go grill-less - the inserts for the grill plugs stand out less.

I'm seeing that as an option for the towers, but not the Sierra 2's?

They better be in satin black, they have to match my towers! My dream 5.2 setup is so close!

[freesole]

Wow, I never thought of going with a surround setup but after hearing how good the towers are, I may just have to invest in these to complete the setup!

[billy p]

Smaller than the HTM 200, esthetically more pleasing(although my 200 are finished in espresso) and providing a seamless integration with my mains...I'm sold, the 200 will now highlight a nice 2.0 system in my next garage. Now just waiting on the final cost....:)

[holt7153]

Can't wait to get a pair of S3's.

[slippery44]

This will definitely be a product I am interested in, I was just thinking the other day how much I wanted to switch out my surrounds to something that was closer to matching my Sierra Towers.

[MusicHead]

Hello DaveF, as it is customary, any information about the "baby" :D

Efficiency, FR, Power Handling, price????

[sludgeogre]

Hello DaveF, as it is customary, any information about the "baby" :D

Efficiency, FR, Power Handling, price????

Availability?!?!?! :D

[davef]

Ok.. here we go...

Spent much of the weekend developing the preliminary crossover which then allows me to truly listen to the Sierra Sat. I was hoping for a less complex crossover than the Sierra-2, but at this point, that doesn't seem like it will be possible.

As it stands right now, the speaker measures well with fantastic transient accuracy and really unbelievable horizontal off-axis dispersion, thanks in part to the very narrow cabinet and smaller woofer. To get the needed warmth, efficiency will come in at an honest 84-84.5dB anechoic. Phase integration between the drivers is terrific and the speaker can easily be used as close to a listener's ear as they like -- even 6 inches away. Nominal impedance is a very easy 8ohm load with benign phase angles. No doubt the speaker will like some power, and power handling is excellent. I ran a single sat full range with deep bass tracks and hit 93dB at 12 feet back in a very well damped room. Our own HTM-200SE could not keep up with this. Crossed at 80Hz in a typical room, max spl is going to be crazy for a speaker this size.

Listening....

I expected to listen for an hour or two last night, and that session ended up being over 4 hours long and set me behind in half a dozen other tasks. Not a problem though as I left the office with a HUGE smile on my face :)

Since the start, I have been concerned if this would end up being a product we can actually sell. No doubt, it is going to be an expensive speaker - basically the same component costs as the Sierra-2. We have already invested a lot of time and expense into the Sat and last night was the time for me to make the call to either push forward or hang it up. Well, the good news is that was a very easy decision to make - the SAT was literally addicting to listen to. It is basically a Sierra-2 without that same level of dynamics and deep bass.

When we were investigating other high performance speakers similar to this size, I used our HTM-200SE as the benchmark and after every comparison, I came away much preferring our 200. In fact, I would say our 200's flat out crushed the competition in every performance category. In comparing the SSR (sierra sat ribbon) to the 200, the SSR crushed the 200 in every performance category, even in bass, which is something I had hoped for but didn't actually expect. Run full range, bass response comes in at somewhere between the 170 and 200. It is a bit shocking to hear some deep bass from a speaker this size but this amazing woofer combined with the complex porting worked perfectly.

Compared directly to its big brother, it is a perfect timbre match. The SSR won't measure quite as flat as the Sierra-2, but that is not the goal for this speaker. I am actually really excited to have a listen once again as the detail, musicality, unbelievable transparency (the speaker completely disappears) and the overall amount of sound coming from this little box is shocking...

All that said, we are not there just yet... From here I have to optimize the crossover and then figure out some way to fit the components onto a PCB that can actually fit into the cabinet. That is going to be a challenge as there is very little room in there.

Here is a pic from late last night... Maybe I will do a boom boom pow video again, lol.

Enjoy!

[Narco]

Holy cow Dave! Excellent job!

I may just have to pick up a pair for the rears to match my Sierra-2s, or for another room all together.

[MusicHead]

Dave, thanks for the report! I wish I had a reason like this to stay late at the office :D.

Since you mentioned efficiency and SPL: At this time my amp is an Emotiva Fusion 8100, capable of very real 5x80W or 2x120W (all channels active). My room is 13x17x8, with the listening position about 10' from the front speakers.

Do you believe the baby Sierras would provide enough SPL if used as L/R mains, crossed at 80Hz in conjunction with my Rythmik L12 sub?

Until you posted the news about the Sierra Sat being in the work I have been thinking about either the HTM-200 or more likely the CBM-170, not only for the dimensions (my primary constraint) but also for their sensitivity.

The Sierra Sat would definitely be a step above in overall sound quality, but I am a little worried about giving up the extra sensitivity, especially compared to the CBM-170.

What are your thoughts about the Sierra Sat at the conditions outlined above?

Thanks!!!

[Mag_Neato]

Gorgeous!
Dave, what about the standard & NrT dome versions? Any experimentation with those yet?

These are really going to cause some commotion in the A/V world!

[pegleg]

Dave,
Thanks for the update. Although I doubt I'll get these (I have the Sierra-2), it's so interesting to follow along as you discuss the process of developing new speakers.
--Pegleg

[sludgeogre]

I'm just hoping the price won't be much over $1k. I'd like to buy them soon and my budget is running thin, plus I'd like to add a second set in the future for surround heights. Here's hoping for a promo/introductory price :D

[RPM]

Gorgeous!
Dave, what about the standard & NrT dome versions? Any experimentation with those yet?

These are really going to cause some commotion in the A/V world!

+1 NRT pair would be great....

[SGCSG1]

In a small to medium size room with a good but small subwoofer... this could be the perfect setup.

[SGCSG1]

I'm just hoping the price won't be much over $1k. I'd like to buy them soon and my budget is running thin, plus I'd like to add a second set in the future for surround heights. Here's hoping for a promo/introductory price :D

We should have a pool. :) I'd pick $1199.

[Bill66]

Have the Sierra 2's as the front stage in a 5.1 system and love them, they are magical. So I'm excited about the SSR sat for a 2.1 channel setup. The icing on the cake would be a magnetic grille. Possible?

[surroundnewbie]

We should have a pool. :) I'd pick $1199.

You mean $1198, don't you? :)

[Mag_Neato]

The icing on the cake would be a magnetic grille. Possible?

This was discussed at length with the regular Sierra line. The problem is the V-lam bamboo construction. In most magnetic grill applications which usually have a veneer-over-MDF/plywood construction it is rather simple. Just bore a hole in the baffle face prior to applying the veneer which the magnet drops into. The veneer is then applied over this and you have hidden magnets within the baffle. Since there is no veneer on the Sierras, but rather the bamboo grain you see is the actual solid bamboo with finish applied, you do not have a veneer to hide the magnets. If you don't mind seeing those magnets when the grills are removed then no big deal, but the advantage of magnetic grills is that you have a clean looking baffle when the grill is off.

[sludgeogre]

This was discussed at length with the regular Sierra line. The problem is the V-lam bamboo construction. In most magnetic grill applications which usually have a veneer-over-MDF/plywood construction it is rather simple. Just bore a hole in the baffle face prior to applying the veneer which the magnet drops into. The veneer is then applied over this and you have hidden magnets within the baffle. Since there is no veneer on the Sierras, but rather the bamboo grain you see is the actual solid bamboo with finish applied, you do not have a veneer to hide the magnets. If you don't mind seeing those magnets when the grills are removed then no big deal, but the advantage of magnetic grills is that you have a clean looking baffle when the grill is off.

Thanks a lot for the explanation. I always wondered why the Sierras use post holes instead of magnets, and this makes perfect sense. Now I won't be so bothered by those holes anymore.

[Bill66]

This was discussed at length with the regular Sierra line. The problem is the V-lam bamboo construction. In most magnetic grill applications which usually have a veneer-over-MDF/plywood construction it is rather simple. Just bore a hole in the baffle face prior to applying the veneer which the magnet drops into. The veneer is then applied over this and you have hidden magnets within the baffle. Since there is no veneer on the Sierras, but rather the bamboo grain you see is the actual solid bamboo with finish applied, you do not have a veneer to hide the magnets. If you don't mind seeing those magnets when the grills are removed then no big deal, but the advantage of magnetic grills is that you have a clean looking baffle when the grill is off.

Maybe a stupid question, but cant the holes be drilled from the back side of the baffle and stopped before going through the face add a magnet and fill the holes flush with epoxy or something? Another option would be going no grill, cause I do like that sleek look with no extra holes. Either way looks like a great little speaker once again from Ascend. Cheers Dave and crew!!;)

[sludgeogre]

Maybe a stupid question, but cant the holes be drilled from the back side of the baffle and stopped before going through the face. Another option would be no grill, cause I do like that sleek look with no extra holes. Either way looks like a great little speaker once again from Ascend. Cheers Dave and crew!!;)

I would think that going from the inside would create surface that would no longer be flat, so it would reflect sound differently inside the cabinet. I also think this would compromise cabinet rigidity as holes drilled from the inside might lower the overall cabinet stiffness.

I nearly asked for speakers without grilles and holes, but I thought it would be better to keep them around for when I need to move the speakers and if I end up getting a bigger dog one day. Always better to have the protection than to not have it.

[Mag_Neato]

Maybe a stupid question, but cant the holes be drilled from the back side of the baffle and stopped before going through the face add a magnet and fill the holes flush with epoxy or something?

I had the same exact idea and actually sent Dave a drawing of that. I don't remember his exact response but what it boils down to is: Design for Manufacturability. The design must meet the capabilities of the fabricator and material. Material variations are another factor. Since Bamboo is a natural product it will have variations within its grain. In order to have sufficient magnetic gauss would likely require a pretty thin wall between magnet & baffle face. The possibility of voids in the bamboo may lead to some breakout or thinner than desired spots. I'm sure Dave is still looking into an effective way to do a magnetic grill as he sure enjoys a good challenge.

[Jonnyozero3]

Here ya go!!!

Sample cabinet came out absolutely perfect and so far my modeling has proven accurate. The complex porting and tuning is ideal and this little dude has some serious kick! I am honestly not sure a speaker this small with this level of performance has ever been produced and this guy feels like you are literally holding a brick. Likely come in at about 9 pounds each and I don't believe we will have to make any changes to the cabinet. 10 5/8" high x 5 3/4" wide x 6" deep.

Enjoy the pics!

I go away for awhile, and look what happens! Time to get ready for Dolby ATMOS! Boom. Nice job Dave, many congrats. -Jon

[loonytunes]

Waiting for release date. Consider the first pair in Satin Espresso sold! Congrats to you Dave and everyone on the team at Ascend.

[SGCSG1]

I would think that going from the inside would create surface that would no longer be flat, so it would reflect sound differently inside the cabinet. I also think this would compromise cabinet rigidity as holes drilled from the inside might lower the overall cabinet stiffness.

I nearly asked for speakers without grilles and holes, but I thought it would be better to keep them around for when I need to move the speakers and if I end up getting a bigger dog one day. Always better to have the protection than to not have it.

Speakers without grills and holes? I would do that if it were an option.

[Phil+WAF]

I'm new to the Ascend forum. I came across this thread this morning. I've been searching for new surround speakers to go with my Yamaha 3000. My Aperion 6Ts (top of line when purchased, but 3 versions back now) with a 6C center channel will remain for the time being, but I want surrounds that will be timbre compatible when I upgrade the 6Ts.

I have a new Emotiva XPA 5 ordered to add 4 new speakers for presence speakers (Yamaha configuration) to my 7.2 system. I want to timber match the new speakers (purchase now) with a new set of towers and center channel (budget only now) and the Sierra Towers look like they would fit the bill. The 6Ts would eventually become rear speakers or go to another room depending on timbre.

I've also been looking at Salk speakers, and Aperion, but Aperion isn't offering an RAAL tweeter. When I say look, it only means looking at forums and reading between the lines.

Next year the Yamaha will be replaced with a new AV for Dolby Atmos and DTS (maybe Auro?) and a final config of 7.2.4. The .2 is a new set of HSU VTF-3MK5s which I'm breaking in now.

These satellites with RAAL tweeters and the ability to timbre match the Sierra Towers and Horizon Center sounds like the way to go.

So pricing and ETA would be helpful with a new amp to show up around May 1st.

As far as I can tell no manufacturer is doing a true 7.1 with proper surrounds using RAAL tweeters. I wouldn't mind being one of the first.

I'm about 75% video and 25% audio, with a 120 inch screen and an Epson 5030 player. I like being immersed in the sound, where I become part of the orchestra or band, so usually I listen to 7 channel sound when I listen to music.

[sludgeogre]

I was also looking at Aperion before I purchased my Ascend towers and center. I went to hear the Aperion setup in their office and it was really great, but it was a little on the warm side and it certainly lacked the clarity that the Ascend setup provides. Those RAAL tweeters are so much more detailed and effortless sounding. Definitely worth the extra cost to me. The Bamboo cabinets are also much more sturdy and acoustically dead than the MDF Aperion cabinets.

I think you'll be thrilled with the Sierra Sats when they come out just as I will be.

[Phil+WAF]

Thanks for the reply. I live about 40 miles from Aperion headquarters. I listened to both the 6Ts and Grand Verus when they came out. I ended up with the 6Ts (WAF), even though the Grand Versus sounded a little better to me.

I have been given permission to upgrade (WAF again) if I can figure out how not go bankrupt doing it. The Grand Verus II are being released now, with an upgraded silk dome tweeter. But I'm trying to go a little farther in technology, and from what I can gather the RAAL tweeters do that. Maybe a little future proofing on my part.

In any case, I'm betting that the RAAL tweeters in an eventual 7.2.4 system are going to be very satisfying.

[timmbw]

Dave - Will one have the option to special order Sierra Satellite's without grilles and holes?

[BuddTX]

Hi All,
I just joined this forum because of this speaker!

I have been wanting to upgrade my 13+ year old Axiom QS8's. Not bad mouthing Axiom at all, just the QS8's don't work for my big room, and I prefer direct sound to the reflected sound.

I was looking for a front ported speaker, so I can mount the speaker on the wall.

I have not heard any ascend speaker yet, but I have read great things for years.

The other speakers on my "short" list were KEF Q300, and HTD Level 3, and Chane and Dennis Murphy speakers. EPMTek and ELAC and the KEF LS50's are also on my list, but they did not have a front ported speaker.

These new speakers also look very NICE! I would be proud to have these mounted on my wall! The QS8's, while they do not work in my setting, look very nice!

The Q300 and HTD Level 3 are, of course, in a lower price bracket than these new Ascend speakers, and the LS50's were probably at the upper end of my price range, but it is funny, I did not have a specific price in mind, I was looking for the RIGHT speaker for my situation. I want this to be a (close to) a lifetime purchase.

I read all 22 pages, and if there was a discussion regarding hardware to mount the speakers on the wall, I missed it.

So, will there be any mounting hardware specific for this speaker?

I know there is generic hardware, but I would hate to go drilling screws in this beautiful speaker.

Thanks!

OH, PS, I should have added that I realize that this new custom designed Ascend speaker with the RAAL tweeter will be considered among the best possible sound I can possibly get, way above the other speakers I mentioned. That very much excites me, as I fell in love with B&W 801's in the 80's (of course that was billions of times more than my college budget would ever allow!), but have realized that I would never spend the kind of money (new speakers, or a new car, or multiple vehicle's!) on a speaker, even if I could afford it.

[davef]

I apologize for the lack of updates for the past week. I know I have a lot of questions to answer here and I'll do my best to answer all of them in the next 48 hours.

I just had a meeting with Claus Futtrup from SEAS. We are making 2 changes to the custom SEAS woofer. One is a slight change to the surround compliance, the other is a slight change to the cone itself (slightly lower mass with an increase in stiffness by changing the weave)

This change will likely set us back a bit with regards to a release date, but like with every Ascend product - we are after maximum performance at all costs.

I have also made a slight change to the cabinet in the hopes of finding a solution on how to fit a fairly complex crossover into such a small cabinet. I will be picking up this new sample cabinet tomorrow. There is no change to the dimensions or tuning, just relocating the terminal cup cutout.

I also had the privilege of auditioning the best dome tweeter I have ever heard. It is ridiculously expensive and I can't believe I am saying this, but I honestly think the price is worth it... Ill discuss this in more detail in another thread.

Many have asked about a wall mounting solution for the Sat. I have been working on this and have found an interesting flush mount bracket that should work well. I have attached a pic. Basically, one piece would be attached to the top of speaker, and the other piece would be attached to the wall. The speaker would then slide down and secure into place. Far more secure and stable than a typical keyhole hanger.

1296

[SGCSG1]

'maximum performance at all costs'

- Words to live by.

[sludgeogre]

Can't wait to hear more. The longer I wait, the more I just want to buy a pair of Sierra 2's for surrounds, but I know these will be worth the wait, especially if they give my wallet a tiny break compared to the Sierra 2.

Oh and ahem satin black finishes please ahem cough.

[LexLynx]

Hi, these look great! I'm upgrading my 340/170 SE system to have a Horizon center and Sierra 2 mains, and I think these would make perfect surround speakers.

I am thinking of upgrading to Atmos by the end of the year possibly, would these work in a ceiling-mounted setup?

If Sierra Sats would be pure overkill for overheads, what would people recommend for ceiling speakers/brands that would match well with a RAAL speaker setup?

[davef]

WOW they look amazing!

Can we get a couple pictures showing the back of the baby Sierra?

here you go. Although the final version will have some mounting hardware. We are planning on using the same terminal cup as we use in the 200's as this allows for nearly perfect flush mounting.

[davef]

Looking good Dave!

I noticed that the new, smaller woofer has a 6-hole pattern Vs. the larger woofer in the Sierra-2 having only a 4-hole pattern. Any particular reason for this?

Also, since you took the time to design a front ported design to allow near/on wall placement, are the binding posts recessed?

The hole pattern for the woofer cutout is due to us using a stock SEAS basket frame. Thankfully, there is no reason to change this :)

Yep - binding posts will be recessed :)

[davef]

Gorgeous!
Dave, what about the standard & NrT dome versions? Any experimentation with those yet?

These are really going to cause some commotion in the A/V world!

For dome tweeter versions, I am playing around with a different SEAS woofer (treated paper) compared to Curv, which would bring the costs down a bit. Not there yet though, dome versions would likely be introduced after the ribbon version.

[davef]

Dave, thanks for the report! I wish I had a reason like this to stay late at the office :D.

Since you mentioned efficiency and SPL: At this time my amp is an Emotiva Fusion 8100, capable of very real 5x80W or 2x120W (all channels active). My room is 13x17x8, with the listening position about 10' from the front speakers.

Do you believe the baby Sierras would provide enough SPL if used as L/R mains, crossed at 80Hz in conjunction with my Rythmik L12 sub?

For that size room and with that much power, absolutely. These little speakers can reach surprising levels, they completely fill our extremely well damped listening room, which is similar in size to your room and I never reached more than 80 watts into them...

[sludgeogre]

...dome versions would likely be introduced after the ribbon version.

Yaaaay! :D

[davef]

I believe I have caught up with any pending questions so now for the big news on the Sat's... After much time spent with our local cabinet maker and various trial and error, I am happy to say that we have worked out a way to offer the Sat's with magnetic grilles.

It will be somewhat different than what most other magnetic speaker grille cabinets do, they typically use 4 magnets and 4 nail or screw heads that the magnets attach to. In our case, in order to get enough magnetic force to get through enough bamboo as to not compromise cabinet integrity - we will be using 4 extremely powerful neodymium magnets in the cabinet and also 4 in the grille.

This adds to the manufacturing costs (something I am already concerned with) but to compensate, we are thinking of offering the grilles as a separate $50 option. This way, someone who has no intention on ever using grilles, can save $50 on a pair and they can always purchase the grilles at later date if their usage changes.

Thoughts?

[sludgeogre]

I believe I have caught up with any pending questions so now for the big news on the Sat's... After much time spent with our local cabinet maker and various trial and error, I am happy to say that we have worked out a way to offer the Sat's with magnetic grilles.

It will be somewhat different than what most other magnetic speaker grille cabinets do, they typically use 4 magnets and 4 nail or screw heads that the magnets attach to. In our case, in order to get enough magnetic force to get through enough bamboo as to not compromise cabinet integrity - we will be using 4 extremely powerful neodymium magnets in the cabinet and also 4 in the grille.

This adds to the manufacturing costs (something I am already concerned with) but to compensate, we are thinking of offering the grilles as a separate $50 option. This way, someone who has no intention on ever using grilles, can save $50 on a pair and they can always purchase the grilles at later date if their usage changes.

Thoughts?

Awesome!!! If it doesn't raise the price of the Sierra Sat to equal or greater than that of the Sierra 2, then I am all for it, but since I am not space limited, I would buy the Sierra 2 instead if the Sat becomes close to the Sierra 2 in price. If I were space/mounting/position limited, this wouldn't be an option, so I would still say go for it, in order to offer people better placement flexibility and a smaller form factor than the Sierra 2, and offer the beauty that a magnetic grille gives the speaker (I don't know why those post holes bother me so, I'm weird).

As far as the $50 grille option, I think that is a good idea, but I don't mind paying for them just in case I end up forstering bigger dogs in the future. I think $50 is a very reasonable price to pay for that protection, if needed in the future. Now, If I end up buying 4 sats for Atmos speakers, then indeed I would never need grilles, and the $100 savings would be great! That's a few more movies right there!

[timmbw]

I believe I have caught up with any pending questions so now for the big news on the Sat's... After much time spent with our local cabinet maker and various trial and error, I am happy to say that we have worked out a way to offer the Sat's with magnetic grilles.

It will be somewhat different than what most other magnetic speaker grille cabinets do, they typically use 4 magnets and 4 nail or screw heads that the magnets attach to. In our case, in order to get enough magnetic force to get through enough bamboo as to not compromise cabinet integrity - we will be using 4 extremely powerful neodymium magnets in the cabinet and also 4 in the grille.

This adds to the manufacturing costs (something I am already concerned with) but to compensate, we are thinking of offering the grilles as a separate $50 option. This way, someone who has no intention on ever using grilles, can save $50 on a pair and they can always purchase the grilles at later date if their usage changes.

Thoughts?

Excellent!! Magnetic grilles as a $50 option is very reasonable.

[tknice]

Hey Dave, is there any chance these will be around 1k for the set? I don't think I'll be able to pull off Sats for all my surrounds including Atmos. That would be my end all/be all setup!

[Todd WI]

My wife requires grilles, so magnetic grilles do nothing for me and I'd rather avoid the extra $50 expense if possible. Would standard grilles still be an option or would all grilles be magnetic?

[stickx]

My wife requires grilles, so magnetic grilles do nothing for me and I'd rather avoid the extra $50 expense if possible. Would standard grilles still be an option or would all grilles be magnetic?

Same here.

[Bill66]

That's great Dave! I have no problem spending an extra $50 for the grilles even though I probably would not use them. I'll keep them for future use. It will definitely clean up the look of the speakers without the grille on. Nice to show off that sweet Raal and woofer combo. Nice work!:D

[SGCSG1]

This is great news. Magnetic grills are a VERY popular thing these days. I think this will definitely increase sales.

[dlca1]

Same here.

Same here. Would prefer non magnetic option if it saves $50

[Ken S.]

I really enjoy my Sierra Towers with RAAL. Part of my fascination with the coming Sierra Sat is its freedom to skimp on lower frequencies (that the full range Sierra 2 must provide) so that its ribbon can be mated with a smaller midwoofer that can approach the low inertia performance of the midrange driver in the Tower. I want the Sierra Sat to sound in mid and high frequencies as close as possible to the Tower with RAAL. However, I understand that products are designed to cost. Is there a different, more expensive midwoofer/crossover arrangement that would make the Sierra Sat sound closer to the Tower with RAAL? If so, how much more would that midwoofer arrangement cost?

The Sierra 1, Sierra 2, Tower, and Horizon all offer driver upgrade choices to prospective buyers. For the Sierra Sat, if there is a more expensive midwoofer arrangement that would significantly reduce any sound difference in mid and upper frequencies between the Sierra Sat and the Tower with RAAL, suggest that buyers be given the opportunity to pay more to get the better sound match.

[davef]

My wife requires grilles, so magnetic grilles do nothing for me and I'd rather avoid the extra $50 expense if possible. Would standard grilles still be an option or would all grilles be magnetic?


Same here.


Same here. Would prefer non magnetic option if it saves $50

I was thinking about this same issue yesterday. For those who will use grilles, it really doesn't matter if they are magnetic or not.

We really aren't in a position to offer both options, as that would actually split our order quantities into 2 batches and one way to get the costs down a bit is to run higher volume production runs.

So.... with that in mind, I have managed to find a Chinese source for the exact same neo magnets we plan to use and their price is about 1/4th what we would pay purchasing them here. If I can manage to ship them combined with various other misc parts we buy from China (namely our spiked feet and binding posts) -- it also reduces the price. So, with that in mind as I look at the current BOM, we can now afford to offer the magnetic grilles together with the speakers for no additional costs.

Of course, there is an additional labor cost from our cabinet maker to install the magnets, but if we can order the sat cabinets at the same time we order tower or horizon or Sierra-1/2 cabinets from them -- they will waive these additional labor costs as there would be an additional price break on larger quantities of bamboo.

Argghh -- I must share, it is SO MUCH EASIER to simply have a factory in China build a fully completed speaker for us! Building like we do, we have to fully coordinate every little detail.... Of course, there is no way to fully build something like this speaker overseas. I keep saying to myself that we will slowly start making our production at Ascend simpler, yet I keep doing the exact opposite, lol....

Anyway, I hope this comes as good news. I am really trying my best to give you all what you want and create the world's highest performance mini speaker. Something really unique that hopefully won't be copied too quickly ;)

[davef]

I really enjoy my Sierra Towers with RAAL. Part of my fascination with the coming Sierra Sat is its freedom to skimp on lower frequencies (that the full range Sierra 2 must provide) so that its ribbon can be mated with a smaller midwoofer that can approach the low inertia performance of the midrange driver in the Tower. I want the Sierra Sat to sound in mid and high frequencies as close as possible to the Tower with RAAL. However, I understand that products are designed to cost. Is there a different, more expensive midwoofer/crossover arrangement that would make the Sierra Sat sound closer to the Tower with RAAL? If so, how much more would that midwoofer arrangement cost?

The Sierra 1, Sierra 2, Tower, and Horizon all offer driver upgrade choices to prospective buyers. For the Sierra Sat, if there is a more expensive midwoofer arrangement that would significantly reduce any sound difference in mid and upper frequencies between the Sierra Sat and the Tower with RAAL, suggest that buyers be given the opportunity to pay more to get the better sound match.

Hi Ken,

The woofer we will be using in the Sat is exceptional and I am not sure if a better one even exists for this purpose. The moving mass of this 4.5" will actually be less than that of the dedicated mid in the tower - while still providing surprising bass extension. This little woofer basically uses the same magnet size as the woofer in the Sierra-2, and by going with a custom Curv woofer cone, we further lower the moving mass (by nearly 2 grams!) yet improve internal damping, and there is almost no cone breakup modes. The motor force is ridiculous for this size woofer, thus transients are exceptional.

As an example, like with the 6" in the Sierra-2, this 4.5" has lower moving mass than any of the 4.5" EXCEL woofers and even the 4" Scan woofers.

This woofer, being significantly smaller than the Sierra-2, is actually going to cost us the same $$ amount per unit as the S2 woofer. This woofer is really the key to make this speaker happen and in no way does this woofer choice have anything to do with trying to reach a specific price point. I have actually been evaluating several lower cost woofers in an attempt to lower manufacturing costs, but each one presents a compromise. Either we lose bass extension, such that would require a 100 or 120Hz crossover, or we lose midrange performance, or we lose significant efficiency.

While I fully understand the continuous hunt for something better, I myself am plagued with this disease, we can likely only slightly improve one parameter of this woofer, while actually hurting other equally significant performance parameters. I simply and honestly can't find anything better for this application, which is precisely why we are going custom made.

I think you will find the mids on this speaker to be shockingly good....

[davef]

Hey Dave, is there any chance these will be around 1k for the set? I don't think I'll be able to pull off Sats for all my surrounds including Atmos. That would be my end all/be all setup!

I am thinking maybe we can offer a few "group buys" for the Ribbon Sat, in which case I believe we can hit ~$1100 for a pair. $1000/pair is really pushing it...

[SGCSG1]

Can't wait to see a natural bamboo pair with no grills and no grill holes. Should look awesome!

Note to Dave - I have a friend in manufacturing who has been trying to get something going in China for a few years now. Seems there's always one problem or another. And quality control...always a problem.

[tknice]

I am thinking maybe we can offer a few "group buys" for the Ribbon Sat, in which case I believe we can hit ~$1100 for a pair. $1000/pair is really pushing it...

thanks Dave for taking a guess on this and for making time to answer all of our other questions. I can probably speak for everyone and say we are so excited that you are willing to build such high quality speakers and somehow market them at a reasonable cost.

You are the reason my home theater and music sounds so good and I can't thank you enough!

Tom

[MusicHead]

For that size room and with that much power, absolutely. These little speakers can reach surprising levels, they completely fill our extremely well damped listening room, which is similar in size to your room and I never reached more than 80 watts into them...

Fantastic, thanks Dave. Depending on when the Sierra Sat is being released you may have lost a CBM-170 customer but gained one for the baby Sierras :)

By the way, it is REALLY COOL and very much appreciated that as busy as you are you are making time to go back in the thread and answer the pending questions you had not yet addressed.

In a world of quick sales and forgettable customer service this is mighty impressive. You and Ascend are one of a kind.

[SGCSG1]

I am thinking maybe we can offer a few "group buys" for the Ribbon Sat, in which case I believe we can hit ~$1100 for a pair. $1000/pair is really pushing it...

$1100 a pair with magnetic grills? Natural or Satin black? In.

[Bill66]

This is great news Dave! I too can't wait to see the natural pair without mounting holes. From everything you have explained about that little woofer, this should be an amazing little speaker and just what I was looking for in a small 2.1 channel system. Cheers!

[billy p]

The last few poster echo my sentiment. I was patiently awaiting the SATs release along with adding a new 18 sub....than news regarding the new Seas diamond is released...yea.. I thought about it but the most significant improvement to my system I believe would be to continue as I had planned and no turning back once I have the SATs grills or not.

[davef]

Thanks guys -- I really appreciate the nice comments :)