Ascend Sierra Tower (Raal) vs Revel F208

[vikspeed]

Has anyone by chance heard these two speakers side by side or otherwise owned the Revel F208 (or F206)? I would really love to read a comparison of the two from someone who has heard and/or owned or auditioned both. Thanks.

[loonytunes]

You are really comparing apples to oranges. The Revel's cost anywhere from $1300-$3000 more depending on if you order the RAAL in the Sierras and what kind of deal you can get on the Revel's.
I will say, I spent several hours listening to the Revel F208's and really liked them. In the end it will come down to your personal preference and budget.

[vikspeed]

The deal would actually mean they would be cheaper than the Sierras. Your comment is helpful, though. I wonder if the HTM-200 SEs would be good for surrounds even if I went with the Revels.

[loonytunes]

F208's for under $2700? I hate to say it but, that would be one hell of a deal IMO.
When I auditioned the Revel F208's we ran them with a McIntosh 3ch. I don't remember the model. IMO, the Sierra Towers seem to me to be a more neutral speaker. This is going from memory, which, anyone will tell you isn't accurate. I run my Sierrra's with an Emotiva XPA2. There is likely some tonal difference due to amps. That also, is debatable.
In the end, you are going to have to listen to both and make a decision based on what you feel is more to your liking. If it's at all possible, in your own room, with your music source.
You getting the Revel's used?

[loonytunes]

As far as surrounds go. There is very little content going to surrounds with movies. Music may be another matter. This does bring up another question. What does Revel offer for center channel that is tonally matched to the 208's? That's the caveat.

[vikspeed]

F208's for under $2700? I hate to say it but, that would be one hell of a deal IMO.
When I auditioned the Revel F208's we ran them with a McIntosh 3ch. I don't remember the model. IMO, the Sierra Towers seem to me to be a more neutral speaker. This is going from memory, which, anyone will tell you isn't accurate. I run my Sierrra's with an Emotiva XPA2. There is likely some tonal difference due to amps. That also, is debatable.
In the end, you are going to have to listen to both and make a decision based on what you feel is more to your liking. If it's at all possible, in your own room, with your music source.
You getting the Revel's used?

I am actually getting the Revel's new, believe it or not. I looked up the Emotiva XPA2. That's a pretty impressive amplifier. How do you run that for movies or TV? I ordered a Marantz SR7010, but the power on that Emotiva is impressive. It makes me wonder if I couldn't later use the Emotiva to power the fronts and let the Marantz handle the rest, as well as the processing, etc.?

[vikspeed]

The center is the C208, which is timbre matched and huge. It is a 3-way, like the Horizon, only with an aluminum tweeter (like in the towers). From what I could tell, it was pretty clear, though I was not comparing it to the Horizon, obviously.

[loonytunes]

I am currently just running in 2ch mode. Im running a Sherbourn PT-7030 pre/pro. The XPA Gen 2 is running the towers. I have an XPA Gen 3 configured in 3ch still in the box waiting for Dave to set an order date on the new Sats. :rolleyes: UPS should be rolling up with my Horizon center any day.
A lot of people run an amp on LR mains for music and use receiver to power the rest for movies. Marantz is a great receiver. I have often wondered tho if amping the front stage, LCR, isnt a better way to go. Once you level match everything, Im not sure it matters tho.

[yesplease]

I think Dave said somewhere that you would need to move up to the Ultima2 for a better comparison.

[sludgeogre]

A lot of people run an amp on LR mains for music and use receiver to power the rest for movies. Marantz is a great receiver. I have often wondered tho if amping the front stage, LCR, isnt a better way to go. Once you level match everything, Im not sure it matters tho.

In my opinion it really depends on how loud you listen and how much more power you need, and it highly depends on the speakers being used. I've heard systems that definitely lacked dynamics because of an underpowered AVR, and those systems would benefit greatly from a separate amp, but the Sierra speakers aren't too hard to power. I have probably more than 40% headroom on my amp. I can't turn my speakers past 60% of volume without getting to ear bleeding levels, this is with my Emotiva XPA-5 amp. Audyssey sets all of my speakers to at least -9.0 dB to give me a little more room on my preamp volume, so I can get it to about 70-75 now at my maximum tolerable volume.

[TheHorizon]

This is a really interesting thread since I am currently down to deciding between the Revel Performa3 F206 + C208 and 3x Horizon RAAL.

I've heard the Concerta2 F36, and loved their neutrality, and believe the Performa3 setup will only be better. However, I'm a little obsessed over the RAAL 70-20xram measurements because of what I am looking for out of my system: realism.

I wish I could afford to audition both in my room!

[sludgeogre]

This is a really interesting thread since I am currently down to deciding between the Revel Performa3 F206 + C208 and 3x Horizon RAAL.

I've heard the Concerta2 F36, and loved their neutrality, and believe the Performa3 setup will only be better. However, I'm a little obsessed over the RAAL 70-20xram measurements because of what I am looking for out of my system: realism.

I wish I could afford to audition both in my room!

Well, the Performa3 speaker has similar low end extension, but really diverges from the Sierra speakers with the aluminum dome tweeter they use. The RAAL tweeters are so, so much different than any aluminum dome I've heard. If you loved the neutrality of the Concerta2, you're going to be dumbfounded by the neutrality of the RAAL tweeter.

Think of it this way, with the RAAL tweeters you have a piece of metal that is extremely light while also having a very large radiating surface area. In addition, it is not connected to a voice coil, it is moved by giant magnets that are not connected to the tweeter element. In my opinion, because of this, there is almost no distortion or ringing and the decay is almost immediate. In an aluminum dome, you have a smaller radiating area which has to be controlled more directly, and is connected to a voice coil that will limit how quickly the sound decays. You just aren't ever going to get the kind of results you get with a true ribbon tweeter.

From what I have seen, many fans of metal dome tweeters think that the metallic, sharp, ringing sound of them is neutral or realistic when it really isn't, it's just pleasing to them. Because the sound of the high frequencies is more metallic and louder, it makes instruments seem like more than they really are, or much more present than they really are, so people think flutes sound metallic when they really shouldn't in reality. It takes time getting used to the RAAL tweeters because you're almost expecting some level of distortion, because you're so used to it, but it just isn't there.

You're getting so much more with the Sierra speakers than that as well. You're getting bamboo cabinets that put vinyl wrapped MDF to absolute shame and the kind of quality control that most manufacturers only dream of. The Sierra towers are hand assembled and tested in San Clemente, and you get the response graphs to prove it.

For me, it's a no brainer, go with the Sierra series and don't look back.

[Asliang]

I think Dave said somewhere that you would need to move up to the Ultima2 for a better comparison.

Got a link to that? I would consider that a pretty crazy claim. As a disclaimer I've owned the entire Ultima 2 series and every speaker Ascend has made other than the Sierra Tower (which I have on order) and the Horizon.

[TheHorizon]

Got a link to that? I would consider that a pretty crazy claim. As a disclaimer I've owned the entire Ultima 2 series and every speaker Ascend has made other than the Sierra Tower (which I have on order) and the Horizon.

@Asliang How would you rate the S2 RAAL tweeter vs the Ultima2 tweeter?

[Asliang]

@Asliang How would you rate the S2 RAAL tweeter vs the Ultima2 tweeter?

It's hard to compare S2 RAAL directly with the Ultima 2 tweeter because the entire Ultima2 line is either 3-way or 4-way with their tweeters only covering a smaller frequency band with a dedicated midrange (or a upper bass AND mid-range driver in the case of the Salon 2), whereas the Sierra 2 has to cross over (I Imagine) around 1.8KHz.

I have to hear the Sierra Towers to really make an apples to apples judgment where the tweeters are only being compared in a similar band. It's also really hard to compare the Gem2s to any stand-mount monitor because despite having an 8" woofer they start diving at around 75Hz in output. Despite having probably the best midrange I've ever heard I wouldn't suggest it as a monitor due to how thin it sounds lacking any midbass, and it's pretty tricky to integrate it with a subwoofer without the sub getting localized. With all that said, I did have the opportunity to listen to the Gem2s directly against the Sierra 2s and had them in the same room for several months and I would be very surprised anyone claiming they were comparable products performance-wise (and at 7 times the cost they better be, because the Gem2s are butt ugly).

As far as the tweeters on their objective qualifications, the RAAL probably measures better in CSD plots, I couldn't tell you what sounds better since I've never listened to a driver by itself, but obviously the Revel tweeter will have a much wider radiating pattern due to being a dome, and also having a waveguide. But the Revel tweeter does mesh very well with the Revel midrange driver. It's basically flat across the FR band from a wide variety of angles so both the midrange and the tweeter are equally capable in terms of a wide radiating pattern. (I believe the dropoff after 10KHz is due to the waveguide, but IIRC there's not much musical energy above 6KHz anyway).

http://cdn.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/708Revfig06.jpg

[theophile]

I think Dave said somewhere that you would need to move up to the Ultima2 for a better comparison.


Got a link to that? I would consider that a pretty crazy claim. As a disclaimer I've owned the entire Ultima 2 series and every speaker Ascend has made other than the Sierra Tower (which I have on order) and the Horizon.

Yes, Dave stated that HERE (http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?6203-Sierra-Towers-with-RAAL-vs-Focal-Aria-936&p=53741#post53741). I was curious why the high end frequency response wasn't listed on the Performa3 systems site. Questioned the local dealer, but couldn't get an answer for me. I ended up calling Revel and speaking to a design engineer who pulled a frequency graph and was told the 208 was rolling off at 20K, but their graph didn't take it beyond that!?

Spec wise, the low end -3db is rated the same as the Towers, but the Towers are a little more efficient. Although I speak from supposition (I've heard neither), I'm sure in Dave's experience, this is a very fair statement for an accurate comparison, say with the Ultima2-Studio2's (@ over 5X $$$)!

Asliang, though the Towers may not equal the Studio2's, very interested in how they go head to head, if you still own them!

Ted

[Asliang]

Yes, Dave stated that HERE (http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?6203-Sierra-Towers-with-RAAL-vs-Focal-Aria-936&p=53741#post53741). I was curious why the high end frequency response wasn't listed on the Performa3 systems site. Questioned the local dealer, but couldn't get an answer for me. I ended up calling Revel and speaking to a design engineer who pulled a frequency graph and was told the 208 was rolling off at 20K, but their graph didn't take it beyond that!?

Spec wise, the low end -3db is rated the same as the Towers, but the Towers are a little more efficient. Although I speak from supposition (I've heard neither), I'm sure in Dave's experience, this is a very fair statement for an accurate comparison, say with the Ultima2-Studio2's (@ over 5X $$$)!

Asliang, though the Towers may not equal the Studio2's, very interested in how they go head to head, if you still own them!

Ted

Dave seems to have said the Ultima series and not the Ultima2. I dont know if thats a distinction he made intentionally. But if it was it makes perfect sense. Quite a few speaker lines have surpassed the original Ultima series at a fraction of the price these days, mostly a function of outsourcing as since the Ultima series originally debuted the manufacturing of drivers and cabinets have largely moved overseas to reduce costs.

As far as response above 20K, theres not much point having a speaker go well over 20k. Even DSDs dont typically have any content above 20k (other than high freq DSP induced distortion that mixing engineers "hide" in the higher registers because they know its inaudible) and adult humans dont typically hear well above 16k anyway. Theres also the issue of their cone material, which is aluminum and typically starts breaking up at 23KHz on a 1" dome. Im sure they intentionally rolled off the tweeter at Revel to avoid that spike.

[Beave]

Asliang, the crossover in the Sierra 2's is not 1.8kHz. I think that's the crossover in the towers, which use the larger RAAL that can be crossed over that low. The Sierra 2's use the smaller RAAL that can't handle such a low crossover frequency; I think they are crossed at around 3kHz.

Also, this comment you made is puzzling: "but obviously the Revel tweeter will have a much wider radiating pattern due to being a dome, and also having a waveguide." First, domes don't necessarily have a much wider radiation pattern. In fact, if one were to generalize, the opposite may be true, unless you're referring to vertical radiation only. Domes tend to have very wide output low in the region they cover, with that output narrowing significantly as you go up in frequency. Ribbons don't tend to narrow so much as you go up in frequency. Second, the waveguide doesn't increase the width of radiation of the tweeter; it constrains it so that the tweeter's directivity matches the directivity of the midrange driver that hands off to it. And in doing so, waveguides often constrain the highest octave more than desired.

One final comment: The CSD of the Revel Ultima2 beryllium dome is excellent. The low-level hash you see in Stereophile's CSD plots of the Salon2 and Studio2 in the tweeter frequency range are actually resonances from the titanium midrange drivers.

[theophile]

As far as response above 20K, theres not much point having a speaker go well over 20k...and adult humans dont typically hear well above 16k anyway. Theres also the issue of their cone material, which is aluminum and typically starts breaking up at 23KHz on a 1" dome. Im sure they intentionally rolled off the tweeter at Revel to avoid that spike.

As far as I understand, All domes (Soft, Aluminum, Titanium, Beryllium, Diamond) share one common problem...breakup frequencies. In order to obtain full extend and accurate "Audible" listening comfort that isn't affected by these breakup frequencies (manifested in brightness, edginess, harshness, colorations, fatigue, etc), control of these in-audible frequencies is best achieved by designing their points at or above 30K, or at best an octave above the 3db down-point of the HF transducers flat radiating curve. The best designed systems easily play flat well beyond what you or I can hear (35K to 50K+), insuring that the BF resonates into the system response that is unnoticeable by any human hearing.

At 62, my hearing still extends out beyond 18K, with 1K-12K sensitives at or below 0 DB. In the early 70's I owned horns and quickly migrated to the smoother, more extended listen-ability of soft domes. However, even Aluminum and Beryllium domes create long term listening fatigue for me, even at moderate levels. On Monday the 6th, I'll be receiving the Sierra 2's with RAAL's that have no BF, thus no affected audible issues in the extreme top end! Comments and observations from owners, like openness, airiness and ease of listen-ability, with extreme focused sound-staging and imaging, are what has attracted me to the Ascend RAAL S2's. All of this plus the excellent products that Dave and AA has historically offered to those willing to take the plunge!

I'll soon have the Sierra 2's in a 2.1 90sf intimate music room, and you the towers. If the RAALs offer that open, natural, effortless and smooth top end that I've read about, I'm going to have to Re-listen to all the excellent recordings I've collected and recently invested in All Over Again!!! :o:):cool:

Ted

[Asliang]

Asliang, the crossover in the Sierra 2's is not 1.8kHz. I think that's the crossover in the towers, which use the larger RAAL that can be crossed over that low. The Sierra 2's use the smaller RAAL that can't handle such a low crossover frequency; I think they are crossed at around 3kHz.

Also, this comment you made is puzzling: "but obviously the Revel tweeter will have a much wider radiating pattern due to being a dome, and also having a waveguide." First, domes don't necessarily have a much wider radiation pattern. In fact, if one were to generalize, the opposite may be true, unless you're referring to vertical radiation only.

I am generalizing about domes, and I am talking mostly about vertical dispersion when comparing these to drivers. But even on the horizontal plane, the Revel will "seem" to have more room filling because it remains flatter in FR response even at 90 degrees.



One final comment: The CSD of the Revel Ultima2 beryllium dome is excellent. The low-level hash you see in Stereophile's CSD plots of the Salon2 and Studio2 in the tweeter frequency range are actually resonances from the titanium midrange drivers.

I said the RAAL "probably" measures better in CSD plots because there are no publicly available measurements of the Revel tweeter by itself. I am well aware that titanium drivers when used in 5" or 6" sizes will typically breakup between 4-6KHz. Comparing the CSD plot of a ribbon tweeter versus the output of a complete speaker is nonsensical, and if I was going to make that comparison I would have specifically mentioned that.

[davef]

I am generalizing about domes, and I am talking mostly about vertical dispersion when comparing these to drivers. But even on the horizontal plane, the Revel will "seem" to have more room filling because it remains flatter in FR response even at 90 degrees.

Hmmm... I am not sure how you have come to that conclusion. The polar response you posted shows the HF response dropping like a stone at only 8kHz in as little as 30 degs off-axis. Compared to the Sierra-2 polar response, which at even 90 degs off-axis, is only about 3dB down...

I am not sure if you are properly interpreting the polar response measurements and I am also not sure if you are comparing the Gem's to our Sierra-2 or our ribbon towers.

There is simply no 1 inch dome tweeter made that will have as wide and symmetrical horizontal off-axis response as the ribbons we are using. It's just physics...

I have quite a bit of experience with the Gems (both in listening and measuring as I was lucky enough to work with a few ex-Harman engineers. That said, my comparison was regarding midrange clarity and detail and more specifically with our towers than our Sierra-2. Personally, I was never much a fan of the Gems (any version) as the thinness you mentioned was always a bit off-putting and that same thinness also contributes to the impression of more detail in the mids and highs...

I fully stand by my original statement :) Both in listening and backed up with measurements. Have you seen the polar response of our ribbon tower? It is remarkable...

1326