Upgrading past Ascend's flagship speakers?

[goldark]

We all know Ascend makes awesome speakers with fantastic value and their speakers compete with/outperform speakers costing much more.

Having said that, and perhaps this is poor form to post this on the actual Ascend forum, but humor me for a moment.

How much would you have to spend to get something that's a significant upgrade over Ascend's flagship speakers (Sierra tower with RAAL or Sierra 2)? And what product would that be?

For example, I've read somewhere that the TAD Compact Evolution One would be a nice upgrade over the Sierra 2 (perhaps it was Dave himself who said it was the best standmount speaker he's heard? Correct me if I'm wrong), and that's a $24k speaker - which speaks volumes of the insane value proposition that Ascend's speakers have.

Obviously price isn't always indicative of quality, but IMO, you would have to spend "exotic speaker" money to get something that's a clear upgrade over Ascend's flagships - yes I'm kind of a fanboy.

[sludgeogre]

It always depends on what you're trying to do. If your goal is accurate sound with fancy looks being secondary, then I have yet to find an upgrade to the Ascend Sierra series. I think where people really get lost in high end is expecting totally clean lines, rounded edges, exotic materials, exotic finishes, etc. So many high end products are more about being art in a room than they are about reproducing music and movies accurately. So, sure, there's a bunch of companies that make very fancy looking speakers that will wow people from that perspective, but won't sound any better than a Sierra Tower. Also, to me, the Sierra Tower is beautiful and doesn't need to look like a Sonus Faber overpriced tower.

With all of the talk about Salk lately because of partnering with Schiit at THE Show, it is hard to not wonder about how a pair of HT2 speakers would sound, or even a Song3 tower. They are a very different kind of company from Ascend, though, and their website has been down since the show because of all of the press they're getting.

[goldark]

Yep, I guess I should've clarified that if you're an Ascend owner looking to upgrade, that you're looking into absolute accuracy. I've always wondered how something like the JBL M2 would compare - that speaker is supposedly a technological marvel.

How is Salk different from Ascend, in your opinion? I was looking on their site and they use a lot of high quality parts as well, like RAAL ribbon tweeters.

[sludgeogre]

Yep, I guess I should've clarified that if you're an Ascend owner looking to upgrade, that you're looking into absolute accuracy. I've always wondered how something like the JBL M2 would compare - that speaker is supposedly a technological marvel.

How is Salk different from Ascend, in your opinion? I was looking on their site and they use a lot of high quality parts as well, like RAAL ribbon tweeters.

I've certainly heard a lot of great things about the M2 as well. There is something to be said of a system that includes amps that are tailored for the drivers they are driving, especially when the speaker has gone through as much development as the M2. Wish I could hear one as well.

Salk seems to share more in common with Ascend than differences. Where I see them diverging is with how custom Salk is. They are more catered to doing one-off speaker sets, while the Song3 is really getting into production like Ascend does, where you only specify a cabinet finish. Also, from what I understand, Salk build their cabinets and are really cabinet makers at their heart, which is why they only buy drivers from other companies and don't do custom versions like Ascend does. It would be great if someone could chime in here and correct me. I've been wondering about this and this is all I've really found out.

[curtis]

At the expense of sounding like a rah rah boy...

First...know that Dave is a degreed engineer...I believe an EE. As mentioned, the drivers that Ascend uses are custom to Ascend...meaning Dave gets what he wants from the drivers first, and then engineers the crossover. Are there more expensive drivers than what Ascend uses? Yes. Does that mean if Ascend used those drivers the speakers would sound better? No. For the drivers, Dave knows what he needs/wants, and he may not need or want what a more expensive driver offers vs other tradeoffs, cost being one.

Dave/Ascend has a direct relationship with OEMs. Most notably, SEAS and RAAL. In fact, Dave and RAAL together worked on the tweeter in the Sierra-2 to get it right, and the fruit of that labor was RAAL being able to sell a version of that tweeter to other speakers companies...this helped other ID companies. On top of that, Ascend sells more RAAL tweeters than any other speaker company...ID or not (this was true a year or two ago, I believe it still is).

Dave controls/engineers every aspect of the speaker. Not saying that is good or bad, but it is a key difference from every other ID speaker company I know. This means that he doesn't have to answer to anyone but himself...especially not marketing. He might have to answer to Dina...but I don't know. :)

Salk, as mentioned, builds cabinets...extremely nice ones. Drivers are off the shelf..not a bad thing, but a key difference. Crossovers are done by a third party (not the same third party for all their speakers), also not a bad thing, but also key difference.

A couple more things....Dave's testing/measurement equipment...I don't know of another ID company that has the same capabilities. Dave actually has a background in audio industry, he has worked for one of the biggest names in audio. Ascend was not built from a hobby....it was built because it was what he loves to do, and was trained/educated for it. I know there are aspects of the business that he doesn't like, but hopefully they never outweigh what he loves about it.

[sludgeogre]

At the expense of sounding like a rah rah boy...

First...know that Dave is a degreed engineer...I believe an EE. As mentioned, the drivers that Ascend uses are custom to Ascend...meaning Dave gets what he wants from the drivers first, and then engineers the crossover. Are there more expensive drivers than what Ascend uses? Yes. Does that mean if Ascend used those drivers the speakers would sound better? No. For the drivers, Dave knows what he needs/wants, and he may not need or want what a more expensive driver offers vs other tradeoffs, cost being one.

Dave/Ascend has a direct relationship with OEMs. Most notably, SEAS and RAAL. In fact, Dave and RAAL together worked on the tweeter in the Sierra-2 to get it right, and the fruit of that labor was RAAL being able to sell a version of that tweeter to other speakers companies...this helped other ID companies. On top of that, Ascend sells more RAAL tweeters than any other speaker company...ID or not (this was true a year or two ago, I believe it still is).

Dave controls/engineers every aspect of the speaker. Not saying that is good or bad, but it is a key difference from every other ID speaker company I know. This means that he doesn't have to answer to anyone but himself...especially not marketing. He might have to answer to Dina...but I don't know. :)

Salk, as mentioned, builds cabinets...extremely nice ones. Drivers are off the shelf..not a bad thing, but a key difference. Crossovers are done by a third party (not the same third party for all their speakers), also not a bad thing, but also key difference.

A couple more things....Dave's testing/measurement equipment...I don't know of another ID company that has the same capabilities. Dave actually has a background in audio industry, he has worked for one of the biggest names in audio. Ascend was not built from a hobby....it was built because it was what he loves to do, and was trained/educated for it. I know there are aspects of the business that he doesn't like, but hopefully they never outweigh what he loves about it.

Absolutely agree with everything you said and I am glad that my statements about Salk were accurate. A fabulous company with great speakers, but not the same kind of company as Ascend. They look similar in many ways, but they differ greatly in their approach.

It is incredible to me that Dave does designs that get offered to other companies AND offers his products for such low prices. He really is a boon to this hobby, much like Nelson Pass.

On the topic of measurements, I think that was another thing that forced my hand at purchasing the Sierras instead of Aperion Verus Grands (that and the fact that Aperions drivers use very fragile PVC dustcaps and MDF cabinets). Getting FR graphs with my towers was a real joy, and he doesn't smooth the hell out of the graph like every other company that provdies them does. It's unreal how much detail is there. I don't know what audio analyzer he uses, but I'm willing to bet it costs a great deal and is something you won't find in many other shops. Schiit talks all the time about their equipment that they spent a great deal of cash on as well, and why it is so important to them while at the same time still doing subjective listening. Yet another reason why I really hope that Schiit and Ascend are able to team up one day and show the world how giant-killing their products truly are.

[davef]

I think one of the key points in finding significant upgrades beyond our ribbon speakers is in what aspect of performance one wishes to improve upon. This isn't as simple as it sounds, does one want deeper bass, the ability to play at louder volume levels, higher efficiency, more accentuated highs etc. I think at these levels of performance, the consumer needs to be a very experienced listener and must know in which performance aspects he/she is looking to improve upon. There is always something better, but in my experience, in audio, regardless of price (there are always rare exceptions) - one often improves one aspect while sacrificing another, but sometimes this is exactly what the consumer is looking for.

I have great respect for Salk, their business model is different than Ascend - can't really say one is better than another. Salk is geared more towards what Jim's specialties are while Ascend is geared more towards what my specialties are. This is generally the nature of small business. That said, I am not sure if there is an ID speaker company out there that has as much real-world and tested full design engineering experience as we do. I have honestly been designing all aspects of speakers (from cabinets, to tweeters, to woofers, to crossovers) since ~1987.

Prior to 1987, I worked as an audio repair technician for speakers and amplifiers. There really isn't a single aspect of this industry that I haven't worked in - from retail sales, to management, to production, to custom installs. It is kind of nuts - but the one aspect that keeps me going is always trying to engineer something at a fair price point to challenge the so called "best there is" out there. We really changed the industry when we first introduced the CBM-170, those were fun days -- Curtis likely remembers those days well ;)

Speaking of our relationship with SEAS, -- look what is on the way to me :)

[curtis]

FR graphs are only small part of it. There was an article that Dave posted about a university research professor developing 3D sound from two speakers. He became interested in the CBM-170, and asked Dave for all kinds of measurements..and Dave obliged. In the video/article, you can see the 170's.

Dave once told me, and I am paraphrasing, "I subjectively listen, and then objectively measure to verify what I heard".

I don't know a whole lot about Schiit (that sounds funny), but it is one thing to say what they have and what they do with it, but it is another to objectively show it...which Ascend does.

For instance, Ascend sells Rythmik subwoofer because of solid engineering...as Dave has posted, he was working on a subwoofer of his own, came across Rythmik, had a lot of discussions with Brian Ding (much like Dave, but he started Rythmik), came to the conclusion that there wasn't a reason to develop his own sub, and partnered with him. Brian Ding..another engineer...PhD in EE from CalTech.

[curtis]

Curtis likely remembers those days well ;)
Yes I do.


Speaking of our relationship with SEAS, -- look what is on the way to me :)
Is that a new diamond ring for Dina? :D

[davef]

Getting FR graphs with my towers was a real joy, and he doesn't smooth the hell out of the graph like every other company that provdies them does. It's unreal how much detail is there. I don't know what audio analyzer he uses, but I'm willing to bet it costs a great deal and is something you won't find in many other shops.

We use very much the same gear that is still considered the reference standard for loudspeaker testing. We have 2 full blown MLSSA 2000 systems, both with RCAI interfaces and SPO. One system is used for our production testing, and the other I use in my lab which is now at my home. In the lab system, we also use an automated Outline turntable, which is fully controlled by MLSSA such that we can take extremely precise off-axis measurements (at a maximum resolution of 2.5 degree steps) Over the many years, I have programmed macros to automate various measurement processes using complex weighted averages.

We also use a fully calibrated ACO Pacific 7012 microphone with their 4012 pre-amp. Combine that with various low distortion oscillators, oscilloscopes, pulse generators -- etc. etc.

This gear is indeed quite expensive - but it is also extremely complex and requires a lot of experience to use. It is definitely not something anyone first starting out or even an experienced hobbyist would even consider (Software is DOS based, anyone remember DOS - lol), but it is as accurate as it gets and there is nothing better for examining time domain measurements. It took me many years of 8-9 hour days working with MLSSA to get to where I am confident that if I hear something, I can relate that to a measurement I can take.... In fact, I trust my MLSSA measurements more than my ears these days :)

You will notice that the measurements we post often look very similar to what Stereophile posts and also various NRC measurements as well as Harman.

[theophile]

Is that a new diamond ring for Dina? :D

No Curtis, those will be for my new Sierra 3's!!!!!!!!!!!!! :cool::cool::cool:

Bout right, just got my S2's (http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?6269-Memorial-Day-Summer-Sale!&p=54278#post54278) playing music today, then Dave orders the Diamonds...

Oh well, what kind of credit can I get on 2 slightly used RAAL's??? :confused: :rolleyes:

Great info here Dave and a perfect question and timing from Goldark! :)

Ted

[Asliang]

I think the biggest upgrade would be cosmetic. Not saying the Sierra Tower lack style, but you have some pretty wide variety of interesting finishes with exotic/high end speakers, not to mention stuff like curved cabinets and maybe more decor friendly designs outside of the typical rectangular box.

[Mag_Neato]

I think the biggest upgrade would be cosmetic. Not saying the Sierra Tower lack style, but you have some pretty wide variety of interesting finishes with exotic/high end speakers, not to mention stuff like curved cabinets and maybe more decor friendly designs outside of the typical rectangular box.

Perhaps Dave will start yet another line of speakers aimed at the custom cabinet market, say.....Ascend Elite Series!!

[Johnny_Mac_III]

Not trying to be a fanboy, but you won't find a better neutral speaker than the Raal Towers (that is until Dave works his magic with the diamond tweeter).

Anything beyond the towers and you will be on a quest for a signature sound and look. So you would be looking at more of a subjective upgrade.

[qwknuf6]

Salk seems to share more in common with Ascend than differences. Where I see them diverging is with how custom Salk is. They are more catered to doing one-off speaker sets, while the Song3 is really getting into production like Ascend does, where you only specify a cabinet finish. Also, from what I understand, Salk build their cabinets and are really cabinet makers at their heart, which is why they only buy drivers from other companies and don't do custom versions like Ascend does. It would be great if someone could chime in here and correct me. I've been wondering about this and this is all I've really found out.
I see this posted from time to time ,that the heart of Salk Speakers are the cabinets or Salk is just a cabinet builder , the heart of the Salk Speakers is GREAT sound , Salk builds a high quality cabinet for sure , Salk uses world class drivers from all around the world , Salk has been utilizing RAAL tweeters for a very long time .
I own several Ascend ,Salk and Rythmik speakers and subwoofers , I love the look/build quality of bamboo cabinets on the Sierra speakers and they sound great , Salk does offer several more speaker models and many more finish options but are priced fair I think , the salk sound tower with raal tweeter is about the same price as sierra tower with raal tweeter , both are outstanding speakers for the money , I guess the main difference between Salk and Ascend ,other than the finish options ,would be that Salk builds at all price ranges . Maybe once a certain level of sound quality is achieved the money spent to get better sound becomes disproportionate ,in other words, the returns are lower for money spent .
BTW ,Jeff Meier from Accucal is the one that turned me on to both Ascend and Salk speakers ,he is top quality for calibration of audio gear .Jeff has great tools and knowledge .

[theophile]

I think the biggest upgrade would be cosmetic. Not saying the Sierra Tower lack style, but you have some pretty wide variety of interesting finishes with exotic/high end speakers, not to mention stuff like curved cabinets and maybe more decor friendly designs outside of the typical rectangular box.

There is definitely exotic high end "works-of-art" in the speaker world, usually to compliment their transducer system design integration, resonant control and of course, furniture of beauty, alias "SAF"!

I really don't believe Dave is going to travel down that "never ending Rabbit hole" of esoteric visual perfection. Ascends business model seems to have always been an honest audio performing product that offers excellent customer investment cost. AA has achieved that and more. Actually, I find within their model design extremely well made and attractive visually simplistic products that Function perfectly.

Although I have been impressed over the past 40 years with what I've "Seen" in the speaker world, it didn't mean Anything if accurate audio reproduction wasn't there!!! After the lights are turned down and the musicians, venue and acoustics are with you in your listening music room, all visuals disappear, it's just you and the glorious musical performance. For me, that's what it's all about.

IMHO, give me the opportunity to spend my hard earned $$$ on top-end Sound, not looks...then, I'm All In!!

Just My .02 cents,

Ted

[mikesiskav]

How about a Sierra Tower with RAAL and a Rythmik F8 built in! That would be awesome. Unfortunately a competitor already did something like that, so I'm not sure if Dave would want to do the same thing.

[davef]

I see this posted from time to time ,that the heart of Salk Speakers are the cabinets or Salk is just a cabinet builder , the heart of the Salk Speakers is GREAT sound , Salk builds a high quality cabinet for sure , Salk uses world class drivers from all around the world , Salk has been utilizing RAAL tweeters for a very long time .
I own several Ascend ,Salk and Rythmik speakers and subwoofers , I love the look/build quality of bamboo cabinets on the Sierra speakers and they sound great , Salk does offer several more speaker models and many more finish options but are priced fair I think , the salk sound tower with raal tweeter is about the same price as sierra tower with raal tweeter , both are outstanding speakers for the money , I guess the main difference between Salk and Ascend ,other than the finish options ,would be that Salk builds at all price ranges . Maybe once a certain level of sound quality is achieved the money spent to get better sound becomes disproportionate ,in other words, the returns are lower for money spent .
BTW ,Jeff Meier from Accucal is the one that turned me on to both Ascend and Salk speakers ,he is top quality for calibration of audio gear .Jeff has great tools and knowledge .

I don't believe anyone here is saying Salk doesn't produce great speakers -- If so, I would be the first to strongly disagree. I believe this was just a discussion between the differences between our two companies. Again, small business tend to align with the skills and capabilities of the owner. I have tried my hand at woodworking, multiple times, -- we could never build our own cabinets here at our shop, and since we purchase our drivers in very large quantities from our vendors (necessary for custom components and to get the best possible pricing) , nor could we possibly manage so many different speaker models. Again, great respect for Jim...

[N Boros]

How about a Sierra Tower with RAAL and a Rythmik F8 built in! That would be awesome. Unfortunately a competitor already did something like that, so I'm not sure if Dave would want to do the same thing.

The best place in the room for the subwoofers is almost never the same place that you want to midrange and tweeters for imaging. I know that the audiophile industry thinks otherwise, but Harmon established the best places for subs in a room about 10 years ago now. The good news is that it is cheaper all the way around if they are in separate boxes anyways.

[mikesiskav]

The best place in the room for the subwoofers is almost never the same place that you want to midrange and tweeters for imaging. I know that the audiophile industry thinks otherwise, but Harmon established the best places for subs in a room about 10 years ago now. The good news is that it is cheaper all the way around if they are in separate boxes anyways.

No doubt there is some validity to that statement. But then again JBL by Harmon does have this speaker, the M2, with a built in 15 inch woofer and response all the way down to 20hz.

http://www.jblpro.com/products/recording&broadcast/M2/specs.html#.V1jFestlBnF

[sludgeogre]

The other speaker you constantly hear about with a built in subwoofer is the GoldenEar Triton One. I was pretty close to getting a set of their speakers as well, but the black monolith design where you can't remove the cloth to see the drivers was a no go for me. I love staring at those beautiful drivers.

[Blutarsky]

I love my Ascend speakers and have owned 4 different models. The only speaker missing from the line up is one with more "presence"...I mean with larger woofers playing to around 20 Hz.
Maybe add the Diamond tweeter? This would compete with a lot of much more expensive set ups.
Probably kick some a-- too.

B.

[Johnny_Mac_III]

How about a Sierra Tower with RAAL and a Rythmik F8 built in! That would be awesome. Unfortunately a competitor already did something like that, so I'm not sure if Dave would want to do the same thing.
Interesting, but I'm not sure I would see the benifit. The towers are capable enough that they don't need a mid-bass module and for anything below 80hz, it would be best just to add a couple of Rythmiks where you would be free to move them around in the room. This way you could get the best low frequency response.

[N Boros]

No doubt there is some validity to that statement. But then again JBL by Harmon does have this speaker, the M2, with a built in 15 inch woofer and response all the way down to 20hz.

http://www.jblpro.com/products/recording&broadcast/M2/specs.html#.V1jFestlBnF


The main design goal of the JBL speakers is for professional sound mixers for films and music can continuously listen to 85 dB levels and up to 115 dB peaks at about 20 to 25 ft away, with low distortion. I think this is around 130 dB/W/m efficiency. They had to go to extraordinary lengths to get a tweeter and 15 inch woofer to play nice together. In other words, just to get the off axis response to match the on axis response pretty closely out as far as 60 degrees off axis. You can listen to the designers of the speaker talk about the specifics on the somewhat recent Home Theater Geeks episode (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDmzfpf3fCk ). I found the podcast episode very interesting. I loved hearing about all of this new and exciting design approaches that went into making this speaker.

For most typical consumers we do not need this speaker. Ascend already designs loudspeakers that are accurate with exceptional off axis response, excellent transient response and many other attributes. As long as you are not wanting to play them at 85dB continuously with 115 dB peaks at 20 to 25 ft away, the Ascend towers with the Raal ribbon tweeter might even outperform the JBLs in some areas. Do you need speakers that can play this loud? Even Scott Wilkenson, the host of the podcast, asked the JBL designers several times why recording engineers want to listen to the speakers at such a high level for extended periods of time. His concern was damage to their hearing. If I had a home theater that I was setting up for 20 or 30 people I might seriously consider the JBLs. Realistically, I might setup a home theater for at most two rows of seats where the second row is at most 15 feet away from the speakers. The Sierra towers should give more output that I would ever want or need in that case. In fact, the bigger challenge for a multiple row setup from my perspective is getting the sight-lines right so that all the viewers can see the screen unobstructed. But, I like a really big screen for an immersive experience. This is why I am likely just going to stay with one row of seats in my home theater.

Anyways, the reason why Golden ear, SVS, etc. are putting these "subwoofers" in their cabinets is to appeal to the audiophile crowd that thinks subwoofers are bad. The only speakers that this crowd wants in their room are full range large tower speakers for a two channel setup. In just about any room, if you were to cut off the lower portion of those cabinets to give you the freedom to move the subwoofers around in the room to find the best location for uniform bass (midpoints of opposing walls in sealed rectangular rooms) and put the top portion, the satellite speakers, where you can get the best imaging, it would be possible to get the speakers to sound good in more than just one seat. In fact, with a bit of EQ on the subs, you can likely make it sound better in several seats than you could in one seat leaving the speaker together as a tower and no EQ. I am mentioning this because the audiophile crowd doesn't even like much manipulating the sound with things like EQ either, to help correct anomalies that arise from the room interaction.

I should mention that having tower speakers in a larger space can be of use to help pressurize the space. A recent article goes into much detail with this: https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/bass-the-physical-sensation-of-sound. So speakers like the SVS towers, Golden Ear towers, etc. can be of use from this perspective. However, the Sierra towers should be sufficient in most spaces, even ones that are quite large, in terms of helping the subwoofer pressurize the space. But, I doubt the SVS towers, or Golden Ear towers and the like, were originally designed with this in mind. I do think that they are more likely trying to cater to the audiophile crowd that doesn't like subwoofers and plan to use them in a two channel setup.

[sludgeogre]

Great write up and thank you for the link to the podcast, N Boros! I did not know that about the M2, quite fascinating. It really puts things in perspective.

I upgraded to my Sierra Towers from Magnepan Tympani 1D speakers that my Dad bought in 1972. They were pretty great with an obviously immense soundstage and a really sweet sound to them. They filled the entire house with sound because of the way it pressurized the room and because it's a dipole. It was pretty cool in that regard, music sounded realistic even in other rooms, just kind of an added bonus. The only thing that I didn't like is that they really lacked dynamics for movies, even when bi-amped from my XPA-5.

The Towers really pressurize the room in a crazy way, especially with the subs going, but even sans subs you can feel the music much more than with a Magnepan. It's quite a large open room with a kitchen and dining room and I still get entranced with the dynamics and detail of the system. I really can't wait to put it in a sealed room of smaller size. One day.

[curtis]

Nice post N Boros.

I will add, not to sound negative, but I have found that many "audiophiles" don't even understand basic acoustics.

[merrymaid520]

Nice post N Boros.

I will add, not to sound negative, but I have found that many "audiophiles" don't even understand basic acoustics.

It was a good past by N Boros!
Curtis, I agree! Look at the success **** has had.....enough said!

On a unrelated note, did dave present you with those Diamond tweeters for your Birthday? Moderating this site must be tedious and time consuming
:p

edit - why doesn't "b.o.s.e" show up correctly in a post?

[goldark]

4 letter words are usually censored, no? ;)

[monkuboy]

No doubt there is some validity to that statement. But then again JBL by Harmon does have this speaker, the M2, with a built in 15 inch woofer and response all the way down to 20hz.

http://www.jblpro.com/products/recording&broadcast/M2/specs.html#.V1jFestlBnF

The response may be all the way down to 20hz but that will be wasted if the speaker is not positioned properly in the room to take advantage of that bass output.

I used to have Mirage OMD-28's with a pair of 8" woofers that reviews said could go down to 18 hz. But I still had to use a sub with them because the place I had them in the room was lousy for bass frequencies.

Those were a few generations of speakers ago and now I have the Sierra 2's, which are the best that I've ever owned. I use a Power Sound Audio XS-15SE sub with it and love the sound.

[sludgeogre]

The response may be all the way down to 20hz but that will be wasted if the speaker is not positioned properly in the room to take advantage of that bass output.

I used to have Mirage OMD-28's with a pair of 8" woofers that reviews said could go down to 18 hz. But I still had to use a sub with them because the place I had them in the room was lousy for bass frequencies.

Those were a few generations of speakers ago and now I have the Sierra 2's, which are the best that I've ever owned. I use a Power Sound Audio XS-15SE sub with it and love the sound.

This makes a lot of sense. Now after seeing that the M2's are also meant to be used from quite a distance and are meant for huge dynamic range, I bet they wouldn't go down very low at the volumes I listen at or the distance I sit from my speakers. Very interesting stuff.

[mikesiskav]

The main design goal of the JBL speakers is for professional sound mixers for films and music can continuously listen to 85 dB levels and up to 115 dB peaks at about 20 to 25 ft away, with low distortion. I think this is around 130 dB/W/m efficiency. They had to go to extraordinary lengths to get a tweeter and 15 inch woofer to play nice together. In other words, just to get the off axis response to match the on axis response pretty closely out as far as 60 degrees off axis. You can listen to the designers of the speaker talk about the specifics on the somewhat recent Home Theater Geeks episode (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDmzfpf3fCk ). I found the podcast episode very interesting. I loved hearing about all of this new and exciting design approaches that went into making this speaker.

For most typical consumers we do not need this speaker. Ascend already designs loudspeakers that are accurate with exceptional off axis response, excellent transient response and many other attributes. As long as you are not wanting to play them at 85dB continuously with 115 dB peaks at 20 to 25 ft away, the Ascend towers with the Raal ribbon tweeter might even outperform the JBLs in some areas. Do you need speakers that can play this loud? Even Scott Wilkenson, the host of the podcast, asked the JBL designers several times why recording engineers want to listen to the speakers at such a high level for extended periods of time. His concern was damage to their hearing. If I had a home theater that I was setting up for 20 or 30 people I might seriously consider the JBLs. Realistically, I might setup a home theater for at most two rows of seats where the second row is at most 15 feet away from the speakers. The Sierra towers should give more output that I would ever want or need in that case. In fact, the bigger challenge for a multiple row setup from my perspective is getting the sight-lines right so that all the viewers can see the screen unobstructed. But, I like a really big screen for an immersive experience. This is why I am likely just going to stay with one row of seats in my home theater.

Anyways, the reason why Golden ear, SVS, etc. are putting these "subwoofers" in their cabinets is to appeal to the audiophile crowd that thinks subwoofers are bad. The only speakers that this crowd wants in their room are full range large tower speakers for a two channel setup. In just about any room, if you were to cut off the lower portion of those cabinets to give you the freedom to move the subwoofers around in the room to find the best location for uniform bass (midpoints of opposing walls in sealed rectangular rooms) and put the top portion, the satellite speakers, where you can get the best imaging, it would be possible to get the speakers to sound good in more than just one seat. In fact, with a bit of EQ on the subs, you can likely make it sound better in several seats than you could in one seat leaving the speaker together as a tower and no EQ. I am mentioning this because the audiophile crowd doesn't even like much manipulating the sound with things like EQ either, to help correct anomalies that arise from the room interaction.

I should mention that having tower speakers in a larger space can be of use to help pressurize the space. A recent article goes into much detail with this: https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/bass-the-physical-sensation-of-sound. So speakers like the SVS towers, Golden Ear towers, etc. can be of use from this perspective. However, the Sierra towers should be sufficient in most spaces, even ones that are quite large, in terms of helping the subwoofer pressurize the space. But, I doubt the SVS towers, or Golden Ear towers and the like, were originally designed with this in mind. I do think that they are more likely trying to cater to the audiophile crowd that doesn't like subwoofers and plan to use them in a two channel setup.

Thanks for posting that JBL video. I’ve never seen it before and it was quite interesting. Clearly the JBL design team incorporates a significant amount of science and engineering into their speaker designs. It’s too bad they really didn’t talk much at all about the reasons for having 20hz low frequency extension. They did spend quite a bit of time discussing the dynamic output capabilities of the m2.

Before I go further, I should mention that I am not one of those 2 channel audiophile snobs who hates subwoofers. In fact my current speakers only play down to about 80hz and I just ordered a Rythmik F8 from Ascend. I’m a big believer in measurements and have often measured my own system with REW.

The reason I mentioned the m2 is because it is a full range speaker with 20hz extension. It is absolutely true that the m2 was designed for professional monitoring for music and movies and that they need to play at sustained 85db, and peaks of 115db at 20-25ft. This results in 130 db maximum output at 1 meter (not 130db/W/m sensitivity as you said. Sensitivity on the m2 is 92db/W/m). Yes, they can handle a ton of power.

With regards to low frequency extension and high output capability, I think it’s important to differentiate the two. People often assume that a large speaker with big woofers will be able to play at high volumes and simultaneously plunge to the lowest frequencies. But that is not always the case. Take for example the JTR Triple 12 loudspeaker, which despite having three 12” woofers and having a maximum output of 130dB, is only rated to play down to 60hz. A little while back I installed a complete JTR home theater system for a customer of mine which consisted of three Triple 12s for the front, six slanted 8s for surround and two 18” captivator subwoofers. And it was spectacular! The best home theater system I’ve ever heard. Now this was a pretty good size room with seating for 15 and not everyone has that kind of room to fill.

Now considering that high dynamic range capability does not go hand in hand with low frequency extension, I ask the question again, why did JBL/Harmon design the m2 to have 20hz extension? It clearly is not because they need high maximum output as we’ve already discussed. They are two separate things. If Harmon believes that crossing over to a subwoofer at 60-80hz is always the best practice, then they would have designed the m2 to play down to somewhere around 50hz, and tell everyone to use a subwoofer.

And this is not the only Harmon speaker to have low frequency extension. The Revel Ultima Salon 2 plays down to 23hz. Now I suppose you could say that Revel is pandering to the audiophile crowd, but based on what you said regarding the engineering research that Harmon conducts, it doesn’t seem like they are the type of company to do this.

I’m sorry for spending so much time discussing other brands of speakers here on the Ascend forum. The topic was the next level after Ascend Towers, and lower frequency response was what I came up with. Clearly it’s something you see quite often in higher priced speakers. Does that necessarily mean it’s a better speaker? Absolutely not. I think when it comes to speakers and speaker design, there are a ton of options to choose from and different designs have different positives and negatives. It’s a balancing act so to speak. I think to say that one way is always better than another is really not looking at the whole picture. It’s kind of like saying ribbons are always better than dome tweeters, or horn loaded compression drivers are the best, or sealed subs are the best, etc... I think that this also applies to full range speakers vs speakers crossed over to subwoofers. I don’t necessarily believe one way is always better than the other. I think it depends on the room, and it depends on the content you’re listening to, and the volume you’re playing at, and what you the listener are looking for in your music and movies.

[mikesiskav]

This makes a lot of sense. Now after seeing that the M2's are also meant to be used from quite a distance and are meant for huge dynamic range, I bet they wouldn't go down very low at the volumes I listen at or the distance I sit from my speakers. Very interesting stuff.

The m2 was designed to handle reference volumes at 20-25 feet. But you can certainly sit much closer if you want. According to the m2 manual, the minimum recommended seating distance is about 4 feet. Now that would be interesting!

1331