Upgrade from 170se

[scape]

Hi y'all!

I haven't posted in quite a while and wanted to get some opinions on a good move up from the 170se that have been my mains. I also have a center 340se that I never used really, I really didn't enjoy it as a center channel and preferred stereo mode, with my sub. The sub I have is modest (Yamaha yst 10") and usually leave it off as of late. The question is what should I do now? I want a bit more fullness, but want to keep the clean imaging the 170s have. They did lack a bit when I pumped them for movies. I do about 70% tv time, the rest music. My amp is a Denon 1909 AVR which works well enough for now, I will probably replace it with a standard 2ch amp in the future.
So what should I do? I think I can turn he 340se center into a stereo and buy another center to also rotate. That's he cheapest solution but my reservation is I've never been happy with it; albeit it was center duty only. Another option is a b stock sierra if there are any left. The final option in considering is a hsu ccb-8, but the verdict is still out on them.
Are the sierras justifiable over 340s? How do other brands compare to the 340/sierra in this price range?

Thanks

[sludgeogre]

Do you need to stay with a bookshelf speaker? I ask because based on what you're saying it sounds like tower speakers are really the way to go for you. You'll get deeper bass extension and even bigger sound. If you can squeeze it I'd go for the Sierra Towers personally. Go with the RAAL upgrade if you can afford it.

It's hard to say what is justifiable as an upgrade for anyone. I think most people will say that it is, but it all depends on budget and what you want to hear from your speakers. I personally am totally addicted to my Sierra Towers and Horizon and haven't had a single thought about upgrading them since I bought them almost two years ago.

[MusicHead]

If I am not mistaken the 340 Mains are not exactly the same as the 340 Center (something in the crossover?)

Since you do 70% TV (I assume that includes movies) and want to add fullness, I would consider keeping the 170s and getting a Rythmik L12 sub. It will cost you about the same as a new pairs of 340s.

Doing that and crossing the sub with the 170 at 80HZ will give significant relief to your AVR. You will notice an improvement in how the 170s sound.

If on the other hand your leaning toward a stereo amp means you may shift use more to music, then going with a couple of towers, as sludgeogre said, would be the way to go.

Just my two cents.

[scape]

Ok, talked to Dave a bit via email and he said the 340 see center can be turned into a stereo pair; I believe the tweeter is just rotated but didn't inquire further yet-- he also would sell me a single channel 340 to match it. I looked at the rythmiks and forgot how much I have wanted one. I was looking into RAAL and rythmik before AA integrated them, and now that Dave did I am very confident they are top quality products/components.
The towers and raal are out of the question for now, maybe in another 10 years :)
I'm pondering sierra1 b stock and maybe even that L12 sub. Hard to say if the 340s are worth bothering about over the 170s, especially if paired with a sub. And it's very hard to just know if the sierra1 is worth the upgrade over the 170 when with a sub, my gut says yes.
Thanks for the input!

[curtis]

...I believe the tweeter is just rotated but didn't inquire further yet--
Not necessary on the 340SE's....it was on the older "classic" 340's.

[mikesiskav]

340s are very similar to 170s in sound quality, but can play louder with less distortion. If you're looking for a significant jump in sound quality, my recommendation is the Sierra-2.

[scape]

I appreciate everyone's feedback! I have given some thought and think $1200 is doable, a stretch tho. I see the bstock sierra with a l12 would be roughly similarly priced as a bstock sierra2. While the s1 bstock with nrt upgrade is almost as much. It's tough to decide really. Is the sierra2 that significant of a leap over the original? Especially when paired with such a nice sub? On a side note I did some testing with the center 340 as a main channel and it sounds clearer than the 170, just a bit. The sound stage seemed to improve a tad as well, but it does still feel like it's missing something. Another concern for sierra 2 is with the RAAL, I get up and walk around quite a bit and may not like the dip in highs. So I wonder, is the tower nrt worth waiting for when compared to the sierras I mentioned? I might be able to swing it next year.

[mikesiskav]

The improvement going from Sierra 1 to Sierra 2 is not in bass extension or output bit rather in the mids and highs frequencies. I think the Sierra 2 actually has a bit less bass output than the original, but the bass it does have is more articulate. Having a nice subwoofer is even more reason to get the best main speakers you can. The Sierra 2 still sounds fantastic even if you stand up and walk around.

[Mose Harper]

I really struggled that first month I had the Sierra 2's (three identical across the front) to find $1.8K (B stock) difference between them and the 170's I'd had for over a decade.

I wanted to be floored right out of the box, but I honestly have to say I wasn't.

Even when I though I had 'proof' that they'd finally justified themselves - I was watching a film with a 2 channel stereo track, and the imaging was perfectly matched to the screen between them- i swapped the 170s back in afterward expecting them to fail the test and they didn't. The truth was they just didn't seem that far off from what I'd heard with the Sierra 2's.

However I ended up keeping them past the 30 day trial, taking it on a leap of faith that other people were right and I just needed to devote some more time to placement and critical listening.

It was well past the 30 days (closer to 60) when they finally started to click for me. I started to recognize subtle qualities to the sound and presentation that I'd actually never gotten with the 170s.
Once I started to hear it, it became more and more apparent. They were doing things the 170 just never could.

A Toyota Corolla will get you from point a to b- save you gas, and be plenty reliable.
A Lexus will get you from a to b as well. But once you get used to the little luxuries of the ride, it's hard to go back to the Corolla, even though you are still just going from a to b.

[davef]

I really struggled that first month I had the Sierra 2's (three identical across the front) to find $1.8K (B stock) difference between them and the 170's I'd had for over a decade.

I wanted to be floored right out of the box, but I honestly have to say I wasn't.

Even when I though I had 'proof' that they'd finally justified themselves - I was watching a film with a 2 channel stereo track, and the imaging was perfectly matched to the screen between them- i swapped the 170s back in afterward expecting them to fail the test and they didn't. The truth was they just didn't seem that far off from what I'd heard with the Sierra 2's.

However I ended up keeping them past the 30 day trial, taking it on a leap of faith that other people were right and I just needed to devote some more time to placement and critical listening.

It was well past the 30 days (closer to 60) when they finally started to click for me. I started to recognize subtle qualities to the sound and presentation that I'd actually never gotten with the 170s.
Once I started to hear it, it became more and more apparent. They were doing things the 170 just never could.

A Toyota Corolla will get you from point a to b- save you gas, and be plenty reliable.
A Lexus will get you from a to b as well. But once you get used to the little luxuries of the ride, it's hard to go back to the Corolla, even though you are still just going from a to b.

This is an excellent post. Many consumers naturally expect to be "blown away" when upgrading from an already very capable speaker like the 170 to something considerably more expensive. It takes time to develop more critical listening skills, not much different than developing a more refined sense of taste for beer, wine, food etc. Once you develop those skills - and start to really notice the differences, it is impossible to go back.

[SunByrne]

Once you develop those skills - and start to really notice the differences, it is impossible to go back.

And this is what keeps Dave in business, which we all deeply appreciate. :)

[N Boros]

I really struggled that first month I had the Sierra 2's (three identical across the front) to find $1.8K (B stock) difference between them and the 170's I'd had for over a decade.

I wanted to be floored right out of the box, but I honestly have to say I wasn't.

Even when I though I had 'proof' that they'd finally justified themselves - I was watching a film with a 2 channel stereo track, and the imaging was perfectly matched to the screen between them- i swapped the 170s back in afterward expecting them to fail the test and they didn't. The truth was they just didn't seem that far off from what I'd heard with the Sierra 2's.

However I ended up keeping them past the 30 day trial, taking it on a leap of faith that other people were right and I just needed to devote some more time to placement and critical listening.

It was well past the 30 days (closer to 60) when they finally started to click for me. I started to recognize subtle qualities to the sound and presentation that I'd actually never gotten with the 170s.
Once I started to hear it, it became more and more apparent. They were doing things the 170 just never could.

A Toyota Corolla will get you from point a to b- save you gas, and be plenty reliable.
A Lexus will get you from a to b as well. But once you get used to the little luxuries of the ride, it's hard to go back to the Corolla, even though you are still just going from a to b.

I felt like upgrading from Axiom M22s to Ascend Sierra 2s was not a small jump in performance. At the time, I wasn't sure that the Sierra 2s were the speaker for me, so I did a three way comparison with SVS Ultra Bookshelf speakers and a pair of Aperion Audio Verus Grand Towers. I listened to the SVS speakers first, then the Aperion speakers and then the Ascend. For each set of speakers I spent about 1 week listening to a variety of material. The order was simply chosen by the order that they arrived. It's funny, because they were in increasing order in terms of price (the Aperions were on sale at the time) and it turned out that they were also arranged in my order of preference.

The biggest problem I had with the Axiom speakers was listening fatigue. If I watched a two hour movie at more than -35 dB my ears would be ringing quite a bit for the rest of the day. Any of the other speakers in the shootout significantly improved things in terms of listening fatigue. The SVS speakers sounded like a little bit of a step up, when I first heard them. I could hear the soundstage regularly coming out into the room usually about 3 or 4 feet. Rarely would the Axiom's give any depth of soundstage. The SVS speakers imaged a little bit better than the Axioms. This was evident when watching scenes with Bane on the Dark Knight rises, or when listening to music. The SVS speakers were a little bit better at delineation, being able to isolate one particular instrument or sound in a mixture of others.

The Aperion audio speakers were quite similar to the SVS speakers. The biggest differences to me were that they could image a little bit better than the SVS speakers and the soundstage was just bigger than on the SVS speakers. The soundstage was taller, wider and deeper. It was cool, some sounds could even be placed behind me, fooling me into thinking that I had my surround speakers on when listening to stereo.

Then I listened to the Ascend Sierra 2s. The first thing that jumped out at me was the imaging. I thought the Aperion speakers imaged well, but it was almost like having a sheet in front of the speakers removed when switching to the Ascend speakers. If you want to compare to some low end home theater in a box speakers, it would be more like a blanket was removed in front of those. :) As a result of this there were details in familiar recordings that just lept out at me when listening to the Sierra 2s, that all of the other speakers just glossed over. It didn't happen all the time, but I noticed it within the 30 day trial period. The soundstage was just as deep as from the Ascends, but nowhere near as wide or tall. I'm guessing that the Aperion speakers are not presenting an accurate soundstage and maybe doing this for the wow factor. It was also a noticable difference how the Ascend speakers were quieter, for lack of a better word. I didn't realize until switching to them that they did this and I think this help with the imaging. I felt like the extra cost of the Sierra 2s ($200 more than the Aperion's and $400 more than the SVS's) was worth it to me. I could pick out the extra things that the Sierra 2s could do well and it wasn't subtle in comparison. It wasn't massive either though. If I had to put a percentage on it, it was close to the difference in prices. So it was an easy decision to just spend the extra money and get the speaker that did everything else better.

Maybe the Ascend 170SE's are just really good speakers, where the step up to the Sierra 2s are just small improvements in all areas. If the SVS Ultras or Aperion Verus Grand speakers are close to the 170SE's in performance, then it would be hard to not think about the 4 to 5 times difference in cost and expect something like that in terms of a jump in performance.