Sierra 1, Luna or Sierra 2?

[desmond3273]

Hello all. I currently have a 2.1 setup with HTD Level 3 and an Orb Audio sub. I am now finally upgrading everything. I need a little guidance. My wife commented recently that she wished our speakers had more detail. This shocked me because she usually doesn't care. So I figured while she is interested I might as well as upgrade before the purse strings close again. We are currently in an apartment but hopefully next summer will be in a house. Our listening environment is small and we don't listen at anywhere close to reference. She loves jazz and Melody Gardot types and I listen to everything from prog metal to classical. I am wanting a definite upgrade in the speakers. Looking for a wide soundstage, great imaging and detail. I was considering the Sierra 1s but I'm kind of fascinated by the Sierra 2s. After reading about that RAAL I'm intrigued to see what all the fuss is about. Then again the Luna may work because of our small listening area. I could use some help. Thank you.

[Roen]

Hello all. I currently have a 2.1 setup with HTD Level 3 and an Orb Audio sub. I am now finally upgrading everything. I need a little guidance. My wife commented recently that she wished our speakers had more detail. This shocked me because she usually doesn't care. So I figured while she is interested I might as well as upgrade before the purse strings close again. We are currently in an apartment but hopefully next summer will be in a house. Our listening environment is small and we don't listen at anywhere close to reference. She loves jazz and Melody Gardot types and I listen to everything from prog metal to classical. I am wanting a definite upgrade in the speakers. Looking for a wide soundstage, great imaging and detail. I was considering the Sierra 1s but I'm kind of fascinated by the Sierra 2s. After reading about that RAAL I'm intrigued to see what all the fuss is about. Then again the Luna may work because of our small listening area. I could use some help. Thank you.

Do you care about bass? Are you going to use a sub? If Yes and No, Sierra-2.

If No, or Yes and Yes, then Luna.

If you can get Sierra-2 B-Stock, that's not a bad option either.

[mikesiskav]

If you have the budget I would definitely go for the Sierra-2. The Sierra-1 is a great speaker but the 2 has the extra detail and clarity in the highs.

[desmond3273]

Would the Luna and a sub equal the performance of the Sierra-2? I'm going to upgrade the sub as well. I was thinking of the Rythmik L12. I wish I could afford all 3 then make a decision.

[Mahawkma]

I am using the Luna's and a L12 in a near field setup and they complement each other very nicely.

[mikesiskav]

Sierra-2 and Luna's would be very close when paired with a sub. I would still go with Sierra-2 if budget permits unless you are limited in space or using as a desktop system.

[Bruce Watson]

Would the Luna and a sub equal the performance of the Sierra-2?

With the right sub crossed over at 80 Hz or above, it will probably be difficult to tell Sierra2s and Lunas apart in a double blind test. The right sub being a servo design, like the Rythmik subs.


I'm going to upgrade the sub as well. I was thinking of the Rythmik L12. I wish I could afford all 3 then make a decision.

I suspect that the L12 with a pair of Lunas would make you very happy. This also gives you some flexibility for your future move to a larger space. The Lunas could become surround speakers for a 5.2 arrangement, to be replaced by Sierra 2s at the front.

(I'm a firm believer in pairs of subs because of how well they tackle room modes and make it possible to have a much larger "sweet spot" at the main listening position.)

For the record, I'm currently using a pair of Sierra-2s for front L/R and a pair of Rythmik LVX12 subs. With that, a Sierra-2 center and a pair of Sierra-1s for surrounds. As a 2.2 system for music, it's really beautiful. As a 5.2 system for music (blu-ray lossless PCM sound) it's rather stunning.

[Roen]

With the right sub crossed over at 80 Hz or above, it will probably be difficult to tell Sierra2s and Lunas apart in a double blind test. The right sub being a servo design, like the Rythmik subs.



I suspect that the L12 with a pair of Lunas would make you very happy. This also gives you some flexibility for your future move to a larger space. The Lunas could become surround speakers for a 5.2 arrangement, to be replaced by Sierra 2s at the front.

(I'm a firm believer in pairs of subs because of how well they tackle room modes and make it possible to have a much larger "sweet spot" at the main listening position.)

For the record, I'm currently using a pair of Sierra-2s for front L/R and a pair of Rythmik LVX12 subs. With that, a Sierra-2 center and a pair of Sierra-1s for surrounds. As a 2.2 system for music, it's really beautiful. As a 5.2 system for music (blu-ray lossless PCM sound) it's rather stunning.

What's so special about the servo design sub vs. let's say a Power Sound Audio / SVS / Hsu?

[Bruce Watson]

What's so special about the servo design sub vs. let's say a Power Sound Audio / SVS / Hsu?

Accuracy. Servo systems use active feedback. What that means to a subwoofer is that the sub's circuitry looks at the input coming to the sub from your signal source, then it also measures what the sub actually does (cone travel) in real-time. The difference between the two (the error signal) is then fed back into the control logic to correct the physical behavior of the cone so that it matches the input signal. So what your source asks for is what you get. Exactly.

What it means for your system is that servo subs are typically easier to integrate with your other speakers. Makes the result feel seamless, as if your other speakers all reach down to 20 Hz themselves. It also means less distortion, particularly at high levels.

So... more accurate, therefore cleaner, with less distortion.

[N Boros]

What it means for your system is that servo subs are typically easier to integrate with your other speakers. Makes the result feel seamless, as if your other speakers all reach down to 20 Hz themselves.

I was just reading a review of the SVS SB16 Ultra recently, over at HomeTheaterShack, by Jim Wilson.

http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/svsound/165450-svs-sb16-ultra-review-discussion-thread.html

In the discussion thread that followed the review several people asked him how the SVS subwoofer compared to other brands. One person asked specifically about how it might compare to the Rythmik E15HP, since he reviewed that Rythmik sub and many others. Here is what he had to say:

"I have fond memories of the E15HP I once owned, and its new owner is still loving it to this day.

For detail I would give the nod to the Rythmik; that's their stock-in-trade, and they get that right better than just about anyone else. Presence, which I suspect most people are actually looking for, favors the SVS. I'm listening to the SB16 play music in the background while I type this - probably not a shock to anyone - and even at a low volume its contribution is evident. I would also say the SVS has greater output, even though the Rythmik was definitely no slouch in that area."

First off, comparing the Rythmik E15HP to the SVS SB16 Ultra isn't really a fair comparison, in terms of output. It would be better to compare the E15HP to the SVS SB13 Ultra, which he did 3 or 4 years ago and the two subs were very close in terms of output. Since that is out of the way, what Bruce Watson, Jim Wilson and others who have heard Rythmik subs consistently talk about as something that makes them special is the detail that they give and how they just blend so well with the other speakers. Jim specifically called this second trait "presence". It sounds like the Rythmik subs will just naturally extend the bass performance of your main speakers to the point where they now extend down to and below 20Hz, without giving you any indication that there is a subwoofer you are hearing. Whereas other subs have this "presence" that draws attention to themselves. Not all people will like this lack of "presence", especially with movies. Some people like the bass to be overdone, just like some people like butt kickers and D-box chairs. There is nothing wrong with that.

I have had my Sierra 2s for about 3 years now. What was striking at first was how they on the one hand they seemed to be making less sounds than other speakers, yet I was picking out details that I missed before and dialog was noticeably more clear than before with movies and TV. I think that the Ascend speakers are making less sounds because they are more accurate in terms of transient response. The signal asks to play a frequency at this level for this amount of time and they just do as asked. Many other speakers can't start and stop as quickly, which adds in extra sounds that weren't in the signal, but also hurts their ability to give detail that the Ascend speakers give. I've A/B'd letting my subwoofer handle 80Hz and below and only letting it handle 50Hz and below and it was noticbly different how my Sierra 2s were giving more detail that was lost with this lesser subwoofer. This is why I plan to go with a pair of sealed Rythmik subs, when I get the funds.

For Desmond, it is probably best to get a pair of Ascend speakers and see if you like the sound first. I can't imagine that you wouldn't since it sounds like you primarily listen to music and want to be able to hear extra detail. If you do like that sound, then by all accounts the Rythmik subs will just naturally extend the Ascend's frequency range down to 20 Hz and below, in a way that you wouldn't even think that their is a subwoofer in the mix, if you didn't see the big black box in the room.

[curtis]

What N Boros describes is exactly what I experienced with my Sierra-1's and my old Hsu VTF-3mk2. The Sierra-1 was more articulate in the bass region and I could tell the difference between the speaker and the sub at 80hz, I had to drop the crossover to 60hz to get a seamless integration.

I switched to a Rythmik F15/F15HP and I was able to cross at 80hz with no issues. Now that I have Sierra-2's, 80hz still works fine. SEAMLESS!

[Roen]

Accuracy. Servo systems use active feedback. What that means to a subwoofer is that the sub's circuitry looks at the input coming to the sub from your signal source, then it also measures what the sub actually does (cone travel) in real-time. The difference between the two (the error signal) is then fed back into the control logic to correct the physical behavior of the cone so that it matches the input signal. So what your source asks for is what you get. Exactly.

What it means for your system is that servo subs are typically easier to integrate with your other speakers. Makes the result feel seamless, as if your other speakers all reach down to 20 Hz themselves. It also means less distortion, particularly at high levels.

So... more accurate, therefore cleaner, with less distortion.

I thought the servo just let you have more output for less power.

In which case, would the extra 125W from the S1500 compensate for this? (600W in the Rythmik, 725W in the PSA)

[Roen]

What N Boros describes is exactly what I experienced with my Sierra-1's and my old Hsu VTF-3mk2. The Sierra-1 was more articulate in the bass region and I could tell the difference between the speaker and the sub at 80hz, I had to drop the crossover to 60hz to get a seamless integration.

I switched to a Rythmik F15/F15HP and I was able to cross at 80hz with no issues. Now that I have Sierra-2's, 80hz still works fine. SEAMLESS!

Seems like I should've opted for the Rythmik, I cross at 60 Hz for music and 80 Hz for HT, would rather just cross at a single frequency.

[Bruce Watson]

I thought the servo just let you have more output for less power.

In which case, would the extra 125W from the S1500 compensate for this? (600W in the Rythmik, 725W in the PSA)

One of the "side effects" of increased accuracy is higher efficiency I think. But that's not the primary reason to implement a servo on a sub. The primary reason is accuracy, which also means less distortion, which means better integration.

As to electrical power, there's not a direct correlation between the power available from an amplifier and the sound pressure level that the attached sub can produce. Your comparison is perhaps more apples-to-oranges than you might want.

[Roen]

One of the "side effects" of increased accuracy is higher efficiency I think. But that's not the primary reason to implement a servo on a sub. The primary reason is accuracy, which also means less distortion, which means better integration.

As to electrical power, there's not a direct correlation between the power available from an amplifier and the sound pressure level that the attached sub can produce. Your comparison is perhaps more apples-to-oranges than you might want.

Bah.

Thanks for the info.

[davef]

I thought the servo just let you have more output for less power.

In which case, would the extra 125W from the S1500 compensate for this? (600W in the Rythmik, 725W in the PSA)

Servo and "power" have no correlation. As Bruce elaborated, Servo is an advanced system that is able to measure both the woofer acceleration and woofer position in realtime. This information is than feedback into the amplifier that controls the woofer movement and instantaneously compensates. Servo enables considerably more accurate transient accuracy, lower distortion, and compensates for the aging of the woofer suspension system (compliance changes).

I often like to make the comparison between a laser guided missile reaching its target compared to an RPG. The laser guided missile uses realtime information to continuously compensate for its flight path, where as once you fire an RPG, you just hope you aimed properly, or a giant gust of wind doesn't change the trajectory...

In addition, higher amplifier power does not mean more output - it is really just a marketing ploy. For example, which would have more overall output, a subwoofer with a 1000 watt amplifier powering a woofer with 84dB sensitivity, or a subwoofer with a 300 watt amplifier powering a woofer with 92dB sensitivity?

The answer might surprise you -- the 300 watt subwoofer will have TWICE the power output...

Without knowing the sensitivity of the woofer being used in the subwoofer, amplifier power is a meaningless specification.

Because of Direct Servo, Rythmik subs are able to use lower mass, higher efficiency woofers compared to their competitors.

I recommend avoiding falling into that crowd the relies on "power" as some type of measure of performance. You would be exactly who they are targeting with that rather meaningless spec ;)

[Roen]

Servo and "power" have no correlation. As Bruce elaborated, Servo is an advanced system that is able to measure both the woofer acceleration and woofer position in realtime. This information is than feedback into the amplifier that controls the woofer movement and instantaneously compensates. Servo enables considerably more accurate transient accuracy, lower distortion, and compensates for the aging of the woofer suspension system (compliance changes).

I often like to make the comparison between a laser guided missile reaching its target compared to an RPG. The laser guided missile uses realtime information to continuously compensate for its flight path, where as once you fire an RPG, you just hope you aimed properly, or a giant gust of wind doesn't change the trajectory...

In addition, higher amplifier power does not mean more output - it is really just a marketing ploy. For example, which would have more overall output, a subwoofer with a 1000 watt amplifier powering a woofer with 84dB sensitivity, or a subwoofer with a 300 watt amplifier powering a woofer with 92dB sensitivity?

The answer might surprise you -- the 300 watt subwoofer will have TWICE the power output...

Without knowing the sensitivity of the woofer being used in the subwoofer, amplifier power is a meaningless specification.

Because of Direct Servo, Rythmik subs are able to use lower mass, higher efficiency woofers compared to their competitors.

I recommend avoiding falling into that crowd the relies on "power" as some type of measure of performance. You would be exactly who they are targeting with that rather meaningless spec ;)

Double bah.

Thanks for that.

I think the other reason why I went with a S1500 instead of a F15HP was due to the $293 price difference. I might be having regrets now, plus the Piano Black of the F15HP would have matched my Sierra-2's much better than the black satin I currently have now.

[desmond3273]

Thanks everyone for the replies. I got a lot to think about.