Which center? Luna, S2, or Horizon?

[kdaq]

I have a 5.1 setup with Sierra-1 L/R (soon to be upgraded to Sierra-2s), HTM-200SE for center and surrounds, and an LV12R sub.

What should I upgrade my center to? I'm considering Sierra Luna, Sierra-2, and Sierra Horizon.

[enricoclaudio]

I would go with the Horizon w/RAAL. The dedicated mid range driver does wonders with dialogue and vocals.

[curtis]

I would go with the Horizon w/RAAL. The dedicated mid range driver does wonders with dialogue and vocals.
The midrange driver is an added bonus, but I would say that don't expect it to be a night/day difference with the Sierra-2 in terms of dialogue. The Sierra-2 is also great with dialogue and vocals.

IMO, Sierra-2 as L/C/R with HTM-200SEs as surrounds would be excellent. That's what I have. :)

Yes, I have heard the Horizon center. Yes, it is better as a center than the Sierra-2. But the Sierra-2 as a center is great in it's own right.

You have Sierra-2's. Move one to the center and try it.

[enricoclaudio]

The midrange driver is an added bonus, but I would say that don't expect it to be a night/day difference with the Sierra-2 in terms of dialogue. The Sierra-2 is also great with dialogue and vocals.

IMO, Sierra-2 as L/C/R with HTM-200SEs as surrounds would be excellent. That's what I have. :)

Yes, I have heard the Horizon center. Yes, it is better as a center than the Sierra-2. But the Sierra-2 as a center is great in it's own right.

You have Sierra-2's. Move one to the center and try it.

I did that a few months back, even ran Dirac full and to my ears it is night and day difference.

[curtis]

I did that a few months back, even ran Dirac full and to my ears it is night and day difference.
I meant that for the original poster, but forgot that he doesn't have Sierra-2's yet.

Full-range, yes, the Horizon for sure, but the mids, for me, it isn't night and day, better for sure though.

As for dynamics, yes, Horizon, but then I would also add Towers for matching dynamics.

I am probably also biased in having a matching front soundstage.

[kdaq]

Thanks for the impressions!

Currently, with my HTM-200SE center, I find myself turning up the volume further than I feel I should have to, for dialogue to be consistently clear.

Any other thoughts on Sierra-2 vs. Horizon for center?

[Beave]

In an A/B the Horizon might easily beat the Sierra 2 in large part because of its higher sensitivity. If you carefully level match, it will still likely beat the Sierra 2 - but not to be a "night and day" difference. But that's speculation on my part.

As to which one to get, if you can afford it and have enough space for it, get the Horizon. If space and/or budget is limited for any reason, get the Sierra 2.

[kdaq]

I use XT32, and it does wonders for locking in balanced imaging.

Currently thinking that Sierra-2 center is the right balance of performance for the buck for me. Also, no current plans to upgrade to towers, and I'm sure having a matched L/C/R can't hurt.

[Jaybeez]

Thanks for this thread. I'm moving my S2's from a dedicated listening room to my living room for HT duty, and was wondering the same thing. I'll likely make a trip down south for a single S2 for my center channel.

[curtis]

Thanks for this thread. I'm moving my S2's from a dedicated listening room to my living room for HT duty, and was wondering the same thing. I'll likely make a trip down south for a single S2 for my center channel.
What’s going into the dedicated room?

[Jaybeez]

I actually don't use it for music listening much anymore. It's a multi purpose room (sound isolated, treated, etc.). I'm using it for drum rehearsal (mine) some demo recording (daughter's) and I'm planning to build a dedicated vocal booth as am starting that type of work post-retirement.
I find I listen to most of my music via my HT receiver in my living room, and want to put my best speakers in place for both HT and music. The old Polk setup just isn't doing it for me!

[Stump909]

The midrange driver is an added bonus, but I would say that don't expect it to be a night/day difference with the Sierra-2 in terms of dialogue. The Sierra-2 is also great with dialogue and vocals.

...with HTM-200SEs as surrounds would be excellent. That's what I have. :)



How well do they timber match with the 2's?

[curtis]

How well do they timber match with the 2's?
Extremely well.

All of Ascend’s speakers have good timbre match. I would like to try a pair of Lunas though.

[N Boros]

I'm with Curtis on this one. I find it odd to have the output capabilities of the center channel to exceed the main speakers. I would say to go with a Sierra 2 or a Luna, if space for the center channel speaker is tight. The best option being a Sierra 2 center.

I could see a case for going with towers for left and right speakers and then maybe saving on the center a bit and just going with a Sierra 2. But, if the system is used for movies, why not just spend the little bit of extra money at the point and get full range speakers across the front. Sometimes the center channel can get hit with huge dynamic swings like in the mains, so it is best that their output capabilities are matched.

[bkdc]

I already know I will purchase the MTM luna center.. just waiting for it to be manufactured.

[msound]

Now that the Luna center is actually out? Luna or 2ex?

[davef]

Now that the Luna center is actually out? Luna or 2ex?

For center channel duty between the Duo center and Sierra-2EX, for most installations I would recommend the new Duo.

[jimb]

For center channel duty between the Duo center and Sierra-2EX, for most installations I would recommend the new Duo.

I'm surprised. Can you describe why?

[davef]

I'm surprised. Can you describe why?

The smaller woofers provide for wider dispersion and the driver orientation of the Duo provides for symmetrical dispersion both horizontally and vertically.

[daddyo]

Good input. I'm struggling with a similar decision and the Luna Duo solves most of the problems, except for my old ears. Thanks for the feedback. Like to hear from some users who have the Duo, especially used with the Sierra 2's or 2EX's.

[Jaybeez]

My wife is addicted to British TV shows. Dialogue is a challenge and I'm wondering what the optimal solution would be. Considering Duo and S2 centers. Trying to avoid jacking up the center channel output so we can hear what the Brits are talking about.

[jimb]

Dave has already recommended the Duo over the S2-EX as a center.

[Bruce Watson]

My wife is addicted to British TV shows. Dialogue is a challenge and I'm wondering what the optimal solution would be. Considering Duo and S2 centers. Trying to avoid jacking up the center channel output so we can hear what the Brits are talking about.

Been there, done that. I replaced my S-2 (not EX) center with a Duo when they came out. Haven't looked back.

My wife had similar problems with understandability with some shows. So I slowly increased level of center, ended around 1.5 dB hot. Wasn't enough of an improvement for her.

When the Duo came out, I bought one. It's running at 0.0 dB hot, and neither my wife nor I have problems with dialog on any of the shows we watch normally, or movies with the Duo. The Duo punches way above it's weight class. Just sayin'.

[Jaybeez]

Been there, done that. I replaced my S-2 (not EX) center with a Duo when they came out. Haven't looked back.

My wife had similar problems with understandability with some shows. So I slowly increased level of center, ended around 1.5 dB hot. Wasn't enough of an improvement for her.

When the Duo came out, I bought one. It's running at 0.0 dB hot, and neither my wife nor I have problems with dialog on any of the shows we watch normally, or movies with the Duo. The Duo punches way above it's weight class. Just sayin'.

Thanks for the real life feedback. Sounds like the Duo is just the ticket!

[curtis]

I wonder what causes the intelligibility issues. I have S2’s across the front with no issues and no need to boost the center volume.

[racrawford65]

Curtis - Perhaps room acoustics / layout or simply one's hearing?

Jaybeez - I made the same change as Bruce -- from S2 (no EX) to the Luna Duo. Initial impressions are that the Duo is better than the S2 for dialogue clarity. I've not watched a lot of movies or tv with it yet nor have I rerun ARC yet, hence "initial". I did think the S2 was a good center, as well, although depending on the program/movie, I did have to boost it on occasion for better clarity. My hearing isn't as good as it used to be.

[curtis]

Curtis - Perhaps room acoustics / layout or simply one's hearing?

Yes, I was wondering more specifically.

[Bruce Watson]

I wonder what causes the intelligibility issues. I have S2’s across the front with no issues and no need to boost the center volume.

I wonder too. I've heard it, I know it exists, but I can't figure out why, or what the Duo does differently to improve it. It's like magic. And as an engineer, I hate that. You'd think that eventually I'd get used to not knowing how some of these things work. But, I don't. Sigh...

[N Boros]

I wonder too. I've heard it, I know it exists, but I can't figure out why, or what the Duo does differently to improve it. It's like magic. And as an engineer, I hate that. You'd think that eventually I'd get used to not knowing how some of these things work. But, I don't. Sigh...

I think that it just comes down to symmetrical dispersion on the left and right, leading to better dialogue intelligibility. The variation in reflections on the left and right are likely the culprit, since the direct and reflected sound have slight differences. I bet it would be much harder to tell the difference if the Sierra 2 (or EX) was vertically oriented. Most can’t test this unless they either don’t have a TV as an obstacle or they have an acoustically transparent screen. Temporarily it would be easy to test though, in any setup.

[jimb]

The DUO is on the product list! No one said?

I would expect it to have more to do with the frequency response differences. In any case, it will be interesting to hear if more people have the same experience.

[Jaybeez]

Yesterday afternoon, Dave and the team put a Duo together for me. I brought it home and looked at the box while my wife and I rented and watched "Downton Abbey". We fell asleep about halfway through, on my part because I couldn't make out the dialogue of the British actors (as usual). This afternoon, I installed the Duo, along with S2s doing L / R duty. Ran Audyssey and didn't like what I heard. Over-rode the crazy Audessey choices (fronts are big? crossing over at 50 hz?) and then watched the rest of the film. Absolute night and day difference! Dialogue was crystal clear and the front end of my AV set up was as perfect as I could imagine. I watched a bit of TV and listened to multi-channel music streaming from Apple TV just for fun. Everything I heard brought a smile to my face!

[daddyo]

Thanks for the post. You're coming very close to my needs as my wife is Brit (a lot of British shows) and I am looking for dialog clarity. Can you describe what L/C/R that you were coming from? It appears that you upgraded to S2's and a Duo center - I am considering the Luna bookshelfs and a Duo for myself and since you have talked with Ascend, did you evaluate the Luna vs the S2 ?

[Jaybeez]

Thanks for the post. You're coming very close to my needs as my wife is Brit (a lot of British shows) and I am looking for dialog clarity. Can you describe what L/C/R that you were coming from? It appears that you upgraded to S2's and a Duo center - I am considering the Luna bookshelfs and a Duo for myself and since you have talked with Ascend, did you evaluate the Luna vs the S2 ?

Hello daddyo. I've actually had the Sierra 2s for a few years, and used them for 2 channel music in a dedicated space. My AV rig had a front end of Polk LSIM (703s and 704c) which were capable, but never gave me the vocal clarity I was looking for.

I didn't look at the Lunas, though depending on the size of your room I would imagine they would work. I haven't actually heard the Lunas, though have put ears on everything else in the lineup.

Early next year I plan to replace the Sierra 2s with an EX set, and move the 2s to rear surround duty.

As I also use my AVR for multi channel music, this gives me an all Sierra 2 listening experience.

[daddyo]

You are helping me a lot. That Polk 704 is a 3-way speaker and you have noticed a marked improvement with the Duo (an MTM design at about 2x the price). Very good feedback to say the least. So good components (more expensive) can top whatever tech advantage that a 3-way brings for a cc. I think Luna would be adequate for us, we don't listen loud and the room is small at 1800 ft3 but it does have a half-open wall. Mostly HT. We're nowhere near high volume with my 5.2 Elacs.

[Bruce Watson]

This afternoon, I installed the Duo, along with S2s doing L / R duty. Ran Audyssey and didn't like what I heard. Over-rode the crazy Audessey choices (fronts are big? crossing over at 50 hz?) and then watched the rest of the film. Absolute night and day difference! Dialogue was crystal clear and the front end of my AV set up was as perfect as I could imagine.

This is my experience as well. That little Duo center punches *way* above its weight class.

[natetg57]

Yesterday afternoon, Dave and the team put a Duo together for me. I brought it home and looked at the box while my wife and I rented and watched "Downton Abbey". We fell asleep about halfway through, on my part because I couldn't make out the dialogue of the British actors (as usual). This afternoon, I installed the Duo, along with S2s doing L / R duty. Ran Audyssey and didn't like what I heard. Over-rode the crazy Audessey choices (fronts are big? crossing over at 50 hz?) and then watched the rest of the film. Absolute night and day difference! Dialogue was crystal clear and the front end of my AV set up was as perfect as I could imagine. I watched a bit of TV and listened to multi-channel music streaming from Apple TV just for fun. Everything I heard brought a smile to my face!

It's not unusual to have to override some of the Audyssey 'choices'. Standard practice would be to change everything to small and set the crossover at 60 or 80hz. I change the Audyssey setting to 'Front LR Bypass'. That way I'm getting EQ on my subs and surrounds but not on the front mains.

[rdkusher]

one thing to keep in mind with front l/r bypass.audyssey is eqing your other speakers to match the uncorrected response of your fronts.

[natetg57]

one thing to keep in mind with front l/r bypass.audyssey is eqing your other speakers to match the uncorrected response of your fronts.

That's a good point. I didn't intend to go with this setting, it just sounds better to me with two channel music and I'm a 'set it and forget it' guy.
The measured response of the left and rights, doesn't seem too far off from flat so I think I'm ok.

Eventually I'll upgrade to a newer Denon, 4400 or 4500. This would give me the options that I think I'm looking for.

[Mahawkma]

Partially thanks to this thread my Duo center arrived today. It’s replacing a Sierra 2EX that I upgraded this summer. Looking back, I should have just bit the bullet and ordered the Duo along with the upgrade for my LR. Should be able to get it in my system this weekend and hopefully it will be worth the price of admission. ��

[daddyo]

Partially thanks to this thread my Duo center arrived today. It’s replacing a Sierra 2EX that I upgraded this summer. Looking back, I should have just bit the bullet and ordered the Duo along with the upgrade for my LR. Should be able to get it in my system this weekend and hopefully it will be worth the price of admission. ��

You've lived with the Duo for about a month, what are your impressions ?

[Mahawkma]

You've lived with the Duo for about a month, what are your impressions ?

While the 2EX was no slouch I have to agree with the other posters, the Duo is an upgrade. Definitely better vocals which was the prime driver to replace the 2EX.

[JustABrah]

So if the Duo is the better option for the center channel, even over the S2 EX, then wouldn’t the Dou’s as a LCR option be better too? I’m kinda confused over this. I have the S2 and really enjoy them and at some point this year, I plan to update to the EX. My dilemma is would changing to the Duo’s as my LCR be the better option? I would prefer to keep LCR speakers the same.

For cable TV or streaming movies/shows on iTunes/Netflix I don’t have any issues with the S2 as a center as they seem to share the dialogue with all LCR speakers equally, it’s when I watch blu ray/4K movies with HD audio when it seems to focus a lot on the center and maybe I could use improvements there. Are the Duo’s now considered as the better speaker than the S2? If we compare a LCR S2 EX vs Duo’s LCR what’s the difference for both set ups?

I do have a Rythmik sub (E15HP) which I have enjoyed as much as my S2’s, just trying to figure out the best upgrade option and a bit confused about what would be the best path for my LCR Duo Luna or S2 EX. What improvements does the S2 EX center have over the S2 as a center?

Any help here Dave?

[Beave]

Just from reviewing the specs & measurements:

The Duo Luna has higher sensitivity than the S2 EX, but doesn't have the bass extension that the S2 EX has.

Also, it has symmetric dispersion in horizontal and vertical directions instead of just horizontal (this may be more important if the two speakers are each on their side, ie, horizontal).

So if one doesn't have a subwoofer, the extra bass extension of the S2 EX probably makes it the winner.

With a subwoofer, it might depend more on placement and orientation than anything.

[davef]

So if the Duo is the better option for the center channel, even over the S2 EX

This depends. The Duo center only becomes the better center channel option compared to the Sierra-2/2EX if using a subwoofer and if the Sierra-2/2EX can only be positioned horizontally. If no sub, or if the S2 center can be placed vertically - it is not the better center.


then wouldn’t the Dou’s as a LCR option be better too?

No, in all circumstances unless on-wall mounting or space constraints - the Sierra-2/2EX is the better left right speaker. Typical center speaker placement dictates major compromises in performance due to a variety of issues (reflections, dispersion, baffle compensation, bass reinforcement) and the Duo, with its symmetrical horizontal and vertical dispersion, leads to more intelligible dialogue in typical installations. That said, the Duo as LCR is fantastic - especially as an on-wall speaker, but with typical left/right placement (stands etc.) - Sierra-2/2EX is superior.




I’m kinda confused over this. I have the S2 and really enjoy them and at some point this year, I plan to update to the EX. My dilemma is would changing to the Duo’s as my LCR be the better option? I would prefer to keep LCR speakers the same.

If you want to keep the LCR all the same, I would recommend upgrading to Sierra-2EX.

Hope this helps!

[JustABrah]

This depends. The Duo center only becomes the better center channel option compared to the Sierra-2/2EX if using a subwoofer and if the Sierra-2/2EX can only be positioned horizontally. If no sub, or if the S2 center can be placed vertically - it is not the better center.



No, in all circumstances unless on-wall mounting or space constraints - the Sierra-2/2EX is the better left right speaker. Typical center speaker placement dictates major compromises in performance due to a variety of issues (reflections, dispersion, baffle compensation, bass reinforcement) and the Duo, with its symmetrical horizontal and vertical dispersion, leads to more intelligible dialogue in typical installations. That said, the Duo as LCR is fantastic - especially as an on-wall speaker, but with typical left/right placement (stands etc.) - Sierra-2/2EX is superior.





If you want to keep the LCR all the same, I would recommend upgrading to Sierra-2EX.

Hope this helps!

Thank you Dave! I’ll stay with my original plan on upgrading my S2 to the EX. I really appreciate you offering us upgrade kits, I did the upgrade from the S1 to S2 and soon to the EX, it keeps me as a customer!

[IndieGradoFan]

I have a Sierra 2 center now paired with RAAL towers. I'd love to upgrade the center to a Horizon but it won't fit my cabinet (Salamander with center shelf 19.75"W x 19.5"D x 9"H). I'm considering a Duo versus a custom built Horizon. Any thoughts? For the folks that have upgraded from Sierra 2 to Duo (w/ sub & horizontal placement), are you still happy with the upgrade after initial impressions?

[racrawford65]

I have a Sierra 2 center now paired with RAAL towers. I'd love to upgrade the center to a Horizon but it won't fit my cabinet (Salamander with center shelf 19.75"W x 19.5"D x 9"H). I'm considering a Duo versus a custom built Horizon. Any thoughts? For the folks that have upgraded from Sierra 2 to Duo (w/ sub & horizontal placement), are you still happy with the upgrade after initial impressions?

I was in the same situation a year or so ago. Horizon wouldn't fit in my cabinet or on top under my tv riser. I went with the Duo and am still very happy with the upgrade from the horizontal S2 as center channel.

[Bruce Watson]

For the folks that have upgraded from Sierra 2 to Duo (w/ sub & horizontal placement), are you still happy with the upgrade after initial impressions?

Very. I'd never go back. The Duo punches well above its weight class. Well above.

[MDinno]

Well this thread has been very surprising to me. I've been saving for a Sierra center and never even considered the Duo. Have a hard time believing it's a better center going by the specs and measurements but if you guys say so than so be it.

[djDANNY]

It’s hard to compare. All the measurements are taken with the speakers in vertical position (even the Duo despite it’s target audience being people who are looking to use it as a center channel). You’re kind of just going to be going off what people say they hear, which is a point of reference but hardly unbiased I would say. You have to try to distinguish between what is real versus what is people who want to hear something to justify their purchase. If you don’t mind paying for return shipping the best is to try both and see which one sounds better to you.

[jimb]

Well this thread has been very surprising to me. I've been saving for a Sierra center and never even considered the Duo. Have a hard time believing it's a better center going by the specs and measurements but if you guys say so than so be it.

As I recall, Dave usually recommends the Duo as a center over the S2.

[MDinno]

It’s hard to compare. All the measurements are taken with the speakers in vertical position (even the Duo despite it’s target audience being people who are looking to use it as a center channel). You’re kind of just going to be going off what people say they hear, which is a point of reference but hardly unbiased I would say. You have to try to distinguish between what is real versus what is people who want to hear something to justify their purchase. If you don’t mind paying for return shipping the best is to try both and see which one sounds better to you.

Very good point. You know there's really not much information on comparing center channels. Everybody online just review bookshelves and tower speakers and assume the center performs equally as well.

[MDinno]

As I recall, Dave usually recommends the Duo as a center over the S2.

I saw that and was surprised. I figured even the 340SE would outperform it. There's really nothing for us to go on other than they measurements that they provide here which is more than any other manufacturer. like I said in my other comment. Reviewers just test bookshelves and towers. Nobody compares center channels they just get thrown in with the bookshelf/tower review.

[Bruce Watson]

Nobody compares center channels they just get thrown in with the bookshelf/tower review.

Learn to search. Plenty of actual users have compared the Duo to the S2 and written it up in this forum. Search and ye shall find. You might even find my comments.

[djDANNY]

I saw that and was surprised. I figured even the 340SE would outperform it. There's really nothing for us to go on other than they measurements that they provide here which is more than any other manufacturer. like I said in my other comment. Reviewers just test bookshelves and towers. Nobody compares center channels they just get thrown in with the bookshelf/tower review.

That’s why I wish Dave would publish measurements of the speakers being sold with a “center channel” configuration in that actual orientation. The RAAL’s have such drastically different horizontal vs vertical dispersion characteristics that I imagine having the tweeter above or next to the woofers would make a big difference if the same crossover is used. With the appropriate measurements available you could make a pretty good guess at the sound differences. People’s subjective opinions are one point of reference but I personally have seen way too much “purchasing bias” to put too much weight into them.

[MDinno]

That’s why I wish Dave would publish measurements of the speakers being sold with a “center channel” configuration in that actual orientation. The RAAL’s have such drastically different horizontal vs vertical dispersion characteristics that I imagine having the tweeter above or next to the woofers would make a big difference if the same crossover is used. With the appropriate measurements available you could make a pretty good guess at the sound differences. People’s subjective opinions are one point of reference but I personally have seen way too much “purchasing bias” to put too much weight into them.

It's exactly what I meant. I'm all over all the audio channels on Youtube etc. It's all bookshelves and towers and never just center channels. Audioholics has some nice interesting articles on the different configurations of centers which was interesting. So the Duo is it according to everyone here. So the Duo is superior to the 340SE mains and center? Will there ever be stands for them like the 340 has?

[djDANNY]

It's exactly what I meant. I'm all over all the audio channels on Youtube etc. It's all bookshelves and towers and never just center channels. Audioholics has some nice interesting articles on the different configurations of centers which was interesting. So the Duo is it according to everyone here. So the Duo is superior to the 340SE mains and center? Will there ever be stands for them like the 340 has?

Well it looks like a new set of measurements for the Duo has become available. They’re still not done in a horizontal configuration but the measurements are shockingly different than what Ascend has posted. Maybe Dave can explain what’s going on. It doesn’t appear to be a “defective” speaker since the major issue appears to have to do with the slot port design. I’m at a loss as to why the measurements are so different than Ascend’s though. Whether you think the reviewer is biased or not, just ignore his subjective comments and look at the measurements. After all, that’s the selling point for most of us who purchased Ascend Acoustics speakers.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/ascend-sierra-luna-duo-center-main-speaker-review.17259/

[Shazb0t]

It appears that the Luna series has some issues with uneven frequency response, port resonances, and distortion.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/ascend-sierra-luna-mini-monitor-review.17181/

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/ascend-sierra-luna-duo-center-main-speaker-review.17259/

[davef]

Well it looks like a new set of measurements for the Duo has become available. They’re still not done in a horizontal configuration but the measurements are shockingly different than what Ascend has posted. Maybe Dave can explain what’s going on. It doesn’t appear to be a “defective” speaker since the major issue appears to have to do with the slot port design. I’m at a loss as to why the measurements are so different than Ascend’s though. Whether you think the reviewer is biased or not, just ignore his subjective comments and look at the measurements. After all, that’s the selling point for most of us who purchased Ascend Acoustics speakers.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/ascend-sierra-luna-duo-center-main-speaker-review.17259/

Unfortunately, at this time I am not able to definitively answer this question. I suspect it has to do with the front slot port, and how that is summing with the response of the drivers. The general shape / trend is similar to our measurements, but Amir’s measurements show a lot of port resonance which is what is creating the sharp spikes in the response.

Our measurements do not show anywhere near this level of port resonance. I mean, there is some degree of port resonance – one of the main reasons we have avoided front slot ports for 2 decades, but the Luna series was a unique and specialized design for us. Exceptionally wide horizontal dispersion, high power handling, great transients – all in a very compact cabinet. With any speaker design, there are always compromises, and in the case of Luna speakers, the design required a long but narrow height front slot port.

The only other compact speaker I was able to find in Amir’s measurements with a front slot port was Salk’s Wow1. This too showed high levels of port resonance influencing the frequency response, which also differs from Salk’s measurements of the same speakers.

One thing I found interesting is that in Amir’s 96 dB distortion measurement, which applies a 60Hz high pass filter, thus rolling off bass below 60Hz, the fundamental – which is the actual frequency response, looks much more similar to ours with less port resonance. I have never used a near field scanning system for loudspeaker measurement, this is a new technology, we use tried and true MLSSA systems, so there may be differences as to how port output is summed in the near field, resolution differences, or the NFS system might be sending a lot of low frequency information to the speaker at a high amplitude – thus exciting port resonances to a higher degree (this could explain the frequency response differences I noted in the distortion)

Keep in mind these speakers are designed to be used crossed at 80Hz with a subwoofer, thus limiting the deep bass they receive, although I am actually using a set full range in my bedroom with a slight bass boost.

What I find most interesting is that we have had tremendous success with both the Luna’s and the Duo’s with regards to satisfaction rates from owners, combined with wonderful comments on how they perform. I myself use these speakers in my bedroom. In fact, to this date – we have only had 3 pairs of Luna’s returned and 4 Duo’s. That translates to return rates of less than 1% for both speakers, which is unheard of in this industry. 4-6% is considered good. This certainly does not translate to Amir's measurements / ratings for them. It is an interesting case study at this point.

I do know that we have never had a Luna/Duo customer complain about port resonance (and I don’t mean chuffing or air noise) and I certainly don’t hear what Amir’s measurements show. So at this point, I am both perplexed and at a loss for words, I most certainly will be diving in to look deeper into this.

As always, let your ears decide…

[djDANNY]

Thanks Dave for the response. I think it’s safe to say that many (if not most) owners of Ascend products made the decision based on the published measurements. When there’s a discrepancy in measurements that puts into question a lot of things. I think a lot of people would like to see how this gets resolved.

[MDinno]

That audiosciencereview has zero credibility in my eyes. I like what Paul McGowan from PS Audio said. You can take a speaker that has the most perfect measurements and when you turn it on and listen to it it's trash and vice versa. To judge a speaker based solely on measurements is being very narrow minded and also don't forget once that speaker is in your living room all bets are off. It will measure completely differently. If you want to hear someone that tests mostly high end speakers the old fashioned way by listening check out Tharbamar on Youtube.

[Shazb0t]

That audiosciencereview has zero credibility in my eyes. I like what Paul McGowan from PS Audio said. You can take a speaker that has the most perfect measurements and when you turn it on and listen to it it's trash and vice versa. To judge a speaker based solely on measurements is being very narrow minded and also don't forget once that speaker is in your living room all bets are off. It will measure completely differently. If you want to hear someone that tests mostly high end speakers the old fashioned way by listening check out Tharbamar on Youtube.
This is the wrong mentality to bring when something is as scientifically sound and straightforward as what has been presented at ASR. I own Ascend Acoustic speakers as well, but we have to resist the urge to defend something based on brand loyalty. Quoting Paul McGowan to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific research is dubious at best.

Floyd Toole and the NRC/Harman have scientifically proven that the measurements matter. That is not really contestable. Dave also appears to be in this camp, seeing as how he attempts to make measurements available with the equipment that he has at his disposal. I hope that he can investigate and correct these issues.

[MDinno]

This is the wrong mentality to bring when something is as scientifically sound and straightforward as what has been presented at ASR. I own Ascend Acoustic speakers as well, but we have to resist the urge to defend something based on brand loyalty. Quoting Paul McGowan to dismiss peer-reviewed scientific research is dubious at best.

Floyd Toole and the NRC/Harman have scientifically proven that the measurements matter. That is not really contestable. Dave also appears to be in this camp, seeing as how he attempts to make measurements available with the equipment that he has at his disposal. I hope that he can investigate and correct these issues.

To not recommend a speaker based solely on measurements, which is what that site does, is dubious at best. It's a tool but it's not set in stone. I stand by what Paul says because there are so many factors at play when doing measurements. I'll also agree with what Gene Delasalle says at Audioholics. Many aren't audible to the human ear so it's a wash.

[Bruce Watson]

I think it’s safe to say that many (if not most) owners of Ascend products made the decision based on the published measurements.

Why would you think that?

Personally, I've never looked at "published measurements" of any audio equipment I've bought, and I'm an old guy so I've bought plenty of stuff over the decades. I've bought it all based on what I hear. I don't know anyone who professes to buy audio gear based on measurements.

So I think it's safe to say that many (if not most) owners of Ascend products made the decision base on what their own ears tell them, when using the speakers in their own rooms, being driven by their own equipment, integrated (or not) with their own subs, using their own programming (music, HT, whatever).

[djDANNY]

Why would you think that?

Personally, I've never looked at "published measurements" of any audio equipment I've bought, and I'm an old guy so I've bought plenty of stuff over the decades. I've bought it all based on what I hear. I don't know anyone who professes to buy audio gear based on measurements.

So I think it's safe to say that many (if not most) owners of Ascend products made the decision base on what their own ears tell them, when using the speakers in their own rooms, being driven by their own equipment, integrated (or not) with their own subs, using their own programming (music, HT, whatever).

To each their own. Ascend makes a big deal about how flat and neutral their speakers are (through measurements!). Go read audio forums and most of the people who are looking at the Ascend’s consider them because of how well they measure as shown on Ascend’s website. Now does that mean everyone looks at the scientific measurements and makes a purchasing decision based on that? No, but it doesn’t take much to put 2 and 2 together that Ascend specifically markets these based on them measuring well, and most owners are looking at those when choosing Ascend over other brands.

I’ve seen your posts constantly touting how the Duo “punches above its weight class”. This is just another example of the “purchasing bias” I mentioned earlier and why I don’t put too much weight into owner’s reviews anymore. I’ve just seen too many people “hear” things that aren’t true because they wanted to “hear” things that way because they spent a lot of money on the speaker. We all want to feel good about our speakers that we buy, but let’s also have some objectivity please.

I hope there’s a good explanation to the measurement discrepancy and I hope it doesn’t make a big audible difference, but I’ll always trust measurements to speak to a speaker’s potential versus an owner who is showing bias in what is “heard”.

[djDANNY]

That audiosciencereview has zero credibility in my eyes. I like what Paul McGowan from PS Audio said. You can take a speaker that has the most perfect measurements and when you turn it on and listen to it it's trash and vice versa. To judge a speaker based solely on measurements is being very narrow minded and also don't forget once that speaker is in your living room all bets are off. It will measure completely differently. If you want to hear someone that tests mostly high end speakers the old fashioned way by listening check out Tharbamar on Youtube.

Ignore the commentary in that review and ask yourself this: If Ascend posted those frequency response graphs from ASR on their website, would you have still considered buying the Duo? If yes, then go ahead and purchase. It’s your money and your decision. I just don’t know how many people would personally buy a speaker they knew didn’t measure very well, but maybe I’m wrong. I just know what I would do.

Edit: I’m glad Dave said he would look into this. I firmly believe he is trying to get the best sound out to his customers within his design requirements and if there are new measurements that brought out issues that were previously unknown, I’m confident Dave will try to make sure things are addressed. I’m not trying to bash Ascend here as I really like my Sierra-2’s.

[Shazb0t]

To not recommend a speaker based solely on measurements, which is what that site does, is dubious at best. It's a tool but it's not set in stone. I stand by what Paul says because there are so many factors at play when doing measurements. I'll also agree with what Gene Delasalle says at Audioholics. Many aren't audible to the human ear so it's a wash.

I think it's fair to not recommend a speaker where the port resonance exceeds the actual woofer response well into the midrange. That's not going to sound good no matter how much you listen to Paul McGowan wax poetic about audio magic. Obviously this isn't an audio science based forum, I don't know the leeway that I'm afforded in discussing hard evidence as to why I don't agree with what you believe, so I'll leave it at that. I encourage you to do some reading on Dr. Floyd Toole and audio research conducted at the NRC and Harman. Gene Dellasala also appears to be a major proponent of the research that we're talking about, I encourage you to read more from their website as well:

https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/understanding-loudspeaker-measurements
https://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/loudspeaker-measurements-2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OMlK7d5QM8

As an aside, to answer the OP's question, definitively go with the Horizon for a center.

[Bruce Watson]

Sorry -- didn't mean to put you into "defensive mode". I've never been the most articulate person. My bad.

What I was trying to get to (I'll try again, and probably fail again, c'est la vie) is that speaker measurements, by their nature, try to take out everything but the speaker. But real speakers don't work in a vacuum (literally, and figuratively). A real speaker's "sound" changes markedly depending in the environment you operate it in. Measurements will change based on things as small and generally ignored as relative humidity changes for example. And they will certainly change based on reflections from the listening room walls, ceiling, floor, and furnishings.

Beyond that, they will change based on what the speaker is being used for. For example, consider a "simple" recording of a solo acoustic piano. One of the things that makes humans respond like they do to piano is the rich and complex overtones. Strings vibrating, making the strings next to them vibrate in sympathy, making the sound board vibrate, and the case, and the harp.... I'm just saying the sound you get out is more than the note that's being played, and that that sound is complex.

When you play this sound through a speaker, you similarly add overtones from the speaker elements as they "push the air", the cabinet (no matter how well designed or how over built), and of course the walls, ceiling, and floor surrounding the speaker. All of this colors the sound. Sometimes strongly, sometimes faintly, but always. And sadly, not often all that linearly.

All of this to get to my point which is that pianists usually play more than one note at a time. All of these frequencies (multiple fundamentals and overtones from the strings hit by the hammers, then fundamentals and overtones from the surrounding strings and parts, etc. etc. etc. are played through the speaker at the same time. This can result in interesting effects from "beat frequencies" on up through higher degrees of artifacting. Some of this may excite some level of peaks and nulls in the resulting sound out of the speaker. Stuff that will not likely be found through even the most exhaustive testing of the speaker that can be done.

I'm just saying that real use of real speakers results in exceedingly complex responses. How you decide to deal with and account for these responses is up to you of course. But speaker response testing, whatever protocol is used, can only tell you at most half the story.

[djDANNY]

I don’t think anyone disagrees that the entire package (speaker and room) is what ultimately determines the sound you hear. But most are of the philosophy that you want to start with as good of a measuring speaker as possible to give you the best chance of getting a good in room response. Maybe you get lucky and your particular room through all the reflections and what not makes a bad measuring speaker sound good? I suppose that’s theoretically possible. But I’m not a betting man so I’ll stick with a speaker that measures well that I can try to make work in my room.

This also backs up my point about not putting too much into personal reviews. There’s no guarantee the speaker will sound the same in your room vs my room. I take into account peoples subjective opinions but if there is direct objective, scientific evidence stating something contradictory, I put more weight into the objective. Like I said, people are biased. Even Amir’s commentary sounds biased. But objective measurements are a good standard by which to judge a speaker as well as reviewer bias. And I’ll stand by that statement.

If you really enjoy your Duo’s, don’t let me (or objective measurements) stop you from that.

[MDinno]

There's nothing I can say here. Hey, Ascend speakers suck then. Go buy the Pioneer. I'm SURE you would be able to tell it apart from the Sierra speaker which obviously sucks. Oh look, the KEF LS50 doesn't pass the Amir test also. What a joke. Find me someone that would agree with that one. The Pioneer is better than that one also I guess. I'm sure you would be able to tell that difference the second you fire them up. Guess what. You can test those speakers in a cave and the Ascend and KEF would sound better than the Pioneers. NHT SB2. I have those speakers and they sound great but according to the great Amir they arena good. What a hack. There is not one respectable person in this field that would agree with any of Amir's assessments. Have a nice day. For the rest, check out Tharbamar on youtube. He tested the Ascend Towers and the Sierra's. Tests them by actually listening to them.

[richard12511]

There's nothing I can say here. Hey, Ascend speakers suck then. Go buy the Pioneer. I'm SURE you would be able to tell it apart from the Sierra speaker which obviously sucks. Oh look, the KEF LS50 doesn't pass the Amir test also. What a joke. Find me someone that would agree with that one. The Pioneer is better than that one also I guess. I'm sure you would be able to tell that difference the second you fire them up. Guess what. You can test those speakers in a cave and the Ascend and KEF would sound better than the Pioneers. NHT SB2. I have those speakers and they sound great but according to the great Amir they arena good. What a hack. There is not one respectable person in this field that would agree with any of Amir's assessments. Have a nice day. For the rest, check out Tharbamar on youtube. He tested the Ascend Towers and the Sierra's. Tests them by actually listening to them.

I feel like you're sensationalizing this more than it needs to be. Just because 1 Ascend speaker measured poorly doesn't mean people are saying that all Ascend speakers suck. The Sierra measured decently, and the Horizon measured great(top 10%). I would guess that the 2EX and Sierra Towers would measure at least as well as the Horizon(ie excellent).

[Shazb0t]

There's nothing I can say here. Hey, Ascend speakers suck then. Go buy the Pioneer. I'm SURE you would be able to tell it apart from the Sierra speaker which obviously sucks. Oh look, the KEF LS50 doesn't pass the Amir test also. What a joke. Find me someone that would agree with that one. The Pioneer is better than that one also I guess. I'm sure you would be able to tell that difference the second you fire them up. Guess what. You can test those speakers in a cave and the Ascend and KEF would sound better than the Pioneers. NHT SB2. I have those speakers and they sound great but according to the great Amir they arena good. What a hack. There is not one respectable person in this field that would agree with any of Amir's assessments. Have a nice day. For the rest, check out Tharbamar on youtube. He tested the Ascend Towers and the Sierra's. Tests them by actually listening to them.


I feel like you're sensationalizing this more than it needs to be. Just because 1 Ascend speaker measured poorly doesn't mean people are saying that all Ascend speakers suck. The Sierra measured decently, and the Horizon measured great(top 10%). I would guess that the 2EX and Sierra Towers would measure at least as well as the Horizon(ie excellent).
Agreed. It must be interesting knocking down all those strawmen! You've clearly personalized what was an honest attempt at discussion of legitimate measurement data to the point of it being difficult to discuss with you. The peer-reviewed audio science speaks for itself.

The Sierra Towers and Horizon appear to be fine speakers. The Sierra-2 has some distortion spikes with the smaller ribbons in a 2-way design, but appears to be competitive and comparable to similar designs. The Lunas have some issues which should be audible that need to be investigated further. No hurt feelings.

[djDANNY]

There's nothing I can say here. Hey, Ascend speakers suck then. Go buy the Pioneer. I'm SURE you would be able to tell it apart from the Sierra speaker which obviously sucks. Oh look, the KEF LS50 doesn't pass the Amir test also. What a joke. Find me someone that would agree with that one. The Pioneer is better than that one also I guess. I'm sure you would be able to tell that difference the second you fire them up. Guess what. You can test those speakers in a cave and the Ascend and KEF would sound better than the Pioneers. NHT SB2. I have those speakers and they sound great but according to the great Amir they arena good. What a hack. There is not one respectable person in this field that would agree with any of Amir's assessments. Have a nice day. For the rest, check out Tharbamar on youtube. He tested the Ascend Towers and the Sierra's. Tests them by actually listening to them.

Sounds like you should just buy the Duo. No one said to read or agree with Amir’s comments. Everyone is focusing on the measurements but you clearly do not care about how a speaker measures. In that case, just buy the Duo. Based on most personal reviews they sound great.

[RMW]

There is not one respectable person in this field that would agree with any of Amir's assessments. Have a nice day. For the rest, check out Tharbamar on youtube. He tested the Ascend Towers and the Sierra's. Tests them by actually listening to them.

This seems to be a bit of an unfair statement. If you don’t factor measurements into your decision making, that’s fine. Everyone has their own personal reasons for making a purchase. But you’re making comments without being informed. Many, many manufacturers and engineers visit and contribute to ASR, including Floyd Toole. Do you really not consider him to be respectable?

[natetg57]

Sounds like you should just buy the Duo. No one said to read or agree with Amir’s comments. Everyone is focusing on the measurements but you clearly do not care about how a speaker measures. In that case, just buy the Duo. Based on most personal reviews they sound great.

To say the Duo measures poorly is only part of the story. The Duo measures great according to Dave's measurements and poorly according to Amir. Why do so many put so much more stock into Amir's measurement? Just because it's independent? Are there any other measurements that back up his? I have the Luna's as surrounds and they sound amazing. It is a seamless transition from my 2EX front three. I also compared them side by side as fronts and enjoyed listening to them very much.

[djDANNY]

To say the Duo measures poorly is only part of the story. The Duo measures great according to Dave's measurements and poorly according to Amir. Why do so many put so much more stock into Amir's measurement? Just because it's independent? Are there any other measurements that back up his? I have the Luna's as surrounds and they sound amazing. It is a seamless transition from my 2EX front three. I also compared them side by side as fronts and enjoyed listening to them very much.

Please go back and read the entire thread for the proper context. No one here said Amir’s are right and Dave’s is wrong. We’re asking and Dave has responded that he will look into the differences. Most of us want to find out why there is a discrepancy so we can make an informed decision about the speaker. I don’t know about you but if I see a conflicting measurement that shows something doesn’t measure as well as originally shown, it gives me pause and I’m not going to consider that speaker until things are cleared up.

The beef a lot of us have is with people saying the measurements don’t matter... just listen to people’s personal reviews despite the fact that there are so many bias’es that affect them.

For surrounds the Luna’s are probably fine even if they measure the way Amir’s measurements show. I don’t have matching surrounds at all with my Sierra-2’s LCR and not once have I ever noticed them sounding out of place. I don’t know who realistically pays attention to the surrounds that closely to notice.

[natetg57]

Please go back and read the entire thread for the proper context. No one here said Amir’s are right and Dave’s is wrong. We’re asking and Dave has responded that he will look into the differences. Most of us want to find out why there is a discrepancy so we can make an informed decision about the speaker. I don’t know about you but if I see a conflicting measurement that shows something doesn’t measure as well as originally shown, it gives me pause and I’m not going to consider that speaker until things are cleared up.

The beef a lot of us have is with people saying the measurements don’t matter... just listen to people’s personal reviews despite the fact that there are so many bias’es that affect them.

For surrounds the Luna’s are probably fine even if they measure the way Amir’s measurements show. I don’t have matching surrounds at all with my Sierra-2’s LCR and not once have I ever noticed them sounding out of place. I don’t know who realistically pays attention to the surrounds that closely to notice.

I did read this thread and the whole audio science thread as well. My question probably pertains to those on the audio science thread that seem to feel that Amir's test is the final word.
I agree that measurements matter, especially purchasing a speaker online. I poured over measurements before deciding on Sierra-1s over speakers from SVS, Aperion and others. I'm picky about my surrounds blending because of the surround music that I listen to. Many sounds pan from the front to back or even image somewhere in between.

[RMW]

We’re asking and Dave has responded that he will look into the differences. Most of us want to find out why there is a discrepancy so we can make an informed decision about the speaker.


Agreed, and I think Dave had a good and fair initial response. Personally, I bought my first pair of Ascends in 2007 and have upgraded several times since then. Having spoken with Dave and Dena a few times over the years, I’ve always found them to be honest and sincere. I’m sure Dave was as surprised and puzzled as us that the Luna’s measured this way.

[Beave]

Keep in mind that the Klippel NFS gives *VERY* high resolution measurements, much more so that what we're all used to seeing from Ascend, from Stereophile, from Sound & Vision, etc.

It's like looking at an attractive face with a magnifying glass. You're gonna find flaws, no matter how attractive the face.

The resonances are always unwanted, but in this case they are very narrow (high Q). Their audibility isn't clear, and will be program dependent if audible at all.

As to the trustworthiness of Amir's Klippel measurements, he has measured a few speakers that were also measured by Harman, by Stereophile, and/or by the NRC (anechoic chamber), all with good consistency. That says that his Klippel results are more likely dependable.

[richard12511]

To say the Duo measures poorly is only part of the story. The Duo measures great according to Dave's measurements and poorly according to Amir. Why do so many put so much more stock into Amir's measurement? Just because it's independent? Are there any other measurements that back up his? I have the Luna's as surrounds and they sound amazing. It is a seamless transition from my 2EX front three. I also compared them side by side as fronts and enjoyed listening to them very much.

Amir's measurements are higher resolution and more "true" than Ascend's measurements, as he uses the Klippel NFS, which is state of the art right now. Harman uses one now too, even though they have an anechoic chamber. Also there are indeed quite a few independent anechoic measurements that match his measurements very well. I wrote this in another thread for someone who had similar questions about the NFS

"He attaches the spin file that the NFS generates at the bottom of the review, so you can download and take a look for yourself. Others on the site, like MZKM, pierre, edechamps and others download that file and use it to generate further measurements. One time edechamps(I believe) found an error with the JBL 305p, but that was with the very first review and was due to user error(learning curve).

Many of the reviews are of speakers that have been tested anechoically(or pseudo) by third parties. Examples include Neumann, @bikinpunk, napilopez, Kali, Harman, NRS, KEF, Genelec and Kieth Peterson. The fact that all those independent sources agree on the common speakers they've measured is strong evidence that Amir isn't fudging the measurements(unless you think all those people/companies are in cahoots to make only certain speakers look bad ;)). Go look at Erin's measurement of the S400 and compare it to the NFS measurement. Very similar, which really shows you how good Erin is, as he's doing it without a $100,000 machine.

Amir's a smart guy; and he knows he couldn't get away with fudging the measurements, as his reputation relies on them being correct. Any of those other parties would call him out as soon as he tried posting a clearly hand altered file. Actually, we've already seen such a case. Neumann and Kali called him out when he posted NFS spin data that didn't match their own internal data. Go read those threads to understand more, but they went back and forth until the explanation for the discrepancy was uncovered. In Neumann's case it was because Amir's garage was a different temperature than the Neumann anechoic chamber, and that temperature difference was enough to cause a tiny discrepancy in the data. In Kali's case, it turns out the tweeter on the sample that Amir measured was defective."

Hopefully that helps you trust the NFS more. Amir's measurements are correct. The question is why Dave's aren't. That's probably not a good way to put it, as Dave's measurements are correct, too, they're just lower resolution. You can see the same sorta batman curve if you look closely, but it's more smoothed. My guess is it's just the measurement system he uses. It's an older system, and seems to be much lower resolution. Erin(who does great independent high resolution anechoic measurements) had a good theory on ASR as why Dave's measurements may have smoothed out the port blips. Would love to see Dave reply over there to Erin's comment.

As for why you enjoy them? That's another matter. I own 10+ different speakers, and I enjoy them all to some degree, though not all of them measure well.

[richard12511]

FWIW, I'm still very interested in purchasing the Sierra 2EX. Would anyone here be willing to send one of those to Amir? My guess is it would measure really well(based on the Horizon review), but it would be good to see confirmation.

I'm very curious how it would compare to my Revel M105. I know at least 2 people who've owned both the M105 and 2EX at the same time, and both preferred the 2EX.

[curtis]

FWIW, I'm still very interested in purchasing the Sierra 2EX. Would anyone here be willing to send one of those to Amir? My guess is it would measure really well(based on the Horizon review), but it would be good to see confirmation.

I'm very curious how it would compare to my Revel M105. I know at least 2 people who've owned both the M105 and 2EX at the same time, and both preferred the 2EX.
Has Amir measured the M105? If not, why not send him yours?

[Beave]

Yes, Amir measured the M105 and the M106.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/revel-m105-bookshelf-speaker-review.14745/

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/revel-m106-bookshelf-speaker-review.14363/

[Shazb0t]

As has been stated, Amir is using a Klippel Near Field Scanner (NFS). This is a state of the art measurement system designed specifically to perform these types of speaker measurements. His results have been correlated with other manufacturers and test methods enough times for it to be a fair assumption to take them at face value. Obviously though, if someone can show proof of an error then it will be investigated. Everyone is in this to get to the truth.

https://www.klippel.de/products/rd-system/modules/nfs-near-field-scanner.html

[davef]

Keeping things civil here.. I have been engineering loudspeakers professionally for 37 years now. I remember well when we invested in the best test / measurement gear back then, basically a higher resolution third octave spectrum analyzer. Speakers made prior to this were often done by ear, but certainly those designed by using the spectrum analyzer measured better.

However, I don’t recall the enjoyment level from customers changing very much.

Then came swept sine wave measurement systems, a rather large advancement and still often used today. We were able to design speakers that “measured” even better – but again, no real change in customer enjoyment.

Then came maximum length sequence based testing gear – this was a real game changer, much higher resolution and the ability to “gate” out reflections from the measurement such that we now had quasi-anechoic measurements. I still remember learning how to use these types of systems and literally being in shock at all the “flaws” that were now revealed. I mean, how could anyone actually enjoy those other speakers? ;)

Still, no real change in overall enjoyment from customers. However, a lot of the passion towards the hobby started to die out, speakers started to sound too similar to one another.

MLS based systems are still widely used today, but now we have yet the next advancement in loudspeaker testing, the Klippel NFS, with even higher resolution. Will consumers actually enjoy speakers more now? I doubt it, in fact – I suspect even more of that passion will die off..

This in combination with preference ratings based on a measurement standard created by a loudspeaker company, such that the further it veers from that standard – the “worse” that speaker is, is actually quite scary to me. Scary because of how boring this industry will become when every loudspeaker design attempts to adhere to this standard as closely as possible simply out of fear of not measuring as “good” as the other speaker. Everything will soon start sounding the same…

Take for example our CBM-170… Measured and reviewed by so many professionals and considered a reference, it was never designed to meet Harman’s directivity standards, thus it basically got thrashed at that site. Now – all of a sudden, that crowd says it’s no good. It was a great speaker before, but now it isn’t? It is still the same speaker and we still sell a ton of them.

With both our Luna and Duo speakers, they sounded terrific before and we have enjoyed tremendous customer satisfaction rates on these, but all of a sudden, now they are no good. Indeed, the NFS system has revealed port resonances which appear to be influencing the response measurements. These resonances are at a much lower level in our measurements and I will be examining this closely by using several methods. I have an idea as to what might be going on, but it will take me time.

Luna and Duo are very compact speakers with narrow and long front slot ports, I hate slot ports, but these designs required this option. Do not confuse this with Sierra-1/Sierra-2/EX or any of our designs that use a port tube, such an issue does not exist. And the Horizon was already measured by Amir and this issue did not show up (so odd that we are such a small company yet he has measured more of our speakers than any other company, I can’t make sense of this)

It really is like taking a magnifying glass to Halle Berry’s face, zoom in enough – and well, she just won’t be nearly as attractive (perhaps I am revealing my age too much as she was the first to come to mind) Will the NFS measurements lead to a better measuring Luna and Duo, certainly – will they actually sound better or will anyone actually hear a difference, I honestly cannot answer that.

At some point, perhaps in a decade or 2, new advancements in audio measurement gear will be out there and speakers that measured great with the NFS will now reveal a whole new set of flaws… At some point, it just becomes a bit ridiculous…

If you are considering the Luna’s or Duo’s and have concerns, please feel free to send me an email. I am not able to keep up on the various forums right now, nor do I plan to.

I am under tremendous stress these last few days with concerns about the election here in California, more specifically – proposition 15, the passage of which will even further devastate small businesses here in CA. It does looks like we beat this by only about 1%, but apparently there are still about a million uncounted mail-in ballots and this concerns me greatly, especially when our own Governor and Zuckerberg are so heavily backing this obvious massive money grab.

Please, let’s keep it civil and respectful and if you have actual questions or concerns, please email me.

[djDANNY]

The resonances are always unwanted, but in this case they are very narrow (high Q). Their audibility isn't clear, and will be program dependent if audible at all.


What’s the frequency band where “high Q” is audible? The spikes look narrow but because they’re higher up in the frequency spectrum, they cover several hundred hz as the x-axis is displayed logarithmically? So narrow spike at low frequencies might cover a 5hz range if it’s in the 0-100hz part of the graph, but what appears to be a narrow spike at 600hz would actually cover maybe a 100hz range.

My question is do we hear based on what it looks like on the logarithmic scale or on a linear scale?

[Beave]

Dr. Toole's books discuss audibility of resonances or at least refer to papers published by others that discuss the audibility of resonances. It's probably best if you look into that instead of what I'd say.

I haven't read the book or the original source, but I've read a summary from Dr. Toole - and my personal experience doesn't quite match what the published papers say.

Basically, they concluded that broad, low Q resonances are audible even when they're low in amplitude, but narrow, high Q resonances need to have high amplitude in order to be audible.

My beef with that conclusion is that resonance audibility is also program dependent. I used to own a set of speakers with a narrow, high Q resonance (from an insufficiently lowpass filtered metal woofer). The resonance wasn't audible at all on a lot of material. But when certain material energized it, it was very audible.

[Beave]

As to why ASR has measured so many Ascend speakers, much of what he measures is not his selection but what people are requesting and even sending in to him for measurement. So I think it speaks to an interest from his readers in Ascend speakers, maybe because they're popular in online discussions, maybe because several of his readers own them, or maybe because Ascend is one of the few companies to post any measurements at all, so people want to see how the measurements compare with each other.

[Shazb0t]

preference ratings based on a measurement standard created by a loudspeaker company, such that the further it veers from that standard – the “worse” that speaker is, is actually quite scary to me. Scary because of how boring this industry will become when every loudspeaker design attempts to adhere to this standard as closely as possible simply out of fear of not measuring as “good” as the other speaker. Everything will soon start sounding the same…
The Olive preference score is not an official part of the measurement suite being performed at ASR. It is an experiment being run by forum members independently as a means to test the theory with a larger sample size. It shouldn't be conflated with the effort to encourage more manufacturers to share and care about speaker measurements and audio science.



Indeed, the NFS system has revealed port resonances which appear to be influencing the response measurements. These resonances are at a much lower level in our measurements and I will be examining this closely by using several methods. I have an idea as to what might be going on, but it will take me time.
I'm glad that you're using this as an opportunity to investigate the issue as opposed to outright denial. I believe that many of your customers (myself included) do consider Ascend due to the fact that you do seem to support audio science and post the measurements for your speakers. I hope that you continue to support this effort moving forward. I do get a little leery when I see the parts of your posts that are suggesting doubt in audio science citing customer testimonials or years of experience in the industry. It can be a slippery slope.



Luna and Duo are very compact speakers with narrow and long front slot ports, I hate slot ports, but these designs required this option. Do not confuse this with Sierra-1/Sierra-2/EX or any of our designs that use a port tube, such an issue does not exist. And the Horizon was already measured by Amir and this issue did not show up (so odd that we are such a small company yet he has measured more of our speakers than any other company, I can’t make sense of this)
ASR reviews the speakers that forum members send to Amir and/or request reviews of. The fact that Ascend has quite a few speakers reviewed should lend even more credence to the theory that your customer base does care about the measurements and trusts the peer-reviewed science which correlates these measurements to listening preferences.



Please, let’s keep it civil and respectful and if you have actual questions or concerns, please email me.
This is a great attitude and example to continue these discussions. I really appreciate you taking the time to respond on the forums!

[djDANNY]

Dr. Toole's books discuss audibility of resonances or at least refer to papers published by others that discuss the audibility of resonances. It's probably best if you look into that instead of what I'd say.

I haven't read the book or the original source, but I've read a summary from Dr. Toole - and my personal experience doesn't quite match what the published papers say.

Basically, they concluded that broad, low Q resonances are audible even when they're low in amplitude, but narrow, high Q resonances need to have high amplitude in order to be audible.

My beef with that conclusion is that resonance audibility is also program dependent. I used to own a set of speakers with a narrow, high Q resonance (from an insufficiently lowpass filtered metal woofer). The resonance wasn't audible at all on a lot of material. But when certain material energized it, it was very audible.

I guess my question was more what is considered a high Q peak (or dip)? Using a logarithmic scaling of the frequency (as is in most frequency response graphs including the one at ASR), two spikes that visually look identical in shape (Q) would actually cover a vastly different range of frequencies depending on where it is located.

As an example, a high Q peak at 100hz may cover 95-105hz (a 10hz range). A similar looking high Q peak at 1,000 hz may cover 900-1100 hz (a 200hz range). And a similar looking high Q peak at 10,000hz May cover 9,500-10,500hz (a 1000hz range). So even though the Q looks the same visually on the logarithmic frequency scale graph, would the high Q at 100hz be less offensive than a similar looking high Q at 10,000hz? I know we hear different frequencies differently but those numbers were meant just to be examples.

[Beave]

Are you trying to make me remember math and EE from 30 years ago? ;)

Q factor is defined as width over center frequency (if I remember right). So a 10Hz wide bump at 100Hz, a 100Hz wide bump at 1kHz, and a 1kHz wide bump at 10kHz all have the same Q.

As to which one is more audible, that gets complicated fast.

The one at 100 Hz could be energized by a lot of musical content, but it could also be swamped by the standing-wave based room resonances that occur in just about all listening rooms. So it would probably be much more audible in an anechoic chamber than in a real room. It could be audible in real rooms if you quickly switched back and forth with a speaker that has it and one that doesn't.

The one at 1kHz might be audible on some content but not all of the time. If it occurs at the right frequency and is narrow enough, it could fall 'between the cracks' of musical content and hardly ever get energized. But if it's wide enough, something will energize it some of the time at least.

The one at 10kHz might just add a touch of brilliance to some recordings and otherwise not be heard. But younger people with good hearing might notice an occasional high-pitched ringing going on with some content.

As I said, it gets complicated and is hard to generalize. There are probably references in Dr Toole's books that lead you to some papers on the subject if you want to read more scientific, controlled test results.

[Beave]

Here's a link to one of Toole's papers on resonances:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjo9JHL1OrsAhUTip4KHR-ZDccQFjAAegQIAhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.audiosciencereview.com%2Ffor um%2Findex.php%3Fattachments%2Ftoole-modification-of-timbre-by-resonance-pdf.67441%2F&usg=AOvVaw1uBGvDhk470ErBBsHHHrpi

I haven't read it, as I wrote above, but I've read some forum posts where Dr. Toole discussed the paper a few years ago.

[MDinno]

DaveF I got your back with everything you said. The Sierra 2 is the best bookshelf I've heard and I've heard a few in my day. It's like you said all of a sudden a speaker that had gotten nothing but great reviews by everybody is no good. I'm still waiting to hear what other respectable reviewer said that the KEF LS50 is not a speaker to be recommended. There's a bunch more respectable speakers that weren't recommended that I won't even waste my time trying to look them up. That right there he should lose all credibility. BTW, we got the same thing going on here in NJ as California with this radical Leftist Governor shutting down all private businesses with the Covid BS. Well we see now what the agenda was. Time to move to a red state where some semblance of the U.S. still exists.

[Shazb0t]

DaveF I got your back with everything you said. The Sierra 2 is the best bookshelf I've heard and I've heard a few in my day. It's like you said all of a sudden a speaker that had gotten nothing but great reviews by everybody is no good. I'm still waiting to hear what other respectable reviewer said that the KEF LS50 is not a speaker to be recommended. There's a bunch more respectable speakers that weren't recommended that I won't even waste my time trying to look them up. That right there he should lose all credibility. BTW, we got the same thing going on here in NJ as California with this radical Leftist Governor shutting down all private businesses with the Covid BS. Well we see now what the agenda was. Time to move to a red state where some semblance of the U.S. still exists.
You really should look into something before firing off half cocked! The Sierra-2 review wasn't negative, neither was the LS50. The whole point of what ASR is doing is to find out the true anechoic measurements of a speaker and how it's sound field will be reflected in a room. That isn't subjective! There is real value in knowing that information. Infinitely more so than a random guy's sighted subjective opinion.

[MDinno]

You really should look into something before firing off half cocked! The Sierra-2 review wasn't negative, neither was the LS50. The whole point of what ASR is doing is to find out the true anechoic measurements of a speaker and how it's sound field will be reflected in a room. That isn't subjective! There is real value in knowing that information. Infinitely more so than a random guy's sighted subjective opinion.

I'll say it again. To not recommend a speaker based completely on just analytics is not only half cooked but just flat out wrong. I'll take my own opinion on how a speaker sounds, or someone with more experience than myself, than some analytic who may have an agenda here. Still waiting for any legitimate reviewer to back Amir's claim that these speakers are not to be recommended. What a joke.

[Shazb0t]

I'll say it again. To not recommend a speaker based completely on just analytics is not only half cooked but just flat out wrong. I'll take my own opinion on how a speaker sounds, or someone with more experience than myself, than some analytic who may have an agenda here. Still waiting for any legitimate reviewer to back Amir's claim that these speakers are not to be recommended. What a joke.

There doesn't seem to be much point in discussing this with you as you don't seem willing to expand your understanding of the subject. You're obviously entitled to your own opinion. I would just encourage you to do some reading of the peer-reviewed science that delves into listener preference and how audio signals are generated and measured. Then your opinion could be grounded in facts instead of subjective hand waving.

For clarity, if you can't prove your point by citing some sort of accepted audio study and insist on calling actual published peer-reviewed science a "joke" while also countering with reliance on "legitimate reviewers" then you don't actually have a point.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/understanding-how-the-klippel-nfs-works.13139/

[MDinno]

There doesn't seem to be much point in discussing this with you as you don't seem willing to expand your understanding of the subject. You're obviously entitled to your own opinion. I would just encourage you to do some reading of the peer-reviewed science that delves into listener preference and how audio signals are generated and measured. Then your opinion could be grounded in facts instead of subjective hand waving.

For clarity, if you can't prove your point by citing some sort of accepted audio study and insist on calling actual published peer-reviewed science a "joke" while also countering with reliance on "legitimate reviewers" then you don't actually have a point.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/understanding-how-the-klippel-nfs-works.13139/

So your Amir has not recommended speakers simply because they are not efficient. Tell me again how this makes any sense. With speakers it's all about compromises. There's no such thing as a perfect speaker. You can take one that measures perfectly and once it's in your room it all gets thrown out the window and it sounds like crap. It may sound like crap anyway I could care less what it measures. How does this logic not get through?!? Now in terms of sensitivity. If a speaker has poor sensitivity AND has excellent ability to take gobs of power with low distortion then you may have an excellent speaker dynamically. Everything is compromises. Amir doesn't understand that and neither do many of the commentators here. So many variables the analytics only play a small part because it all matters what kind of sound you prefer. Maybe someone likes speakers that are bright for example. Hey good luck with your analytics. At least you can order a speaker online based on just analytics and not having to listen to it.

[pgd]

So your Amir has not recommended speakers simply because they are not efficient. Tell me again how this makes any sense. With speakers it's all about compromises. There's no such thing as a perfect speaker. You can take one that measures perfectly and once it's in your room it all gets thrown out the window and it sounds like crap. It may sound like crap anyway I could care less what it measures. How does this logic not get through?!? Now in terms of sensitivity. If a speaker has poor sensitivity AND has excellent ability to take gobs of power with low distortion then you may have an excellent speaker dynamically. Everything is compromises. Amir doesn't understand that and neither do many of the commentators here. So many variables the analytics only play a small part because it all matters what kind of sound you prefer. Maybe someone likes speakers that are bright for example. Hey good luck with your analytics. At least you can order a speaker online based on just analytics and not having to listen to it.

He actually gave the Luna a shrugging review and said:
"Despite being very small, the Luna seems well built. Alas, poor port response wreaks havoc on the bass response. And elevated tweeter response makes the overall response too bright. Directivity is generally good so EQ seems to work well. Power handling is excellent due to not attempting to change the laws of physics and generate more bass than it is capable of."

That seems pretty balanced. The entire review can be summed up as, the port design is unacceptable and not reflected in marketing materials. If the port wasn't meant to be used (always use a sub), then don't include the port.

[Shazb0t]

So your Amir has not recommended speakers simply because they are not efficient. Tell me again how this makes any sense. With speakers it's all about compromises. There's no such thing as a perfect speaker. You can take one that measures perfectly and once it's in your room it all gets thrown out the window and it sounds like crap. It may sound like crap anyway I could care less what it measures. How does this logic not get through?!? Now in terms of sensitivity. If a speaker has poor sensitivity AND has excellent ability to take gobs of power with low distortion then you may have an excellent speaker dynamically. Everything is compromises. Amir doesn't understand that and neither do many of the commentators here. So many variables the analytics only play a small part because it all matters what kind of sound you prefer. Maybe someone likes speakers that are bright for example. Hey good luck with your analytics. At least you can order a speaker online based on just analytics and not having to listen to it.

Again, you're doing a lot of hand waving and throwing a buch of stuff out there to see what sticks without any underlying merit.

The entire concept of acquiring anechoic measurements of a speaker is to know how a speaker performs without the room influence. From that starting point you can calculate the sound field and reflections from the room to determine the actual frequency repsonse at the listening position. You want a speaker that measures flat anechoically and which has good directivity (controlled dispersion) so that any EQ you perform on the speaker (to combat specific room anomalies, or to just change the frequency response to your preference) will have the same frequency response affect in the reflected sound. This is all published peer-reviewed science. It's not my or "my Amir's" opinion. That is what the Klippel NFS is designed to do! It is why speaker designers use anechoic measurements as the standard. I presume it is why Dave F. performs, posts, and utilizes measurements and dispersion characteristics in his design process of Ascend speakers.

Ancillary to that it has also been proven through controlled listening studies the frequency response (sound) that the majority of people prefer. But even if you don't believe in controlled scientific studies, you still want a speaker that has flat response and good directivity as a starting point so that you may EQ it to whatever desired response YOU do prefer. There is no magic to this!

Please do some reading on Dr. Floyd Toole's work and the controlled audio research performed by the NRC and Harman. It is very interesting and will give you a better understanding of what's actually going on with speakers than what you will be able to learn from "legitimate reviewers" impressions on YouTube.

[curtis]

Yes, Amir measured the M105 and the M106.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/revel-m105-bookshelf-speaker-review.14745/

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/revel-m106-bookshelf-speaker-review.14363/
Thanks Beave!!

[pgd]

Keeping things civil here.. I have been engineering loudspeakers professionally for 37 years now. I remember well when we invested in the best test / measurement gear back then, basically a higher resolution third octave spectrum analyzer. Speakers made prior to this were often done by ear, but certainly those designed by using the spectrum analyzer measured better.

However, I don’t recall the enjoyment level from customers changing very much.

Then came swept sine wave measurement systems, a rather large advancement and still often used today. We were able to design speakers that “measured” even better – but again, no real change in customer enjoyment.

Then came maximum length sequence based testing gear – this was a real game changer, much higher resolution and the ability to “gate” out reflections from the measurement such that we now had quasi-anechoic measurements. I still remember learning how to use these types of systems and literally being in shock at all the “flaws” that were now revealed. I mean, how could anyone actually enjoy those other speakers? ;)

Still, no real change in overall enjoyment from customers. However, a lot of the passion towards the hobby started to die out, speakers started to sound too similar to one another.

MLS based systems are still widely used today, but now we have yet the next advancement in loudspeaker testing, the Klippel NFS, with even higher resolution. Will consumers actually enjoy speakers more now? I doubt it, in fact – I suspect even more of that passion will die off..

Well as the owner of the speakers in this review I don't really agree. The reasons you don't hear bad feedback can be explained away.

I thought the speakers sounded good enough in my living room (some occasional irritating sounds but I am quite sensitive to noise), but always used them with a sub. Quarantine hits and I decide to use them on my desk. 30 minutes in my ears hurt and I keep getting distracted from work by things that sound wrong to me. This kicks off months of purchasing and researching audio equipment with me treating my speakers as the only constants since they're the only thing I have actual data for. I don't know audio that well but I am an engineer, so I set out to solve what's wrong with my audio system.

Long story short sending them in for review was my last resort after huge amounts of time and money wasted, and an angry wife. Even after sending them in I fully expected them to measure fine and this stuff to be in my head because I fell for a logical fallacy, argument from authority. But apparently the authority had decided his ways were good enough for everyone :eek: The only thing that's changed is now the public can point out flaws that would have been chalked up as subjective preference before.

Funny thing is I don't even care about audio quality that much, I just wanted it to not be irritating.

[pgd]

Oh and I fully intend to keep the Lunas in the HT setup now that I understand they are behaving as they should. I still think they sound good for that, and they look great.

[Mag_Neato]

Well as the owner of the speakers in this review I don't really agree. The reasons you don't hear bad feedback can be explained away.

I thought the speakers sounded good enough in my living room (some occasional irritating sounds but I am quite sensitive to noise), but always used them with a sub. Quarantine hits and I decide to use them on my desk. 30 minutes in my ears hurt and I keep getting distracted from work by things that sound wrong to me. This kicks off months of purchasing and researching audio equipment with me treating my speakers as the only constants since they're the only thing I have actual data for. I don't know audio that well but I am an engineer, so I set out to solve what's wrong with my audio system.

Long story short sending them in for review was my last resort after huge amounts of time and money wasted, and an angry wife. Even after sending them in I fully expected them to measure fine and this stuff to be in my head because I fell for a logical fallacy, argument from authority. But apparently the authority had decided his ways were good enough for everyone :eek: The only thing that's changed is now the public can point out flaws that would have been chalked up as subjective preference before.

Funny thing is I don't even care about audio quality that much, I just wanted it to not be irritating.

Shots fired.

And apparently, shots cancelled!

[djDANNY]

Oh and I fully intend to keep the Lunas in the HT setup now that I understand they are behaving as they should. I still think they sound good for that, and they look great.

Well I for one thank you for sending in your speakers to get tested. While others may not care for actual measures data, it was very helpful for me to see and helps me decide what kind of future upgrades to consider.

[pgd]

Are you trying to make me remember math and EE from 30 years ago? ;)

Q factor is defined as width over center frequency (if I remember right). So a 10Hz wide bump at 100Hz, a 100Hz wide bump at 1kHz, and a 1kHz wide bump at 10kHz all have the same Q.

As to which one is more audible, that gets complicated fast.

The one at 100 Hz could be energized by a lot of musical content, but it could also be swamped by the standing-wave based room resonances that occur in just about all listening rooms. So it would probably be much more audible in an anechoic chamber than in a real room. It could be audible in real rooms if you quickly switched back and forth with a speaker that has it and one that doesn't.

The one at 1kHz might be audible on some content but not all of the time. If it occurs at the right frequency and is narrow enough, it could fall 'between the cracks' of musical content and hardly ever get energized. But if it's wide enough, something will energize it some of the time at least.

The one at 10kHz might just add a touch of brilliance to some recordings and otherwise not be heard. But younger people with good hearing might notice an occasional high-pitched ringing going on with some content.

As I said, it gets complicated and is hard to generalize. There are probably references in Dr Toole's books that lead you to some papers on the subject if you want to read more scientific, controlled test results.

To correlate with my experience on these speakers, I'd hear things that sounded like brief hisses while people were talking maybe? And then the occasional kinda scratchy my ears kind kinda hurt on higher notes.

I just played a 10 khz note through my KH80s and it caused me physical pain in my ears and a head throb :eek:

My wife never heard any of this by the way.

[pgd]

Shots fired.

And apparently, shots cancelled!

Yeah I really don't bear ill will, so I'm sorry it came off so negative. I'm really just happy my speaker saga is over and I know exactly what to look out for in the future. So much real work to do now...

[richard12511]

Something that kinda got overlooked in that review(because of the port problems) was the horizontal dispersion. The horizontal dispersion shown is actually excellent. Compared to the Revel M105, it's both wider and more consistent(at least to my eye).

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?attachments/ascend-sierra-luna-reference-ribbon-mini-monitor-speaker-horizontal-beamwidth-measurements-png.90575/

^ That is excellent! And the super wide and even dispersion is something that really attracts me to Ascend speakers.

[richard12511]

I'll say it again. To not recommend a speaker based completely on just analytics is not only half cooked but just flat out wrong. I'll take my own opinion on how a speaker sounds, or someone with more experience than myself, than some analytic who may have an agenda here. Still waiting for any legitimate reviewer to back Amir's claim that these speakers are not to be recommended. What a joke.

Actually, Amir doesn't recommend based on analytics at all. That's actually one of the most common criticisms of his reviews over at ASR. He basically ignores the measurements all-together when making his recommendations, and his recommendations are based almost entirely based on whether or not he liked the way it sounded. The only exception is probably the Buchardt S400, and he only made that exception because of all the backlash(he didn't recommend it at first).

The reason he didn't recommend the Mini-Monitor or the Duo is because he thought they sounded bad, not because they measured bad. There have been several instances where he's recommended speakers that have measured poorly(because he liked the sound). Likewise, there have been several speakers that measured excellent that he didn't recommend(because he didn't like the sound).

So, your comment is misguided.

[richard12511]

Has Amir measured the M105? If not, why not send him yours?

He's already measured the M105, otherwise I definitely would. IMO, the M105s don't sound as good as they measure, which is part of the reason I'm considering the 2EX.

[MDinno]

[QUOTE=Shazb0t;64370]Again, you're doing a lot of hand waving and throwing a buch of stuff out there to see what sticks without any underlying merit.

The entire concept of acquiring anechoic measurements of a speaker is to know how a speaker performs without the room influence. From that starting point you can calculate the sound field and reflections from the room to determine the actual frequency repsonse at the listening position. You want a speaker that measures flat anechoically and which has good directivity (controlled dispersion) so that any EQ you perform on the speaker (to combat specific room anomalies, or to just change the frequency response to your preference) will have the same frequency response affect in the reflected sound. This is all published peer-reviewed science. It's not my or "my Amir's" opinion. That is what the Klippel NFS is designed to do! It is why speaker designers use anechoic measurements as the standard. I presume it is why Dave F. performs, posts, and utilizes measurements and dispersion characteristics in his design process of Ascend speakers.

Ancillary to that it has also been proven through controlled listening studies the frequency response (sound) that the majority of people prefer. But even if you don't believe in controlled scientific studies, you still want a speaker that has flat response and good directivity as a starting point so that you may EQ it to whatever desired response YOU do prefer. There is no magic to this!

Please do some reading on Dr. Floyd Toole's work and the controlled audio research performed by the NRC and Harman. It is very interesting and will give you a better understanding of what's actually going on with speakers than what you will be able to learn from "legitimate reviewers" impressions on YouTube.[/QUOTE

We'll just agree to disagree on how to assess a speaker. I'm not going to let one reviewers opinion sway me just based on analytics. One question I have is how is he basing not recommending a speaker on?? Is it for 2 channel music? Home theater? Do you realize how ridiculous it is to not recommend a speaker like the Ascend's or KEFS LS50. I'm still waiting to hear who else agrees with this that have heard the speaker. I'm out because it will be avoided. That Amir has zero credibility. Zero. Audioholics does an excellent job reviewing speakers. Unbiased and completely professional. Adios.

[richard12511]

I guess my question was more what is considered a high Q peak (or dip)? Using a logarithmic scaling of the frequency (as is in most frequency response graphs including the one at ASR), two spikes that visually look identical in shape (Q) would actually cover a vastly different range of frequencies depending on where it is located.

As an example, a high Q peak at 100hz may cover 95-105hz (a 10hz range). A similar looking high Q peak at 1,000 hz may cover 900-1100 hz (a 200hz range). And a similar looking high Q peak at 10,000hz May cover 9,500-10,500hz (a 1000hz range). So even though the Q looks the same visually on the logarithmic frequency scale graph, would the high Q at 100hz be less offensive than a similar looking high Q at 10,000hz? I know we hear different frequencies differently but those numbers were meant just to be examples.

The log scale is used precisely to address the problem you're getting at here. Also, why a Q system is used(instead of a frequency range). Remember, a 100-200Hz range is a much bigger pitch range than 10,000-10,100Hz. 100-200Hz is an entire octave, and is equivalent to 10,000-20,000Hz in terms of pitch change.

Said another way, C1 to C2 is exactly the same as C3-C4(example to show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by8SHClFiik)), but the latter covers a wider absolute frequency range.

Hopefully that makes sense? I'm generally not the best at explaining things :(

[Shazb0t]

We'll just agree to disagree on how to assess a speaker. I'm not going to let one reviewers opinion sway me just based on analytics. One question I have is how is he basing not recommending a speaker on?? Is it for 2 channel music? Home theater? Do you realize how ridiculous it is to not recommend a speaker like the Ascend's or KEFS LS50. I'm still waiting to hear who else agrees with this that have heard the speaker. I'm out because it will be avoided. That Amir has zero credibility. Zero. Audioholics does an excellent job reviewing speakers. Unbiased and completely professional. Adios.
The only thing I'm willing to agree with you on is that you're not grasping the point that I'm trying to make. Your insistence on misrepresenting what were talking about by dismissing accepted audio science as "analytics" is proof enough of that.

As for how Amir is recommending speakers, if you bothered to actually look over at ASR you would be able to figure it out for yourself. He recommends based on a combination of the objective measurements and his subjective opinion and then sums them up with a Pink Panther score (yes, really). It's up to you which of those two things are more important. In the end they are recommendations! It's also my understanding that he recommends speakers for how accurately they will play sounds. Think about that when you're pondering on the differences between home theatre and stereo.. Oh check this out, he listens to a single speaker in mono during evaluations! I'm imagining your brain melting. All jokes aside, the Spinorama and Klippel NFS measurement data are the interesting and unique things that you will get from ASR which aren't easily obtained anywhere else. If you believe in controlled science then this information is great as a useful aide in determining which speakers are likely to sound better. Your desire to insinuate that the entire audio science community is a bunch of "analytics" hacks with no credibility who don't understand speakers is disappointing. It's also a little bit telling about you.

[MDinno]

The only thing I'm willing to agree with you on is that you're not grasping the point that I'm trying to make. Your insistence on misrepresenting what were talking about by dismissing accepted audio science as "analytics" is proof enough of that.

As for how Amir is recommending speakers, if you bothered to actually look over at ASR you would be able to figure it out for yourself. He recommends based on a combination of the objective measurements and his subjective opinion and then sums them up with a Pink Panther score (yes, really). It's up to you which of those two things are more important. In the end they are recommendations! It's also my understanding that he recommends speakers for how accurately they will play sounds. Think about that when you're pondering on the differences between home theatre and stereo.. Oh check this out, he listens to a single speaker in mono during evaluations! I'm imagining your brain melting. All jokes aside, the Spinorama and Klippel NFS measurement data are the interesting and unique things that you will get from ASR which aren't easily obtained anywhere else. If you believe in controlled science then this information is great as a useful aide in determining which speakers are likely to sound better. Your desire to insinuate that the entire audio science community is a bunch of "analytics" hacks with no credibility who don't understand speakers is disappointing. It's also a little bit telling about you.

Oh, so Amir represents the entire audio science community heh. I'm sure Gene at Audioholics and Steve Guttenberg is laughing at that one. Still waiting for a legitimate reviewer to agree with Amir that the LS50 is not a recommended speaker. or the NHT SB2. First time I ever heard that low sensitivity speakers are an issue. Like everyone is interested in playing loud. How about fixing your acoustics in your place to make a speaker sound better. Or running Audyssey or doing your own calibrations. It's pretty telling about you that the only person on the earth that doesn't recommend the LS50. Yes it speaks volumes and it's not just a recommendation. It means the person is incompetent and a hack. I stand by my statement.

[davef]

Well as the owner of the speakers in this review I don't really agree. The reasons you don't hear bad feedback can be explained away.

I thought the speakers sounded good enough in my living room (some occasional irritating sounds but I am quite sensitive to noise), but always used them with a sub. Quarantine hits and I decide to use them on my desk. 30 minutes in my ears hurt and I keep getting distracted from work by things that sound wrong to me. This kicks off months of purchasing and researching audio equipment with me treating my speakers as the only constants since they're the only thing I have actual data for. I don't know audio that well but I am an engineer, so I set out to solve what's wrong with my audio system.

Long story short sending them in for review was my last resort after huge amounts of time and money wasted, and an angry wife. Even after sending them in I fully expected them to measure fine and this stuff to be in my head because I fell for a logical fallacy, argument from authority. But apparently the authority had decided his ways were good enough for everyone :eek: The only thing that's changed is now the public can point out flaws that would have been chalked up as subjective preference before.

Funny thing is I don't even care about audio quality that much, I just wanted it to not be irritating.

PGD,

Thank you so much for posting. I certainly understand your frustration / anger etc. I also well understand the engineering curiosity as to determine precisely what is going on to cause you any irritation. I have zero hard feelings as to you sending them in to Amir, but I do wish you would have contacted us first. That stated, we do not mess around here and we take both measurements and feedback very seriously and as such, we are already deep into working on this. The Luna and Duo will be better speakers because of you, as will our production line testing procedures.

With that in mind, and because I do not know who you are, please reach out to me either via private message here on this forum, by email or by phone. If it is OK with you, I would very much like to get your speakers back here for evaluation.

Thank you in advance.

[Shazb0t]

Oh, so Amir represents the entire audio science community heh. I'm sure Gene at Audioholics and Steve Guttenberg is laughing at that one. Still waiting for a legitimate reviewer to agree with Amir that the LS50 is not a recommended speaker. or the NHT SB2. First time I ever heard that low sensitivity speakers are an issue. Like everyone is interested in playing loud. How about fixing your acoustics in your place to make a speaker sound better. Or running Audyssey or doing your own calibrations. It's pretty telling about you that the only person on the earth that doesn't recommend the LS50. Yes it speaks volumes and it's not just a recommendation. It means the person is incompetent and a hack. I stand by my statement.

The fact that you put Gene and Steve in the same sentence when talking about science is mind boggling. Amir obviously doesn't represent all of audio science, but the methodology he uses and which you've been ignorantly questioning is entirely derived from accepted science. It shows me that you don't have a clue what you're talking about!

You're so stuck on the KEF LS50! Did you even read the forum post? Here it is for you, there isn't even a recommendation in there! You make no sense man.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kef-ls50-bookshelf-speaker-review.11144/

All of the measurements are 100% accurate and good information for prospective buyers. It's infinitely more valuable than you are giving it credit for. I don't even understand what your stance is! Don't provide or look at the measurement data and stick your head in the sand? Are speakers magic to you? There's no way to measure if they're performing well? How do you think a company like KEF designs speakers? Do you think they don't use anechoic measurements? There is no ideal that they're shooting for? It's all shooting from the hip? These are rhetorical questions in case you're confused. It's obvious that KEF uses the very science that you're denying. They actually published a white paper detailing exactly that for their latest Reference series! I guess the KEF engineers are also a bunch of hacks! They should fire their Engineering department and bring on Steve Guttenberg to listen his way into the next Reference series. It would probably save them a bunch of time and R&D money!

https://us.kef.com/pub/media/documents/rseries/rseries2018-white-paper.pdf

You're also obsessed with sensitivity but I don't think you know what it means. You're mentioning a bookshelf that had somewhere around 80dB average sensitivity while the manufacturer listed 86dB. That's a pretty big difference dude! Especially considering it had ~1% distortion through the midrange at only 86dB. You're going to need a LOT of power to get those speakers loud and you're going to be rewarded with high distortion in the midrange, a place where our hearing is the most sensitive. Definitely fair to mention that when reviewing the speaker! Of course you completely exaggerate what was said in the review for effect. A familiar pattern with you at this point! Who your audience is is anyone's guess.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/nht-sb2-speaker-review.13273/

Honestly, I've put more effort into responding to your meritless posts then you deserve. I feel that we've reached a natural closing point where it's clear that neither of us can learn anything else from the other. I wish you the best of luck.

[davef]

mdinno, shaz ... please agree to disagree so we can move on. Thank you.

[Shazb0t]

mdinno, shaz ... please agree to disagree so we can move on. Thank you.

I'm there.

Great response to PGD! I really hope that you're able to work on the Luna series and correct any issues. I was heavily considering them for surrounds to go with my Sierra Towers and Horizon center. I'm thinking about making it Sierra-2s now pending the outcome. Either way, looking forward to completing my Ascend 5.2 setup!

[richard12511]

PGD,

Thank you so much for posting. I certainly understand your frustration / anger etc. I also well understand the engineering curiosity as to determine precisely what is going on to cause you any irritation. I have zero hard feelings as to you sending them in to Amir, but I do wish you would have contacted us first. That stated, we do not mess around here and we take both measurements and feedback very seriously and as such, we are already deep into working on this. The Luna and Duo will be better speakers because of you, as will our production line testing procedures.

With that in mind, and because I do not know who you are, please reach out to me either via private message here on this forum, by email or by phone. If it is OK with you, I would very much like to get your speakers back here for evaluation.

Thank you in advance.

Wow, what a great response. I believe you when you say the speakers will end up being better because of this. I think that's the best way to look at, and it gives me great confidence in Ascend going forward.

[pgd]

PGD,

Thank you so much for posting. I certainly understand your frustration / anger etc. I also well understand the engineering curiosity as to determine precisely what is going on to cause you any irritation. I have zero hard feelings as to you sending them in to Amir, but I do wish you would have contacted us first. That stated, we do not mess around here and we take both measurements and feedback very seriously and as such, we are already deep into working on this. The Luna and Duo will be better speakers because of you, as will our production line testing procedures.

With that in mind, and because I do not know who you are, please reach out to me either via private message here on this forum, by email or by phone. If it is OK with you, I would very much like to get your speakers back here for evaluation.

Thank you in advance.

Thanks Dave. I appreciate the measured response, and I apologize that I got a little snotty. I'll send them to you guys as soon as I receive them back and let you know when they're on their way.

[MDinno]

The fact that you put Gene and Steve in the same sentence when talking about science is mind boggling. Amir obviously doesn't represent all of audio science, but the methodology he uses and which you've been ignorantly questioning is entirely derived from accepted science. It shows me that you don't have a clue what you're talking about!

You're so stuck on the KEF LS50! Did you even read the forum post? Here it is for you, there isn't even a recommendation in there! You make no sense man.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kef-ls50-bookshelf-speaker-review.11144/

All of the measurements are 100% accurate and good information for prospective buyers. It's infinitely more valuable than you are giving it credit for. I don't even understand what your stance is! Don't provide or look at the measurement data and stick your head in the sand? Are speakers magic to you? There's no way to measure if they're performing well? How do you think a company like KEF designs speakers? Do you think they don't use anechoic measurements? There is no ideal that they're shooting for? It's all shooting from the hip? These are rhetorical questions in case you're confused. It's obvious that KEF uses the very science that you're denying. They actually published a white paper detailing exactly that for their latest Reference series! I guess the KEF engineers are also a bunch of hacks! They should fire their Engineering department and bring on Steve Guttenberg to listen his way into the next Reference series. It would probably save them a bunch of time and R&D money!

https://us.kef.com/pub/media/documents/rseries/rseries2018-white-paper.pdf

You're also obsessed with sensitivity but I don't think you know what it means. You're mentioning a bookshelf that had somewhere around 80dB average sensitivity while the manufacturer listed 86dB. That's a pretty big difference dude! Especially considering it had ~1% distortion through the midrange at only 86dB. You're going to need a LOT of power to get those speakers loud and you're going to be rewarded with high distortion in the midrange, a place where our hearing is the most sensitive. Definitely fair to mention that when reviewing the speaker! Of course you completely exaggerate what was said in the review for effect. A familiar pattern with you at this point! Who your audience is is anyone's guess.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/nht-sb2-speaker-review.13273/

Honestly, I've put more effort into responding to your meritless posts then you deserve. I feel that we've reached a natural closing point where it's clear that neither of us can learn anything else from the other. I wish you the best of luck.

Sorry Dave I need to respond real quick because I'm going to bury him once and for all. Click on the link and tell me what the recommendation says here for the KEF LS50. No recommendation?? Oh, I happen to notice the SVS Ultra is no good the Elac Debut is no good. The whole KEF line basically. BTW, All my speakers have a sub 85 sensitivit and they sound fantastic! Love THE BASS they produce. Obviously you don't know anything about sensitivity and the compromises from going from high to low. Go click on that link.You have now lost ALL credibility along with your Amir.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?pages/SpeakerTestData/

[Shazb0t]

Sorry Dave I need to respond real quick because I'm going to bury him once and for all. Click on the link and tell me what the recommendation says here for the KEF LS50. No recommendation?? Oh, I happen to notice the SVS Ultra is no good the Elac Debut is no good. The whole KEF line basically. BTW, All my speakers have a sub 85 sensitivit and they sound fantastic! Love THE BASS they produce. Obviously you don't know anything about sensitivity and the compromises from going from high to low. Go click on that link.You have now lost ALL credibility along with your Amir.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?pages/SpeakerTestData/
If "burying" me means failing to refute any of the actual points that I've made to you, kindly provided with evidence, then yes I'm 6 feet under.. Hyper focusing on whether or not Amir personally liked a speaker isn't the important part of this discussion. The validity of the data is what's important. You know that! I've tried and failed to convince you of the importance of the science. So, per Dave's request and the sting of my own failures, I will not be responding to you further. You win! Gold star for you!

[Mag_Neato]

Dave, giving this some thought I am wondering if replacing the slot port with 2 conventional round ports in the lower corners would work? Or even 2 triangular shaped ports like I've seen before:

Hope that makes sense!

[pgd]

Dave, giving this some thought I am wondering if replacing the slot port with 2 conventional round ports in the lower corners would work? Or even 2 triangular shaped ports like I've seen before:

Hope that makes sense!

Honestly I'd love to just see a Luna without the port if that's the cause of the issues. Seems like everyone knows speakers this small can't do accurate low bass, so is it worth trying?

I'm quite happy with them as LCRs with a sub, so maybe sell them on the amazing soundstage and directivity that comes with driver size and selection (stuff I learned from the ASR review)

[Shazb0t]

Honestly I'd love to just see a Luna without the port if that's the cause of the issues. Seems like everyone knows speakers this small can't do accurate low bass, so is it worth trying?

I'm quite happy with them as LCRs with a sub, so maybe sell them on the amazing soundstage and directivity that comes with driver size and selection (stuff I learned from the ASR review)
I think a sealed Luna optimized for use as a surround would be a great idea!

[davef]

Thanks Dave. I appreciate the measured response, and I apologize that I got a little snotty. I'll send them to you guys as soon as I receive them back and let you know when they're on their way.

Excellent - please reach out to me when you have them back and I will send you shipping labels.

[davef]

Honestly I'd love to just see a Luna without the port if that's the cause of the issues. Seems like everyone knows speakers this small can't do accurate low bass, so is it worth trying?

I'm quite happy with them as LCRs with a sub, so maybe sell them on the amazing soundstage and directivity that comes with driver size and selection (stuff I learned from the ASR review)

Luna's were specifically designed for that remarkable horizontal directivity they showed. The port is 100% what is causing the issue with your speakers, these are extremely high quality components and the crossover is correct (otherwise this would have showed up in the horizontal directivity).


I think a sealed Luna optimized for use as a surround would be a great idea!

Port resonance issue will be resolved.


Dave, giving this some thought I am wondering if replacing the slot port with 2 conventional round ports in the lower corners would work? Or even 2 triangular shaped ports like I've seen before:

Hope that makes sense!

Makes sense, however the proper port tune requires a port that is considerably longer than the length of the cabinet, or a single port that would be extremely narrow. This would cause far more problems than port resonance, as there would be considerable air-turbulence and this would be extremely audible. The port resonance in these speakers as measured by Amir is really centered at 600Hz and is very high Q, meaning it is extremely narrow. We generally "hear" at 1/3rd octave smoothing, others argue 1/6th octave smoothing. Thus it is questionable if this resonance is actually audible as the bandwidth is extremely narrow. With 1/3 octave or even 1/6th octave smoothing, it smooths out considerably. The other spikes are all multiples of that initial port resonance. If you examine the individual woofer and tweeter response, they both look good.

There is a process to this and we are already deep into it (I enjoy engineering challenges, sure beats running day to day business and dealing with forums). However, the most important step in this is to get back the speakers that were measured, calibrate my lab test gear - and make damn sure I am able to replicate what Amir measured with the NFS. Our lab gear and production line test gear is highly accurate, in fact - it is the same equipment that was used at Harman for decades (I was trained on it by ex-Harman engineers) so we should be able to, but this I won't know until we have those speakers back. Maybe we need to invest in the Klippel NFS system?

I have a few suspicions, and one may be that I am just asking too much from our domestic cabinet manufacturer with regards to keeping absurdly tight tolerances with no room for glue drips or tolerance drift in the overly complex port design. That is really of no fault of theirs, they are one of the best in the business and build for some very well known super high end companies.

However, the first major step is getting those speakers back...

[SunByrne]

OK, time to wade in on two different topics, ASR and the Duos.

First, on ASR
I have confidence that ASR's measurements are correct; I'm sure he knows how to operate his Klippel and the other equipment he uses to measure things besides speakers. If all he did were take measurements and publish them, that would be fine.

But that's not all he does. He adds interpretation to the raw data, and subjective reviews. He does both of these things very badly. On the first point, nobody who takes their own data seriously should ever say anything like "where do you draw the regression line?" A regression line shouldn't be drawn by anything other than THE EQUATION FOR A REGRESSION LINE, which is well-understood math. This kind of thing is nonsense and nobody who claims to be in interested in the science should put up with it. If I did this kind of thing with my own research, reviewers would (rightly) crucify my papers. It's bush-league garbage. Toole, for instance, would never say anything like this.

As for his subjective reviews, I don't know how anyone takes those seriously. He writes like he thinks his own opinion is a gift from the gods, and it's just so off-putting. They are also so obviously Harman-biased that they are basically worthless, as every objective sin for any Harman product is subjectively forgivable but for many a Harman competitor every wiggle in any graph is the death knell. He needs to do his subjective review before he collects the data in order to not be biased by the results and his own interpretation of those results. This is basic behavioral science methodology and he's just so damn cavalier about ignoring it. He apparently thinks that because he includes the "I work for Harman" disclaimer that people will give him a pass on this or something. I mean, I guess it is actually working for him but I can't read it or take it seriously.


Now, having said that, the objective measurements on the Duo are... not very pretty, are they?


Luna Duos
I just got a set of these (LCR) and have had them for a little over a month. As Dave well knows, I'm a long-time very happy Ascend customer. I usually post my reviews/impressions pretty soon after I get anything new from Ascend, and I have not done so for the Duos. (If Dave hadn't been so busy, it wouldn't surprise me if he has been wondering when I'd post about them.) I haven't because [1] I've been crazy busy myself, and [2] my impression of them is somewhat mixed, and I've not been sure what to say about them.

It was interesting to see the measurements, as they kind of support some of my experiences with the Duos.

First, the Duos do indeed have tremendous wide dispersion—it's fantastic. The sweet spot is generously wide, such that two people can be sitting on the couch in my living room and both get decent imaging out of the deal. Just not at all true with my previous speakers, which were not bad speakers at all (older PSBs). Real rooms often make ideal placement impossible, and anything that gives you leverage on this problem is not to be underestimated.

Second, vertical directivity is indeed pretty tight. The good news is I'm pretty much always on the couch when I listen and I was careful with mounting height so this is not a problem, per se, but it's pretty obvious when you stand up that something is missing. I expected this and it's no big deal.

Third, there's something not quite right about the mids. Maybe that's too harsh. What I mean is that it's not as good as I expected from Ascend. When I first set them up and ran Audyssey, it said the LRs could handle being crossed over at 60Hz and the center could cross over at 40Hz. While that's impressive, I know Audyssey is sometimes overgenerous about that and I set the center to 60Hz as well. And they overall sounded mostly OK, certainly for normal HT use, but for music, well, there's something kind of choppy going on in the midrange. Not bad—nothing like what ASR describes subjectively—but something just not quite smooth in the Ascend way I'm used to. Noticed it mostly in female vocals, which sound a little... I guess the best word is uneven. I actually considered sending them back, but there are other practical reasons for the choice, and given those constraints I have few other viable options anyway. (PSB PWM1s are pretty much the only reasonable alternative at a similar price point and then there will be timbre-match issues with the surrounds. Too much hassle.)

But after listening to some music (the Duos are used mostly for HT anyway) I had the bright idea to change the crossover to 80Hz. They sound much better. They still don't sound as good as my 2EXs—not a giant criticism, I've never heard anything two-way that sounded appreciably better—or even base S2s, but it evened things out to where I'm much happier with them. I'll admit I'm suspicious that this is just in my head, since my understanding is that a lot of the issue with port noise for front-ported speakers isn't really from air moving through because of low frequencies, but reflections of midrange from inside the speaker, and setting the crossover higher shouldn't really change that. Sure seems like it does, though.

It's funny because I've never heard a speaker with a front slot-style port that I've really liked. I figured when Dave went there after all these years of not using them, well, he'd finally cracked it. Maybe still a little work to be done. (Since I'm crossing over at 80Hz, maybe some kind of port plug?)

So, for primarily HT use (with sub) at my seating distance (about nine feet), I'm fine with them. I'm not overwhelmed like I usually am with Ascend, but given my constraints, they get the job done and it's a marked improvement over what I had before.


Anyway, I'm glad to see Dave's response to all this is "we need to look into this and possibly fix something," but that's what I'd expect from Dave.

[anjunadeep]

I enjoy engineering challenges, sure beats running day to day business and dealing with forums

Hey hey hey! We aren't THAT bad!

I looked at the cost of that NFS machine and it is quite steep (100k euros, am I looking at the right unit?), maybe you could send speakers off to get measured by them rather than own one. Or maybe you buy it and offer that service for others and pay for it by renting out time with it/performing measurements for people. I'm sure the thought of starting that now makes your head spin with everything going on, sorry for being an armchair board member ;). I own some expensive machines and the key to making them worthwhile it keeping them busy ime.

*edit* now I see prices much lower, must have been looking at the wrong unit

[Robert]

OK, time to wade in on two different topics, ASR and the Duos.

First, on ASR
I have confidence that ASR's measurements are correct; I'm sure he knows how to operate his Klippel and the other equipment he uses to measure things besides speakers. If all he did were take measurements and publish them, that would be fine.

So, for primarily HT use (with sub) at my seating distance (about nine feet), I'm fine with them. I'm not overwhelmed like I usually am with Ascend, but given my constraints, they get the job done and it's a marked improvement over what I had before.

Anyway, I'm glad to see Dave's response to all this is "we need to look into this and possibly fix something," but that's what I'd expect from Dave.

Hey SunByrne!

Honestly, you've almost read my mind with your post. We totally could be friends! :-)

It drives me nuts when someone says..."His measurements are great, just ignore his commentary and opinions." It's sort of like going to a restaurant where the service is atrocious, but the food is great. I'll probably stop in from time to time, but that doesn't mean I'll have an enjoyable experience. Why can't I have both great service and food? I'll totally visit more if that were the case! Otherwise, there's nothing more that I can add that hasn't already been said, so I digress.....


I was an early adopter for the Luna Duo and haven't really had much time to really put it through its paces up until a few months ago. Since then, I've bumped up the crossover to 90Hz per what ARC on my Anthem recommended and found it to sound cleaner. Overall, it offers great dispersion and I can sit off axis and still have clear dialog. There were a few times early on where vocals sounded off, but that may have been due to the mixing/content as that often varies. Overall, I'd agree, I'm not blown away by it by any means. Since "going live" with my first Ascend HT setup in January of 2020, here are my final opinions after the "honeymoon" period expired:


Sierra 2 EX (Main L/R): Wow! Outstanding speakers and definitely worth buying! I love music through these speakers and the mid-bass performance is phenomenal. Overall, highly recommended.

Luna Duo Center: Great dispersion and overall good dialog clarity. I managed to adjust my HT setup and could now actually fit a Horizon center now. I'd say that this is still a good speaker and performs fine for me, but if you have the space and budget, I'd go with the Horizon or you may have buyer's remorse. If you are going the tower route for your mains, have the space, and your usage leans more towards movies over music, your 1st choice should be the Horizon.

Lunas (surround duty): They perform great for this purpose and I'd recommend them for HT surround use. I've not used them for any purpose other than surround duty. Their small size makes them a perfect fit for the Sanus steel series 30 inch stands too.

I decided to also make my "endgame" speaker purchase in 2020 and bought a pair of the Sierra Towers for my mains. I'll likely move the Sierra 2 EXs to rear surround duty and the Lunas for future height speakers. I feel the Sierra 2 EX speakers are too good for just "lowly" surround duty though. My towers should arrive this Thursday....well....UPS shows one box arriving on Wednesday and the other on Thursday....weird....

I'd say I'm 70% music & 30% movies, so I may just stick with the Duo center. Ultimately, I'm also curious on Dave's analysis/response based on the 3rd party test findings. If you're serious about your speaker test measurements, lean heavily towards movies, and OCD about having a soundstage/driver design that matches the towers exactly, swing for the Horizon center. Working with Dave & Dina has been an outstanding experience since I started my upgrade quest in mid-2019. It's hard to find such great service from a company and Ascend certainly delivers. If there is something awry, they'll make it right. Overall, that's my "Average Joe" just using my ears opinion.

[racrawford65]

UPS did the same thing to me when I got my Towers...box 2 showed up the day after box 1

[bobola]

UPS did the same thing to me when I got my Towers...box 2 showed up the day after box 1

The UPS folks are just looking out for you. Clearly they’re just audio nerds who think the only way to properly evaluate a new speaker is one at a time in mono mode.

[SunByrne]

Hey SunByrne!

Honestly, you've almost read my mind with your post. We totally could be friends! :-)

I was cranky when I wrote it and I didn't express myself all that well, glad someone got something out of it. :D


If you're serious about your speaker test measurements, lean heavily towards movies, and OCD about having a soundstage/driver design that matches the towers exactly, swing for the Horizon center.

That's the ultimate plan, but it means getting rid of my current stand, in which case I might as well get a new TV, and that ends up being both expensive and a big project. Wasn't in the cards for this time around, but at some point, yep, I'll probably go that way. Not sure what I'll do with the orphaned Duo center, though.

[racrawford65]

I'd love to ultimately move to the Horizon, as well, but size-wise a challenge unless I were to also get a new TV riser or perhaps just put the TV directly on top of the Horizon. Has anyone done this? Any issues (eg speaker vibration impacting tv electronics)?

[Robert]

No problem, SunByrne! It’s fine to be cranky from time to time.....It’s 2020, who isn’t these days? :)

My endgame center channel preference would also be to go with the W(T/M)W setup like the Horizon.

Looks like UPS is back on schedule for Thursday for both, but we’ll see! Maybe I’ll try a Sierra 2 EX on one side and a Tower on the other for a day! I’ll be sure to share a photo once they arrive and are “settled in”. My setup isn’t anything fancy.

[msound]

Any update on this Dave?

[davef]

Any update on this Dave?

I will post my findings once things slow down over here (lots to share). We have been working 12 hour days for the past 2 months. Holiday season typically starts to slow down for us towards the end of January.

[Spamilton]

Is there a significant difference in measurement when using the 2EX as a center (horizontally with tweeter rotated)? I'm trying to make it work vertically, but my cabinet is making it difficult.

[natetg57]

Is there a significant difference in measurement when using the 2EX as a center (horizontally with tweeter rotated)? I'm trying to make it work vertically, but my cabinet is making it difficult.

I think it measures pretty much the same if your sitting directly in front of it. (horizontal position) It measures a little worse in the horizontal position if you're sitting off axis. I have mine horizontally placed in my system and it sounds good to me.

[djDANNY]

Is there a significant difference in measurement when using the 2EX as a center (horizontally with tweeter rotated)? I'm trying to make it work vertically, but my cabinet is making it difficult.

I’m interested this as well as I currently have my S2 center in horizontal configuration. Since the crossover was not changed, I’m assuming there has to be some difference in how the tweeter and woofer sum at the crossover point since the RAAL has such different vertical dispersion vs horizontal dispersion and the two orientations (center vs bookshelf) directly changes this. Given that dialog is smack in the crossover range, I’d like to see measurements as well to see if it’s worthwhile for me to try to get a bookshelf orientation to work.

[davef]

I’m assuming there has to be some difference in how the tweeter and woofer sum at the crossover point since the RAAL has such different vertical dispersion vs horizontal dispersion and the two orientations (center vs bookshelf) directly changes this. Given that dialog is smack in the crossover range, I’d like to see measurements as well to see if it’s worthwhile for me to try to get a bookshelf orientation to work.

Crossover summation, how the woofer and tweeter "blend" with each other is not related to positioning a speaker vertically or horizontally. What changes is off-axis dispersion at more directional frequencies. Sitting on axis of the speaker, there is no difference in the direct sound response of the speaker, be that vertically positioned or horizontally positioned.

You can see the vertical response of the Sierra-2EX in the measurements on our site. Of course, in these measurements the tweeter is not rotated 90 degrees. If the tweeter was rotated (as it needs to be for horizontal placement) the high frequency roll off you see starting at about 13 kHz wouldn't be there. You can also see that 5 degrees off vertically is nearly identical to 0 degrees off horizontally. On-axis, 0 degrees vertical would be identical to 0 degrees horizontal.

[davef]

Is there a significant difference in measurement when using the 2EX as a center (horizontally with tweeter rotated)? I'm trying to make it work vertically, but my cabinet is making it difficult.

If sitting on axis, no - there is no difference at all. There will start to be differences the further off-axis you get. Note, it is very important that the ribbon tweeter is rotated properly such that the longer "length" of the tweeter is vertical.

[MDinno]

How about the Sierra 1 with Nrt tweeter? It's the center I'm considering. It's also less power hungry than the Sierra 2EX.

[petmotel]

OK, time to wade in on two different topics, ASR and the Duos.

First, on ASR
I have confidence that ASR's measurements are correct; I'm sure he knows how to operate his Klippel and the other equipment he uses to measure things besides speakers. If all he did were take measurements and publish them, that would be fine.

But that's not all he does. He adds interpretation to the raw data, and subjective reviews. He does both of these things very badly. On the first point, nobody who takes their own data seriously should ever say anything like "where do you draw the regression line?" A regression line shouldn't be drawn by anything other than THE EQUATION FOR A REGRESSION LINE, which is well-understood math. This kind of thing is nonsense and nobody who claims to be in interested in the science should put up with it. If I did this kind of thing with my own research, reviewers would (rightly) crucify my papers. It's bush-league garbage. Toole, for instance, would never say anything like this.

As for his subjective reviews, I don't know how anyone takes those seriously. He writes like he thinks his own opinion is a gift from the gods, and it's just so off-putting. They are also so obviously Harman-biased that they are basically worthless, as every objective sin for any Harman product is subjectively forgivable but for many a Harman competitor every wiggle in any graph is the death knell. He needs to do his subjective review before he collects the data in order to not be biased by the results and his own interpretation of those results. This is basic behavioral science methodology and he's just so damn cavalier about ignoring it. He apparently thinks that because he includes the "I work for Harman" disclaimer that people will give him a pass on this or something. I mean, I guess it is actually working for him but I can't read it or take it seriously.


Now, having said that, the objective measurements on the Duo are... not very pretty, are they?


Luna Duos
I just got a set of these (LCR) and have had them for a little over a month. As Dave well knows, I'm a long-time very happy Ascend customer. I usually post my reviews/impressions pretty soon after I get anything new from Ascend, and I have not done so for the Duos. (If Dave hadn't been so busy, it wouldn't surprise me if he has been wondering when I'd post about them.) I haven't because [1] I've been crazy busy myself, and [2] my impression of them is somewhat mixed, and I've not been sure what to say about them.

It was interesting to see the measurements, as they kind of support some of my experiences with the Duos.

First, the Duos do indeed have tremendous wide dispersion—it's fantastic. The sweet spot is generously wide, such that two people can be sitting on the couch in my living room and both get decent imaging out of the deal. Just not at all true with my previous speakers, which were not bad speakers at all (older PSBs). Real rooms often make ideal placement impossible, and anything that gives you leverage on this problem is not to be underestimated.

Second, vertical directivity is indeed pretty tight. The good news is I'm pretty much always on the couch when I listen and I was careful with mounting height so this is not a problem, per se, but it's pretty obvious when you stand up that something is missing. I expected this and it's no big deal.

Third, there's something not quite right about the mids. Maybe that's too harsh. What I mean is that it's not as good as I expected from Ascend. When I first set them up and ran Audyssey, it said the LRs could handle being crossed over at 60Hz and the center could cross over at 40Hz. While that's impressive, I know Audyssey is sometimes overgenerous about that and I set the center to 60Hz as well. And they overall sounded mostly OK, certainly for normal HT use, but for music, well, there's something kind of choppy going on in the midrange. Not bad—nothing like what ASR describes subjectively—but something just not quite smooth in the Ascend way I'm used to. Noticed it mostly in female vocals, which sound a little... I guess the best word is uneven. I actually considered sending them back, but there are other practical reasons for the choice, and given those constraints I have few other viable options anyway. (PSB PWM1s are pretty much the only reasonable alternative at a similar price point and then there will be timbre-match issues with the surrounds. Too much hassle.)

But after listening to some music (the Duos are used mostly for HT anyway) I had the bright idea to change the crossover to 80Hz. They sound much better. They still don't sound as good as my 2EXs—not a giant criticism, I've never heard anything two-way that sounded appreciably better—or even base S2s, but it evened things out to where I'm much happier with them. I'll admit I'm suspicious that this is just in my head, since my understanding is that a lot of the issue with port noise for front-ported speakers isn't really from air moving through because of low frequencies, but reflections of midrange from inside the speaker, and setting the crossover higher shouldn't really change that. Sure seems like it does, though.

It's funny because I've never heard a speaker with a front slot-style port that I've really liked. I figured when Dave went there after all these years of not using them, well, he'd finally cracked it. Maybe still a little work to be done. (Since I'm crossing over at 80Hz, maybe some kind of port plug?)

So, for primarily HT use (with sub) at my seating distance (about nine feet), I'm fine with them. I'm not overwhelmed like I usually am with Ascend, but given my constraints, they get the job done and it's a marked improvement over what I had before.


Anyway, I'm glad to see Dave's response to all this is "we need to look into this and possibly fix something," but that's what I'd expect from Dave.

I reposted this response as I feel it makes some excellent and honest observations. Since this thread has evolved into an ASR commentary, I too agree that the responses posted by the site were what were measured with the Klippel.

Also as noted in the above post, the site owner really showed that his subjective commentary was unnecessarily unkind, and unprofessional. He basically called out Dave's integrity, whereas I can think of no one else in this industry that has gained and deserves more respect for supporting his customers with the best products that he possibly can, posting far more technical information than almost anyone in the business. Where else do customers get to participate in what types of products a company will develop?

Speaking of this subject, the Lunas/Duo were developed strictly as a response to the desires of Ascend customers for a front ported, wall hung RAAL equipped surround, and a less bulky center solution. Dave clearly does not prefer front ported designs, and has avoided them for the better part of Ascend's history. With all that said, Dave himself uses a pair of Lunas in his personal bedroom system, whom could possibly be a more critical listener than Dave?

Regardless of what agendas third party reviewers may or may not have, I will go on record that I trust Dave implicitly, and without reservation. He has shown himself to be a person of great character, passionate about creating excellent products at reasonable prices, and just an all around gentleman even while facing criticism. If I sound like a fan, that doesn't bother me in the least, some folks just do it better than others!

I'm looking forward to the information that has been uncovered regarding this issue.

Jay

[djDANNY]

I will post my findings once things slow down over here (lots to share). We have been working 12 hour days for the past 2 months. Holiday season typically starts to slow down for us towards the end of January.

Since this thread is being revived? Can we get this update now?

[davef]

I appreciate everyone’s patience regarding this matter. As some of you know, I suffered a serious E-Bike injury on July 4th requiring several nights stay at the trauma center at my local hospital. My injuries were/are serious (7 broken ribs, 2 lung punctures, broken scapula, mild head trauma). I was very lucky as I cracked my bike helmet in 3 places and even luckier as I managed to somehow avoid surgery.

As I am sure some of you know, recovering from injuries like this takes quite a bit of time, patience and assistance. I am at the 6-week mark now and while I feel my lung has healed and I am finally able to breath normally and I have more mobility, I still have high levels of pain every now and then and my mobility is maybe back to 50%. I am hoping 4 more weeks and I will be back to 100%. Obviously, this is has presented me with a major setback on the timing of a few items. Of most importance is this discussion regarding the Luna and Duo. Most of this was worked out prior to my injury and the final touches were finally taken care of this weekend.

There is much to post so I will break this up into sections, with the goal of posting one section each day until everything is covered.

Part 1.

With the tests of our Luna and Duo, measured by Amir at Audio Science Review – the results were poor. Their measurements did not match up well with our measurements and horrible accusations were thrown our way. I have been open, honest and as transparent as possible about Ascend and we have always and will always manufacture exceptional products with the highest levels of integrity.

Seeing those measurements (and some of the comments) threw me for a loop, I did not even recognize what I saw. I had to ask myself, “how could it be possible for a speaker to measure that way yet have such a high customer satisfaction rate?” (Sales of our Lunas eclipsed our forecasts)

Could this customer’s speakers have a problem? I didn’t think so since Amir measured a Luna and a Duo, and both showed pronounced port resonances that negatively influenced and changed the overall frequency response. As such, it became critical for me to get back this customer’s speakers and I am thankful he reached out.

During that waiting period, I set out on endless computer modeling and took detailed measurements of more than a dozen Luna’s. While I was able to measure some port resonance, it was not even close to what Amir’s measurements showed. The differences in our measurements were so dramatic that I broke out my reference CBM-170 that was measured at the NRC in an anechoic chamber, and then compared those measurements with measurements I took. My measurements were within +/- 0.5dB from about 200Hz and up (no reason for me to spend the time and accurately measure the low end) I was really puzzled, I could not replicate Amir’s measurements.

Since the measured port resonance exhibited a very high Q behavior (extremely narrow bandwidth) I assumed this must be an issue using gated measurements (a method to remove the influence of a room / reflections). Gated measurements are common and have been universally accepted. This method does reduce frequency to frequency resolution with the smaller the gate time the greater the reduction. With larger gate times, reflections get included in the measurement which then throws everything off. Our testing procedures and gating times have been the standard for decades now, something I used from my days developing THX certified speakers, which had to meet very stringent measurement standards. I further enhanced these over many decades of use and in designing 40+ commercially successful loudspeakers.

For many decades, the common thoughts on what we hear is that, at best, we hear at 1/6th octave. Meaning all the frequencies within an individual octave are averaged into 6 points. Some argue we hear at 1/12th, but I personally don’t believe this, other engineers will say we hear at 1/3rd octave. A decent article on this can be found here: https://www.prosoundtraining.com/2019/07/26/why-equalize-in-1-3-octave-bands/

With the gate times we use, resolution is typically about 1/12th octave, fully covering what human hearing can detect. However, the port resonances measured by the Klippel NFS are so narrow that these would typically not be picked up with standard gated measurements and are also not audible to human hearing. After evaluating a half dozen other front ported speakers measured by Amir and comparing the NFS measurements with other published measurements, I can confirm this issue is not isolated to our Luna and Duo. Some of these other speakers displayed even worse port resonance, but other published measurements do not show this and like our Luna, these speakers have been widely praised and have sold well.

The Klippel NFS changes things, it is capable of measuring at resolutions previously not possible, resolutions far greater than what the human ear can hear. I like to use the comparison of looking at Jessica Alba’s face at 3 feet away, compared to looking at it with magnifying glass. Near perfection at 3 feet vs nothing but flaws close up under magnification. What do we see / hear that actually matters to our senses? I have discussed this issue in depth with a well published audiologist and his thoughts echoed my own.

Still, the results of the NFS measurements were not acceptable to me so it was time to move to the next phase.

[davef]

Part 2.

One major benefit of our MLSSA test system is that it is highly configurable. Every parameter can be set, FFT resolution and size, windowing methods, stimulus length, amplitude etc. It operates mostly in the time domain so an experienced user can easily see every reflection, including the intensity of each reflection. There are techniques to increase resolution while still gating reflections out of the response. I set out on reconfiguring the test parameters to increase resolution and take measurements of just the front slot port in the hopes I can see what the NFS picked up.

Now using an FFT size of 32,768 combined with a mic distance of ~ 2ft, with no gating and no smoothing, (yielding a resolution of 4Hz) I was able to see the port resonance. This was a few dB in amplitude and extremely high Q (very narrow, covering a frequency range of only ~50Hz). Certainly not audible and still not close to what Amir picked up, but at least this was at the same frequencies. Normally, an experienced loudspeaker engineer wouldn’t pay much attention to this being so narrow and with low amplitude – which explains why so many front ported speakers measured by Amir show very similar port resonances. However, Amir’s tests and his analysis of these tests do not take into account what the human ear is capable of hearing. Plain and simple, we cannot hear such high Q peaks.

If you have ever looked at an actual in-room frequency response of a speaker, it is riddled with similar high Q peaks throughout the speaker’s entire response. If you take the best measuring speaker on the planet, take an in-room frequency response measurement and examine the results, most would be horrified by what they saw, and the prominent question would then be “how could this possibly sound good”. The reason the speaker still sounds so good is that we don’t hear these high Q peaks (or dips). As I mentioned previously, we hear an averaged response that is either smoothed to 1/6th octave or possibly even 1/3rd octave, this flattens out those peaks (and dips) and what you visually see on the smoothed frequency response graph ends up being more representative of what we hear.

With a review site like Amir’s, things are changing – not necessarily for the better in my professional opinion. Speakers will be judged by measurements only, measurements that are of such high resolution that no human ear could ever actually hear. A bit like ruling out a performance car because after dyno testing, one has more horsepower than another without ever test driving the lesser power model.

Let me back track a bit…

We were the first ID audio company to publish detailed measurements of our speakers, and possibly even the first loudspeaker company to publish in-depth measurements (on and off axis, CSD etc.) Our measurements have always represented what the speakers are expected to sound like, a terrific method to compare one of our models to another one of our models. We have multiple test systems, including 4 reference grade measurement microphones, a fully automated turntable for directivity measurements, (2) MLSSA 2000 systems both with RCAI controllers (remote controlled analog interfaces), as well as a half dozen other test systems (less powerful, but still useful) One critical aspect of loudspeaker testing is to “trust” the results of the measurements. This is complicated and requires using different setups and different gear, something we always check for. We have our acoustic lab and our production line facility, very different locations with both being able to take accurate and repeatable measurements.

MLSSA systems have been the industry standard for decades and the same equipment used to design most non-hobbyist loudspeakers. This is expensive professional equipment of the highest standards and certainly not a hobbyist system. The same measurement setup has been used by Harman, the NRC in Canada, Stereophile, Apple, BMW, M&K, Lucas Film, THX, Disney, Dolby – the list goes on and on and is impressive. The mic in our lab is an ACO Pacific 7012, this is a fully calibrated true reference grade mic, accurate from 3Hz to 40kHz within 0.5dB – it is a more capable microphone than what is included with the Klippel NFS. I believe we had originally paid about $4k just for the mic and the pre-amp. This is a system I have been using practically every day of the week since about 1988. Few if any engineers have as much experience with it as I.

For about 2 full decades we have done our best to avoid front slot ported speaker cabinets (many of you know this). Reason being is they are often subject to port issues, but times are changing and there is strong demand for compact on or off wall speakers that offer excellent performance and can be crossed to a sub at 80Hz. Thus the Luna and the Duo were born.

Now armed with the ability to at least “see” the port resonances using our test equipment, I started tearing apart Luna cabinets to find out what could be going on with the port. The slot port in the Luna and Duo is complex. This specialty woofer needs to be matched with a ~60Hz port tune to perform at its best and to tune that low requires a very long port, far longer than the depth of the cabinet.

As such, the slot port relies on very tight tolerances in order to function properly. I started to assume that with this customer’s speakers – perhaps there was too much tolerance drift throwing it out of whack, and that I did not pick this up during our production line testing because we use a smaller FFT size (to speed up testing) and these measurements are gated to remove reflections, so very high Q (narrow) spikes in the response could be smoothed over. I also demand a lot from our domestic cabinet manufacturer and perhaps there was just too much room for error in assembling these complex and very compact cabinets.

With cabinets torn apart, I did not find any significant issues with the port, and now I was getting angry as I destroyed several thousand dollars’ worth of cabinets. Next step, I purchased a high-resolution borescope and went about looking deep inside the slot port of each Luna and Duo cabinet. While things were not perfect, I still saw no real issues that would cause what Amir’s measurements revealed.
It was at this point that I had to take a step away from this and I decided to wait until the original test speakers arrived at our facility.

[davef]

Part 3.

The day finally came, both the Luna and Duo tested by Amir arrived. I was hopeful I would find the issue quickly, that I would be able to pick up what Amir picked up and thus set about a course for correction. Unfortunately, my frustration reached its peak when I was not able to do this. The suspect speakers measured closely to the samples in my lab.

The scientist in me then decided it was time to take a different, more logical approach…

I spent the next 6 hours reading more about the NFS and how it takes its measurements. Had email correspondences with Amir, the engineers at Warkwyn (Klippel NFS experts and the US reps), and over a dozen emails with my various contacts at Klippel. This eventually led to a wonderful 2+ hour zoom call with one of my engineering contacts at Klippel where I was basically hands on with DB-Lab (the software that does the NFS calculations and graphing).

Upon Klippel’s request, Amir was kind enough to share the measurement database and as such, I was able to really dig into the data. The Klippel NFS is truly state of the art, but it does measure in the nearfield. In short, for directivity measurements (what it was essentially designed for) it measures at calculated near field points in 2 cylinders around the speaker, with one cylinder being at a slightly larger diameter compared to the 1st cylinder. With these measurement points, it uses complex field separation algorithms combined with some gating (from about 3kHz and up) to effectively remove the “room” from the measurements thus producing a high-resolution 3D anechoic far field directivity scan. All the measurement points (can be several thousand if needed) are taken in the nearfield and all far field data is then calculated.

What is especially interesting is that besides the data needed to calculate CEA-2034 specifications, one can quickly see the response for any off-axis angle at any distance. This is far superior to using a turntable in an anechoic chamber as this measures in only 2 planes, either 0-360 vertically *OR* 0-360 horizontally. One cannot measure, for example, 45 degs horizontally *AND* 45 degrees vertically without physically moving the microphone. I have always thought soundpower and predicted in-room response measurements were very limited because as mentioned, this data only measures in 2 planes and that is not fully representative as to what we actually hear. I estimate that at some point in the near future, CEA-2034 standards will be updated to include a true spatial response, a measurement technique I was required to use when developing a THX certified speaker ~ 30 years ago. This required taking measurements by having the speaker fixed in one position of a room but taking many different measurements each with different mic positions and heights. I have always felt this was a more accurate technique than current soundpower standards, but it requires a ton more work than simply using a turntable and repeatability is difficult.

Now armed with much more knowledge of the NFS, with the key points being the distances used between the mic and DUT, and voltage levels Amir used, I set out to match Amir’s measurements using our own test gear.

Using MLSSA to do nearfield testing is rather simple, but to gain maximum resolution I had to reconfigure various setup parameters to make sure I was using the same measurement distances as the NFS. After much research and even more trial and error, I found that allowing a few minor reflections so that we can increase the time window from about 8ms to a massive 23ms, we were able to match Amir’s measurements from about 200Hz and up.

Bam, there it was… that nasty high Q port resonance.

I have designed many dozens of commercially successful speakers using the same gear and configurations over the past 4 decades, many of which have been intensively reviewed and measured – the same configurations used by many of the companies using MLSSA systems as I mentioned above. This new configuration was something different but obviously now necessary because the Klippel NFS is sure to become the new standard.

With this new testing configuration, I then coded new macros to automate the 72 measurements needed to measure soundpower, including the weighted averages needed for the calculations. From this data, I can then fully automate all the data needed to generate more accurate CEA-2034 measurements. This is something we have been doing for a while, but now our processes and the results are more accurate and of higher resolution – far exceeding previous standards.

With the results from ASR and our new measurement configurations, we made significant investments into our R&D. The most critical project was obviously going to be reducing the port resonances in these 2 models. One can only go so far with modeling, and I suspected this would require a specially designed sample cabinet whereby I could try various slot port configurations. Considering Covid, which has truly devastated small businesses in California, lead times for these special sample cabinets from our domestic cabinet maker were far too long to work for my timing. As a result of this, we purchased our own industrial grade CNC router, (2) 3D printers, and extremely advanced CAD/CAM software that now allows us to go directly from 3D CAD to accurately cutting the baffles on our CNC, and/or printing various parts on one of our 3D printers. I made several fully 3D printed Luna cabinets (wood filament is very interesting!). Unfortunately, each cabinet took about 24 hours to print, and that was if I got lucky and didn’t run out of filament or experience a jam. The move to a full blown CNC was expensive but a massive time saver.

This is now about as fast as rapid sampling can get in this industry and I doubt ANY similar sized or even many larger loudspeaker manufacturers have the capabilities we now have. This would be considered a sizeable investment for businesses that are even significantly larger than we are, especially during Covid but we take the performance of our products very seriously.

[davef]

Part 4

(getting to the good stuff)

I prefer to skip over all the various processes between back then and where we are currently at, but after intense engineering work on reconfiguration of the slot port, we ended up exactly back where we started. These woofers simply perform better at the original port tune (~60Hz), and to do this meant there would be no changes to the slot port dimensions, that or we would have to significantly increase cabinet sizes and that defeats the entire purpose of these speakers.

Some will ask about going with a sealed cabinet. I tested this approach, and the losses in bass extension were just not acceptable. We would end up with a speaker that would start rolling off at about 200Hz, also defeating the purpose of these speakers.

It was then that I took a different approach, going back to the development of our Q-Plug “B”, which effectively mass loads and damps the port in the Sierra-1. Would a similar approach work for the Luna and Duo?

After much research and sampling, we found a specialized foam that offers exceptionally high damping at the frequencies we needed, combined with allowing air to flow through. We determined the appropriate size and layout and in combination with changing the internal damping of the cabinet, this solution turned out to be extremely effective at eliminating port resonance and air turbulence. It also dramatically reduced any port leakage and all with almost no changes to the critical port tune. In addition, overall bass extension was slightly improved due to reducing turbulence and slowing the airspeed in the port.

The results were dramatic.

Original Luna port response:

2074

Luna V2 port response:

2075

Comparison: (Luna V2 port response in purple)

2076

With port resonance now fully resolved, next step was to rebalance the crossover as the bass response of the speaker was now slightly different than the original (a good thing). In working with this, I came across something most interesting that required investigation.

The measurements I posted above of the port response were all taken in the nearfield (with a 23ms time window). My port measurements of the exact same speaker that was measured at ASR now closely match the port response measured by the Klippel NFS. However, the port response measurements dramatically change when measured at 1 meter.

Port response at 1 meter:
(Note, at 1 meter we are also picking up the woofer response)

2077

Using the exact same windowing with no gating, thus seeing the influence of the room (minor reflections) – you can see how the high Q spikes of the original speaker are significantly reduced. These resonances behave differently than the response from a woofer, which when examined anechoically, the frequency response will not change at different distances (other than in overall amplitude)


To be sure this wasn’t due to the room, I now gated the impulse response to remove the influence of the room (at 1 meter with a 23ms time window, the room will have influence).

Port response at 1 meter, anechoic.

2079

The prominent high Q spikes at 600Hz and 1200Hz are mostly gone. I found this puzzling. As I mentioned previously, the Klippel NFS measures in the nearfield and the farfield response is calculated mathematically. My measurements clearly show that port resonance propagates differently than, for example, a woofer. Could there possibly be an issue such that NFS measurements are somewhat exaggerating front port resonance? There is no way for the NFS (or for any measurement system for that matter) to inherently know the difference between the output of a port or driver. Could the NFS be picking up all that nearfield turbulence and using it in the algorithms to determine the farfield response?

I didn’t know and the engineer I was working with at Klippel also could not confirm one way or the other. This would certainly explain some of the other front ported speakers measured at ASR that showed prominent port resonances that didn’t show up in other published measurements. For example, the Salk WOW1 measurements published on the Salk website differ from ASR’s measurements in the area where the NFS picked up port resonance.

Could this simply be a matter of microphone distances? It has long been the standard to measure a speaker at either 1 or 2 meters. We typically measure at 1 meter. In the case of the NFS, it measures at nearfield distances and 1 meter response (or any farfield response) is calculated mathematically.

Or is it that the NFS is simply much more accurate? (which is also possible)

To check this, I went back to the basics. MLSSA can operate in a power spectrum mode, reading the response of the room very much like an analog RTA (real time analyzer). I often use this mode when I don’t trust a particular measurement. In this case, I started to question everything, so I connected a low distortion oscillator to an amp and connected the amp outputs to the original Luna. I set the oscillator frequency to 600Hz and ran the sweep. I then ran 3 more sweeps, increasing the frequency by 200Hz each time.

2078

As you can see, the amplitude differences in the fundamental peaks match well to the ungated 1-meter response. There doesn't appear to be a prominent port resonance showing up in this measurement at 600Hz, unlike the nearfield measurement. I do somewhat trust this measurement because it is as close to simulating human hearing with electronic test equipment as one can get.

I should mention, I have already resolved the port resonance issue but the scientist in me took over and there was just no possibility I could let this question in my mind go. To be clear, I am not stating that the NFS measurements of front ported speakers are inaccurate, but there are differences showing up that need to be further examined…

Please wait for Part 5…

[davef]

Part 5 (conclusion)


Introducing the Luna V2 and Duo V2

I have mentioned several times how important it is to trust measurements. This is not as simple as it sounds. It takes years / decades of experience to look at a loudspeaker measurement and trust it. It also often requires using different test gear as secondary confirmation. MLSSA, LMS, CLIO, TEF, Audio Precision, Praxis; add to that a half dozen software-based systems that use PC sound cards, I have experience with all of these. All have pros and cons, various limitations.

It is difficult for me to estimate how many loudspeaker measurements I have taken over the past 4 decades – considering I test speakers 5 days a week, I estimate I have likely taken over a hundred thousand measurements at this point (realistically it is probably twice that).

When factoring in my obsessive scientific curiosity, the situation I mentioned in part 4, my time spent with the engineers at both Klippel and Warkwyn, and the potential the Klippel NFS brings to R&D – I, unfortunately, quickly realized I had no choice in this situation.

I am most pleased to announce that Ascend Acoustics purchased a Klippel NFS.

I have spent the last 5 months learning, optimizing, and getting to know this game changing device. This is an insanely expensive instrument; its cost alone greatly limits what companies own or will ever own one. We have actually had it in full operation since this past April.

We are the very first internet direct audio company in the world to purchase an NFS and it is simply unheard of for a loudspeaker company of our size to make this type of investment into R&D. I have stated we don’t mess around, and I most obviously truly mean that.

What I quickly realized during my hands on zoom call with Klippel, that combining the power of our MLSSA systems together with the Klippel NFS puts us at the forefront of R&D and, this is not even questionable, Ascend Acoustics now has one of the most advanced acoustics labs on this planet. Firmly planting us back at the forefront of speaker design and measurement, a position we enjoyed for many years when we first got started ~ 22 years ago.

There are many new and exciting things coming to you, our customers – our family, some of which no other company could possibly offer. I can not get into all the details of what we have planned, implementation will take some time.

For now, and what is most important – we are most pleased to announce both the Luna V2 and Duo V2. Both of which now feature our unique NFS optimized port damping system combined with a re-balanced crossover that has also been fully developed using our Klippel NFS.

With the port issue resolved to highly favorable conditions, I decided to experiment a bit more and devised an improved method to integrate the RAAL tweeter in both the Luna and Duo crossovers. This new integration provides a bit more of the classic in-room response curve but without sacrificing any of the remarkably wide horizontal dispersion. This new method would not have been possible without taking full advantage of the NFS directivity measurements combined with advanced mathematical modeling / optimization of that directivity. The Luna V2 and Duo V2 are warmer and smoother sounding, with improved midrange clarity.

We had wonderful customer feedback and an extremely high customer satisfaction rate on both the Luna and Duo before ASR, so it will be an interesting real-time experiment to compare the original version satisfaction rates with the new V2 versions. The new versions sound warmer, cleaner and more relaxed, without sacrificing anything. There is no hint of audible port resonances (I don’t believe the prior port resonance was audible as human hearing cannot detect such high Q peaks), but now the measurements look fantastic and that means a lot.

Here you go.

Luna V2 CEA 2034:

2085

Predicted in-room response:

2086

And what makes this little speaker so special

Horizontal beam width:

2087

This beam width is remarkable, it represents a very even +/- 100 degs, with no narrowing of the upper frequency ranges yet the predicted in-room response shows a classic and preferable downward slope. This makes both the Luna V2 and Duo V2 quite unique and unmatched in this regard. This translates to an exceptionally wide soundstage with precise imaging. This wide and linear dispersion is simply not possible with a dome tweeter and has been greatly improved upon with our new method of crossover integration.

Early Reflections:

2088

Duo V2 CEA 2034:

2089

Predicted in-room response:

2090

Horizontal beam width:

2091

Early Reflections:

2092


We are now just waiting on crossovers to be delivered to us (we estimate 2 months, factoring in the current nightmare situation with shipping and part supplies). For those who do not wish to wait that long, please send me an email.

My final thoughts on this issue.

Based on much experimentation and various other measurement comparisons, I believe the Klippel NFS does slightly exaggerate front port resonance issues when calculating its far field measurements. The port resonance in the original Luna and Duo does indeed exist, as I mentioned and measured in Part 4, but I am not yet entirely sure if this is represented properly in far field measurements because this area of the far field measurements differs considerably between what the NFS calculates and what other measurement gear measures. Since there was no way for me to confirm this, one way or the other, the best approach was to simply eliminate / reduce the port resonance to the point where it does not show on both the NFS measurements and our other test systems. In this manner, I am assured it no longer exists.

One additional item I found most interesting. Below are the CEA-2034 measurements of the Duo when positioned horizontally (as a center) with the tweeter properly rotated. Note how close these measurements are to the vertical Duo. The predicted in-room response is nearly identical.

Horizontal Duo CEA-2034:

2093

Horizontal Duo Predicted in-room response:

2094

As I originally mentioned when we first started discussing the NFS measurement results at ASR, we will take what we learned, and both the Luna and Duo will come back as better performing speakers. There is no question these measurements represent remarkable performance improvements, not only an improvement but with documented measurements of the highest resolution possible that now compare well with even the best passive speakers out there.

The past 5 months has been an interesting time; exhausting, educational, exciting, and expensive. Add to this my accident and Covid and, well, I don't know how I will look back at this time period but I will say that I am most happy with the investments we have chosen to make for the future of Ascend and the benefits this brings to our ever growing family.

As always, thank you all for your continued support!

[djDANNY]

First of all, didn’t know about the accident so hoping the best for you and your recovery.

Second, 5 parts??? Not gonna lie I’m getting a bit excited where this is going.

[davef]

First of all, didn’t know about the accident so hoping the best for you and your recovery.

Second, 5 parts??? Not gonna lie I’m getting a bit excited where this is going.

Thanks for your kind words. Not really sure how many parts I will break it up into, wanted to make sure I reserve enough space though :)

[merrymaid520]

Wow Dave! Yikes. I’m glad you avoided surgery and are expected to make a full recovery! Not the ideal way to spend a summer…..on top of fighting for employees most likely as well.

[elan120]

I did not go though this entire thread, but after reading few comments about ASR, I would like to express a bit of my experience. In my recent speaker search, I did see ASR review pop up as part of the search on Internet, but based on my experience on other gears I purchased and comments floating around about what Amir and ASR's review show on those products, I purposely skip their review since I have completely lost confidence in their ability to show anything fair "objectively" about their measurment or review.

After discussed with few people I trust greatly about Ascend speakers, and inputs from Dave, including a short time couple weeks ago while he was in great discomfort but still willing to answer my phone call, I placed an order for a pair of Towers, a pair of S2EXs, and a Horizon to show my
confidents in Ascend's products that they will meet or exceed my expectations, and feel even more comfortable that the entire Ascend team will stand behind their products.

[petmotel]

I feel bad reviving this topic, I had no clue that Dave had been injured, I wish you the best, and hope you experience a full recovery.

I can only imagine how someone of unquestionable character must feel when strangers are saying unkind things, seems to be a common theme all too often in these times. My wife has experienced similar issues as a monkey owner whom has posted videos of how she cares for, and feeds all natural, whole foods, and still attracts haters that make unimaginably cruel attacks against her. As a result she no longer posts monkey content on social media.

I surely had to bite my tongue when I read the ridiculous comments posted on ASR. Someone had commented about the sibilance of ribbon tweeters, I remember thinking that poor soul must have terribly damaged hearing. It's the nature of the beast when anyone can say anything from the anonymity of their keyboard.

Jay

[racrawford65]

Dave, my wishes as well for a speedy and full recovery.

I echo the sentiments above - Dave, Dina, and the Ascend Team demonstrate highest level of integrity and ethics, take the time to understand customer needs, and deliver excellent products. Pleasure to do business with. Key reasons I've bought multiple speakers from them and at top of my list for any future speaker purchases.

Most of my equipment now comes from people/companies with similar principles - Brian/Enrico at Rythmik, Mark/Nick at Rogue, and Mat at VPI as a few examples.

[chas]

Dave - sorry to hear about the accident, but glad you're recovering...and grateful that you were wearing a helmet! Looking forward to the rest of your posts in this interesting thread.

[monkuboy]

Dave, so sorry to hear about your accident but am glad that you are recovering and it wasn't more serious! Regardless of measurements, the bottom line for any audio gear is how it sounds. I love my 2EX's and it makes no difference to me how they measure. I just assume the measurements must be very good because of the way they sound.

[SunByrne]

My goodness, Dave, please rest up and get well! I had kidney surgery this summer and that has a long recovery time so I know how difficult and frustrating that can be. Best wishes for a speedy recovery!

[davef]

Big thanks for all of the well wishes! Every day a little more progress and just this afternoon I maxed out the spirometer I need to use to exercise my lungs. From struggling to reach 1000 on it 5 weeks ago, to now over 4000 with little pain.

[djDANNY]

Dave, if you ever need a retirement job I suggest being an author. Part 2 was great… the suspense and build up is killing me

[petmotel]

Seems telling to me that well regarded front ported speakers are not measuring the same from Amir's measurements compared with published measurements from professional speaker manufacturers. As well, how can a speaker (Ascend or any other brand) measure as poorly as Amir is posting, and still sound good to the end user, and be well regarded? Just because someone has acquired an expensive gadget doesn't necessarily mean they are qualified to use it correctly, nor are they necessarily qualified to interpret those results.

That Dave has not been able to come close to reproducing the responses posted at ASR is troubling indeed. To me, it is incredibly unfortunate that an employee of a company can influence to any degree the perceptions of people to competing company's products, there is just too much conflict of interest to suggest neutrality. This whole situation could easily be seen in a very nefarious light if one is to examine the obvious inconsistencies.

Jay

[Shazb0t]

Seems telling to me that well regarded front ported speakers are not measuring the same from Amir's measurements compared with published measurements from professional speaker manufacturers. As well, how can a speaker (Ascend or any other brand) measure as poorly as Amir is posting, and still sound good to the end user, and be well regarded? Just because someone has acquired an expensive gadget doesn't necessarily mean they are qualified to use it correctly, nor are they necessarily qualified to interpret those results.

That Dave has not been able to come close to reproducing the responses posted at ASR is troubling indeed. To me, it is incredibly unfortunate that an employee of a company can influence to any degree the perceptions of people to competing company's products, there is just too much conflict of interest to suggest neutrality. This whole situation could easily be seen in a very nefarious light if one is to examine the obvious inconsistencies.

Jay

The speaker measurements from Amir off the Klippel are accurate. Any attempt to paint them otherwise is needless deflecting. Is port noise rising up and influencing the frequency response of a speaker desired? No, it is not. Dave has said as much himself. There is no need to try to paint this as some sort of conspiracy. And no, gated in-room measurements with an expensive mic are not better than what the Klippel NFS provides. The idea that Amir just "listens" to measurements is also not a fair assessment. The reviews of the Ascend speakers (and all speakers reviews on ASR) have listening tests with and without parametric EQ that is applied by ear per the measured results. Do the Luna's sound as good as they could had the port issues been measured and addressed prior to release? It is likely that they don't. It also makes EQ for the bass more difficult. The main issue Amir had with the Lunas was the tilted up higher frequencies. I don't doubt that the Luna which was tested sounded brighter. The spinorama and EIR confirm as much. These measurements aren't all that subjective.

Amir has had good reviews for Ascend speakers in the Horizon and Sierra 2, so it's not accurate to imply some sort of vendetta. The dude reviews speakers, which always implies some level of subjectivity, to the best of his ability and provides quality measurement data we otherwise wouldn't get from manufacturers. Being upset that he doesn't recommend or "like" a speaker that you purchased doesn't justify trying to gaslight other people on the accuracy of the provided data. Move on if you don't care to see data that doesn't jive with your worldview. There is no agenda.

I'm adding an edit to this post to clarify that it was made prior to Dave posting any investigation details after his initial response. Further postings by Dave have shown my initial trepidation about where the response was going weren't necessary. Shouldn't have had any doubt!

As far as Dave's continuation of the multi parts series response; I hope that it doesn't devolve into a list of excuses for why the Klippel NFS data, spinorama, and EIR are not reliable data points to make observations on the performance of a loudspeaker. Because they are. What would be great to see is acknowledgement that the port resonances can be addressed or just own that the response is what it is and is/was intended. Ascend has been on the forefront of science based measurements in the past and it's not a good look to throw that out now when new data shows differences from what was expected. Have the customer returned Luna measured on another Klippel NFS. Send it to Erin Audio or something if you really believe the data to be false. These are actions that make sense. Doubling down on anecdotes about how everyone who spends money on your product loves them is a transparent ploy. I don't intend this to be negative, but I want to believe that I purchased speakers made by a company run by someone who is able to appropriately respond to legitimate data/criticism without going into classic audio woo tropes. So far the response has been okay, my point is that it can be a fine line. I hope the future response series stays on the right side of it.

[petmotel]

The speaker measurements from Amir off the Klippel are accurate. Any attempt to paint them otherwise is needless deflecting
Can you explain how you know this to be the case? Who are you and why are you always there to get Amir's back? What are your qualifications that I should respect your comments? Have you been present during any of the speaker testing to confirm the procedure?


Being upset that he doesn't recommend or "like" a speaker that you purchased doesn't justify trying to gaslight other people on the accuracy of the provided data
Although I recommended the Luna name in their development thread, I don't own a Luna or Duo so I'm not defending something I own.


Ascend has been on the forefront of science based measurements in the past and it's not a good look to throw that out now when new data shows differences from what was expected
It has always been Ascend's goal to design speakers that sound good and measure well, are you really suggesting they would suddenly change their whole philosophy, and then fudge the test results? Seriously?

Jay

[racrawford65]

Jay,
excellent follow-up comments. I had started a long post with several similar points as in your reply but deleted it. I had the exact same thought as you regarding the accuracy comment.

Further, my take from Dave's first two posts is that Amir's measurements are not aligned with his own, and it appears he's tested several Luna's that are in stock (and is/will test the speakers in question when received). Of the ones he's tested, he's not seen the same issue. Despite his injuries, seems Dave is working hard to determine the cause of the difference in measurements. Furthermore, understanding of what one is seeing in measurements and that of human physiology (eg hearing) adds credibility to Dave's posts, IMO, along with his 30+ years of experience in the industry. Dave/Ascend focus on speakers; Amir reviews just about anything and has a comment on such. He's a reviewer (plus a Harman employee as I understand), so that in itself would give me pause that his subjectivity may be somewhat biased.

As to tilting up, looking at the Luna measurements on the Ascend site, they appear pretty flat on the high end. Based on Dave's comment, they appear to be selling well (exceeding forecast). Unless all the buyers like bright speakers, I'd assume he'd have many returns.

And the last couple of sentences in Shazbot's post (quoted below) were really uncalled for, especially if he actually understood that Dave was working on this scientifically, wasn't a transparent ploy, and is responding appropriately. What makes Amir's data legitimate and not Ascends?.

"Doubling down on anecdotes about how everyone who spends money on your product loves them is a transparent ploy. I don't intend this to be negative, but I want to believe that I purchased speakers made by a company run by someone who is able to appropriately respond to legitimate data/criticism without going into classic audio woo tropes."

I have none of the issues Amir claims with my Duo center. It is not bright nor do I hear any port chuffing. It was a nice step up from the S2 I was previously using for a center in terms of dialog clarity.

[djDANNY]

Can we let Dave finish his posts before we start flinging around accusations (both on the pro and against Ascend sides)?

All I see is Dave taking us through his (exciting in my opinion) journey of investigating a finding from a 3rd party measurement, and he hasn't stated anything to the regards of saying the Klippel NFS measurements are wrong, only that with the way he measured with his equipment (which from the post in part 1 clearly implies is not going to provide the same detailed resolution as that which is possible from the Klippel NFS) he sees the same port resonances but perhaps not to the same level as the Klippel measurements.

And I see nothing wrong with pointing out that customers who bought the Luna/Duo's are happy with them. If Dave's point is that the port resonances exist but largely due to their high Q do not make an audible impact, then the only way to back that up is by actual user feedback. A proxy for that would be customer satisfaction which shows up in the % of units returned. A measurement can only tell you something exists, it can't tell you if it's audible or not. You need people to tell you that.

[Shazb0t]

I stand by what I said. I didn't accuse Dave of fudging anything nor did I intend an "against Ascend" response. As I also stated, I think what Dave's said so far is okay. I'm a little hesitant about him insinuating the Klippel frequency response isn't indicative of issues that are audible, I don't agree with that. I'm admittedly not a fan of the whole, my speakers sell well so they must not have any issues kind of defense; but that being said I'm looking forward to the rest of Dave's response. And as I said, I hope he provides some solid investigative information and is able to improve the Luna or future satellite surrounds based on any new information and/or data collection equipment. I agree with Dave that the Klippel NFS changes things.

As an owner of the RAAL Towers and Horizon Center, I do enjoy the speakers! I also enjoyed reading Amir's review of the Horizon. Ascend can and does make good speakers! Personally, from the Luna measurements on ASR, I crossed them off as a potential surround solution for my system until/if they are modified. I would feel much better about the Sierra-2 or Sierra-2EX, and that's okay! Clearly the Luna was designed with certain constraints and some compromises had to be made. That is understandable! My initial point is that there is no reason to be mad about that. For someone out there, in their specific setup, the Luna could be their best options for ribbon tweeter surrounds. I could definitely see that as a possibility. But that doesn't change the reality of what they are and how the measure. There isn't a conspiracy here.

[petmotel]

I have a very curious nature, I'm as interested as anyone to see the results of Dave's investigation. I made comments that I have concerns about the legitimacy of third party testing by an employee of a competing speaker company. To deny the possibility of brand bias under these circumstances is unrealistic in my experience, thus the reasons for my comments.

Further, to suggest any hint of deceit or impropriety by Ascend is in direct conflict with everything they hold dear. So pardon me for stating the obvious, there is a considerable discrepancy between the two testing methods, it is difficult to understand how both can be right. One comes from a trusted source, one from a person that I have seen in the past post very negatively towards Dave/Ascend, so there is that in the back of my mind. But yes, let us not be hasty and let Dave finish the story of his journey, fascinating to be sure.

Jay

[davef]

Hey guys - I have a LOT more to post, let's keep things calm, friendly and respectful. I didn't expect to miss making a post yesterday, but per the team of Dr's who are treating me, they wanted me to get a Covid vaccine ASAP due to the rampant spread of Delta in my area. With a compromised lung, they thought it best not to wait any longer.

I went Wednesday evening to get the 1st Moderna shot and it literally knocked me on my ass yesterday. They had warned me that it might aggravate my pain - but what I didn't expect was that it would put me back to around week #2 pain. Wow -- every broken rib was on fire! Thankfully they were right when they said it should only last 24 hours because I am feeling so much better today and fully able to work. Damn this Covid!

I'll post part 3 later this evening when I am at home.

[Beave]

I have a very curious nature, I'm as interested as anyone to see the results of Dave's investigation. I made comments that I have concerns about the legitimacy of third party testing by an employee of a competing speaker company. To deny the possibility of brand bias under these circumstances is unrealistic in my experience, thus the reasons for my comments.

Amir doesn't work for a competing speaker company. Where did that come from?

He's a retired Microsoft executive who owns an audio store and/or home theater install company, one that does carry Revel speakers. But he does not work for Harman in any capacity, never has, and has a somewhat strained relationship with them.

[Beave]

DaveF, wishing you a full and fast recovery.

[petmotel]

Amir doesn't work for a competing speaker company. Where did that come from?

He's a retired Microsoft executive who owns an audio store and/or home theater install company, one that does carry Revel speakers. But he does not work for Harman in any capacity, never has, and has a somewhat strained relationship with them.


He apparently thinks that because he includes the "I work for Harman" disclaimer that people will give him a pass on this or something. I mean, I guess it is actually working for him but I can't read it or take it seriously.

Above from a post by SunByrne, thanks for the clarification Beave.

Jay

[Shazb0t]

Above from a post by SunByrne, thanks for the clarification Beave.

Jay
As pointed out by Beave, Amir does not work for Harmon and includes a disclosure that his custom audio install company carries Revel speakers. He is very transparent about potential biases and the whole point of objective measurements and science based testing is to acknowledge that everyone has bias and that it's difficult to eliminate. You'll also notice that AudioScienceReview has no advertisements or sponsors anywhere on the site. Uncommon for a forum with it's level of traffic. There's no paywall, services, or products for sale. People upset with the data and opinions shared there who are accusing the site of an agenda are fighting an uphill battle when you look at the facts.

[billy p]

Perhaps playing Monday morning QB...he should design, build and sell his own products to apease the masses and prepare himself for any critiquing...of said products. With every design there are trade-offs...every design built has them...some less others moreso...but imo it's easy to sit back and try to pick out weakness or limitation...when a builder has to factors in profit margins, production costs and have some success doing so!

[petmotel]

Are you ok Dave? Although mainstream press won't cover it, tens of thousands (if not more) have been killed and injured by the "covid shot", I'm truly concerned!

Jay

[goldark]

Are you ok Dave? Although mainstream press won't cover it, tens of thousands (if not more) have been killed and injured by the "covid shot", I'm truly concerned!

Jay

No, they haven't. Please don't derail this thread with your conspiracy theories.

[petmotel]

No, they haven't. Please don't derail this thread with your conspiracy theories.

Dave already said he had a severe reaction but was going to post the next part of the series when he got home last night. I am concerned, it's not like him to go missing in action. I'm glad that you're content with the official narrative, our level of awareness deviates at that point. Unless our freedom of speech has been deleted, I'm as entitled to my views as you are to yours. Some things just take precedence over others, Dave's well being much more so than the subject of this thread IMHO.

Jay

[racrawford65]

Jay, where is your source for the information that tens of thousands have been killed by the shot? And is related to a particular supplier? Or due to some underlying condition (all medicines have so many CYA caveats). Just curious as I don't buy all the narrative from our government (or others) as well.

Dave - hope you are feeling better. Hope your doctors have a theory as to why such a reaction (from what I've read/heard, it's usually the second shot where people have some sort of reaction).

[Shazb0t]

I have clarity as to why you're pushing a conspiracy theory regarding ASR vs Ascend now that you've gone and spouted some BS about the covid vaccine killing "tens of thousands (if not more) of people"... Do you understand how clinical trials work?

[petmotel]

Jay, where is your source for the information that tens of thousands have been killed by the shot? And is related to a particular supplier? Or due to some underlying condition (all medicines have so many CYA caveats). Just curious as I don't buy all the narrative from our government (or others) as well.

Dave - hope you are feeling better. Hope your doctors have a theory as to why such a reaction (from what I've read/heard, it's usually the second shot where people have some sort of reaction).

As much as I'd like the opportunity to post here regarding that information, so as not to disturb the fragile sensibilities of the Wokes, I will DM some information to you!

Jay

[davef]

DaveF, wishing you a full and fast recovery.

Thanks Beave!

[davef]

Please, let's keep the Covid vaccine debate out of this. I only posted what I did because I know many of you were waiting for part 3 and that dang shot made every busted bone in this old body feel like it was on fire. If not for 8 broken bones, I don't think the side effects would have been bad at all, just a sore left arm.

I also want to clarify something, I am really not for or against the vaccine and I respect everyone's opinion on this. In my case, this was a matter of the lesser of two evils, with Delta spreading everywhere around here and with a compromised lung, my Dr's made it very clear I must do everything possible to avoid getting this new variant. One of those Dr's is my sister, and without any question - she has my best health in mind always. With my son going back to college next week (on campus) and my daughter back to high school this week (no more zoom nonsense) - it was best no to wait any longer.

[curtis]

One thing I wish Amir would do is provide listening impressions before he takes measurements. Not only his, but maybe from a few others as well. Not only with speakers, but everything he measures/reviews.

[MusicHead]

Dave, thanks for taking the time to write part 3, even amidst your health struggles. It was a fascinating read. At the beginning of my career in electronics I spent four years characterizing power devices for a semiconductor company. I know first hand what it means taking hundreds of measurements and then spending hours (days!) correlating and analyzing a massive amount of data in search of THAT hidden, elusive needle in the haystack.
Can't wait for part 4!

[petmotel]

Wow, I don't think anyone could possibly question the commitment to performance after what has been posted. I'd really like to see a 3D printer fabricating with the wood filament! At some point maybe you can post some pictures of the CNC table, as well as the 3D printer making something with the filament. I used a CNC table to produce sheet metal fittings some time back, it's pretty much standard in the industry now for the larger shops that can afford the tech.

I've got quite a few questions, but need to let you finish the series so I don't ask things that will be covered.

Just to be sure I have the general idea of what you have covered, it's my understanding that more readings were required with altered gating requirements, and newer algorithms were used to interpret the data to more closely approximate 3D soundpower and in room response?

Jay

[Robert]

Dave,

Wishing you a speedy recovery! Just don't leave us in suspense for too long. :)

[MDinno]

Here's something to think about. Unless you have a big screen tv like 70+inch tv where the mains are spread apart you don't need a center channel. I'll say it again. You don't need a center channel. I have a 4.1 in th my bedroom for my 42 inch tv and it sounds fantastic. No issues with dialogue. I think it's a myth saying the center is the most important speaker. I disagree your mains are your most important speakers and the subwoofer of course. Notice in your AVR you can turn off the center but you can't turn off the mains. Plus, without a center you also free up power in your AVR to your mains and surrounds for more added dynamics. Something to really think about if you have a budget AVR.

[djDANNY]

Here's something to think about. Unless you have a big screen tv like 70+inch tv where the mains are spread apart you don't need a center channel. I'll say it again. You don't need a center channel. I have a 4.1 in th my bedroom for my 42 inch tv and it sounds fantastic. No issues with dialogue. I think it's a myth saying the center is the most important speaker. I disagree your mains are your most important speakers and the subwoofer of course. Notice in your AVR you can turn off the center but you can't turn off the mains. Plus, without a center you also free up power in your AVR to your mains and surrounds for more added dynamics. Something to really think about if you have a budget AVR.

Thought about it and came to the conclusion that this makes no sense.

First, if you push all three channels (LCR) to just your mains, you're putting a greater load on each of hte mains. You don't magically gain headroom in your amplifier, you're just asking the mains to play 3 channels worth of content downmixed into them versus spreading the load over 3 actual speakers (just think of the first law of thermodynamics... conservation of energy). For example, instead of having the LCR play 30% left, 30% right, and 40% center, you're just moving it so that it's 50% left and 50% right... no savings in amplifier power.

Second, now that you've just put more on the left and right mains, each speaker has to play louder than if it were spread amongst three speakers (left, right, and center). Any time you require speakers to play louder, they also play with higher distortion.

[billy p]

∆∆... furthermore...I'd rather have a CC vs. a phantom by using your mains. The few occasions...this happened to me it was noticable...because as good as my mains image...for home theater...there is simply a void in the sound-field.. I'm not willing to forego...unless circumstances prevent the use of a cc.

[MDinno]

Thought about it and came to the conclusion that this makes no sense.

First, if you push all three channels (LCR) to just your mains, you're putting a greater load on each of hte mains. You don't magically gain headroom in your amplifier, you're just asking the mains to play 3 channels worth of content downmixed into them versus spreading the load over 3 actual speakers (just think of the first law of thermodynamics... conservation of energy). For example, instead of having the LCR play 30% left, 30% right, and 40% center, you're just moving it so that it's 50% left and 50% right... no savings in amplifier power.

Second, now that you've just put more on the left and right mains, each speaker has to play louder than if it were spread amongst three speakers (left, right, and center). Any time you require speakers to play louder, they also play with higher distortion.

Plenty of people that are into audio have 2.1 or 4.1 setups. There's professional installers that recommend it for smaller tv's also. That's a fact whether you agree with it or not. There's no issue especially if you aren't into playing loud.

[curtis]

If you can do a center channel, it is never the wrong thing to do.

[MDinno]

If you can do a center channel, it is never the wrong thing to do.

It wasn't meant to start anything. Just saying for those who don't have a lot of money to throw around. It's not life or death. You can still have an awesome sounding system without one.

[davef]

If you can do a center channel, it is never the wrong thing to do.

I recommend this as well. In a smaller room in my home, I removed the center and TV console to have higher "WAF". After a few weeks, we quickly decided to forget the WAF and put the center back :o

[curtis]

It wasn't meant to start anything. Just saying for those who don't have a lot of money to throw around. It's not life or death. You can still have an awesome sounding system without one.
Understood. I think it was just the way you worded it.

[curtis]

I recommend this as well. In a smaller room in my home, I removed the center and TV console to have higher "WAF". After a few weeks, we quickly decided to forget the WAF and put the center back :o
As you know, we are looking at houses in this crazy market, and while she isn't a WAF, I am struggling a bit with this. Luckily, she is understanding and enjoys the A/V system as well.

Why they heck is there a fireplace wherever I want to put the TV in these places? :D

[racrawford65]

Why they heck is there a fireplace wherever I want to put the TV in these places? :D

For a place to hide the subwoofer :-)

[davef]

As you know, we are looking at houses in this crazy market, and while she isn't a WAF, I am struggling a bit with this. Luckily, she is understanding and enjoys the A/V system as well.


You are a lucky man Curtis!


Why they heck is there a fireplace wherever I want to put the TV in these places? :D

Right? This drives me nuts, nearly every day someone is contacting us asking for recommendations as to where to put the center since the TV is mounted directly atop a fireplace. Builders these days have no clue...

[davef]

Are you ok Dave? Although mainstream press won't cover it, tens of thousands (if not more) have been killed and injured by the "covid shot", I'm truly concerned!

Jay

Appreciate your concern. I am doing well. Any negative effects from shot # 1 are gone. Now I'm just back to "normal" rib pain,:eek:

[curtis]

For a place to hide the subwoofer :-)
oooh...that's an idea! :D

[racrawford65]

Appreciate your concern. I am doing well. Any negative effects from shot # 1 are gone. Now I'm just back to "normal" rib pain,:eek:

and the other problem with fireplaces in some parts of the country - only for "decoration" and actually don't really help heat the room. That's the case here in Houston. Wasn't the case in the house I lived in when in NY.

[davef]

Wow, I don't think anyone could possibly question the commitment to performance after what has been posted. I'd really like to see a 3D printer fabricating with the wood filament!

Hey Jay,

Here you go:

2080

This was an interesting experiment but the time involved with the print (about 24 hours) + some warpage when cooling made me quickly realize cutting from wood (CNC) rather than building up from wood filament (3D print) was the much better solution. For a cabinet about 1/2 the size of the Luna, 3D printing with wood filament could work well and as the technology improves, I have a hunch that at some point, most speaker cabinets will eventually be 3D printed.

[petmotel]

Hey Jay,

Here you go:

2080

This was an interesting experiment but the time involved with the print (about 24 hours) + some warpage when cooling made me quickly realize cutting from wood (CNC) rather than building up from wood filament (3D print) was the much better solution. For a cabinet about 1/2 the size of the Luna, 3D printing with wood filament could work well and as the technology improves, I have a hunch that at some point, most speaker cabinets will eventually be 3D printed.

Thanks for the photo, fascinating stuff, I think you have one of the best jobs there possibly could ever be. Also big props for your series into the port resonance issues, also absolutely fascinating stuff to the geeks whom enjoy this kind of thing.

I wonder if 3D printing of speaker cabinets does become common, if compound curves/advanced shapes would also become the norm, and what material would find favor among manufacturers.

Jay

[curtis]

Hey Jay,

This was an interesting experiment but the time involved with the print (about 24 hours) + some warpage when cooling made me quickly realize cutting from wood (CNC) rather than building up from wood filament (3D print) was the much better solution. For a cabinet about 1/2 the size of the Luna, 3D printing with wood filament could work well and as the technology improves, I have a hunch that at some point, most speaker cabinets will eventually be 3D printed.
Hey Dave...how about those 3D printers they have over at SpaceX? :) I think you saw the display samples I saw. A cabinet from one of those would be interesting.

[davef]

Hey Dave...how about those 3D printers they have over at SpaceX? :) I think you saw the display samples I saw. A cabinet from one of those would be interesting.

I actually saw those printers working, they were easily one of the highlights of the tour. Truly fascinating and the only possible method to make those specialized parts.

For anyone visiting SoCal, I highly recommend trying to arrange a tour of SpaceX in Hawthorne. You will see the future of manufacturing...

[davef]

Thanks for the photo, fascinating stuff, I think you have one of the best jobs there possibly could ever be. Also big props for your series into the port resonance issues, also absolutely fascinating stuff to the geeks whom enjoy this kind of thing.

I wonder if 3D printing of speaker cabinets does become common, if compound curves/advanced shapes would also become the norm, and what material would find favor among manufacturers.

Jay

I have found that curves are easier to get good results with compared to straight 90 degree joints. If designed properly, there are advantages to curved front baffles as they can significantly reduce diffraction effects. 3D print speed will have to dramatically increase to make this a manufacturing possibility, but I am sure it will eventually happen.

[curtis]

I actually saw those printers working....
OK....I feel short changed. I need to talk to my brother about that.

[Pogre]

Hey Jay,

Here you go:

2080

This was an interesting experiment but the time involved with the print (about 24 hours) + some warpage when cooling made me quickly realize cutting from wood (CNC) rather than building up from wood filament (3D print) was the much better solution. For a cabinet about 1/2 the size of the Luna, 3D printing with wood filament could work well and as the technology improves, I have a hunch that at some point, most speaker cabinets will eventually be 3D printed.

That is so cool! I'm assuming the lattice design sandwiched between the layers serves as bracing for stiffness? I think your hunch is spot on. As the tech matures, costs go down and they work out the kinks, I don't see why anyone wouldn't use this tech in the future. Exciting stuff Dave, thanks for sharing!

[Pogre]

I've used both and to my surprise I do prefer the Horizon over a Sierra 2 for cc duty. Surprised because I didn't really expect to notice any differences. I'm the first to admit sighted bias tho, so it's more than conceivable there's some placebo at play, but the Horizon is such a perfect timbre match with the towers it's very difficult to tell the difference between phantom and center when sitting on axis. The center is just slightly more anchored to the screen than when in phantom, and the Horizon is definitely more dynamic than the Sierra 2.

I'm very happy with the Horizon cc and moved my Sierra 2s to surround duty. I'm just starting to dip my toes into 5.1 music mixes and am pretty blown away by what my system can accomplish now. No regrets!

[Shazb0t]

Any idea when we can expect part 5? Is it the final chapter in this story?

[elan120]

2084

[davef]

That is so cool! I'm assuming the lattice design sandwiched between the layers serves as bracing for stiffness? I think your hunch is spot on. As the tech matures, costs go down and they work out the kinks, I don't see why anyone wouldn't use this tech in the future. Exciting stuff Dave, thanks for sharing!

With 3d prints, this is called the infill. The designer typically chooses the infill percentage (100% being solid and typically never used except for the first few top and bottom layers) and also the infill pattern. Different patterns offer different structural integrities. The idea being to get the strength you need, without using too much filament (saves $$$) while also trying to speed up the print time. Obviously, the higher the infill percentage, the more filament is used and the greater the print time.

In the case of the 3D printed sample cabinets we made, I was more concerned with testing different slot port configurations so I was not too concerned with overall cabinet stiffness. I don't recall the infill percentage I ended up with, but the cabinet did come out extremely stiff. I printed the front baffle and the port configurations as separate parts so that I can easily remove the front baffle to change the port configs.

[petmotel]

Any idea when we can expect part 5? Is it the final chapter in this story?

5a, 5b, and of course 5c (c for conclusion). Of course that's only guesswork/speculation, only the intrepid speaker designer here knows for sure. It is pretty excruciating waiting for the results of this examination, and I'm sure there is much curiosity in the results of the SQ after the tweaks that have been made. I expect all of those good things will come in their own time.

I would like to admit that after Dave's modified measuring exercises that Amir's Klippel results were fully vetted, as I had assumed in my post where I quoted SunByrne. As you've insisted, it is verification that his objective results are exactly what the Klippel NFS is measuring. Still doesn't change my opinion about the subjective side of his reviews, but I do recognize that subjective opinions about SQ often vary far and wide.

Jay

[bobola]

[QUOTE=davef;66348]Part 5 (conclusion)


Introducing the Luna V2 and Duo V2…..

As a satisfied customer (pair of Sierra-2 speakers), potential buyer of a pair of Lunas and a Duo speaker, and retired scientist, I feel compelled to just say this: Dave, I believe you may have set a new standard for transparency in product design and continued development. Congratulations and best wishes for good health and continued success.

[Shazb0t]

Part 5 (conclusion)


Introducing the Luna V2 and Duo V2
Congrats on the purchase Dave! You really made me look foolish for fearing you may have been going in a different direction! I'm very happy with how you ended up handling this situation and I'm excited for the v2 version of the Lunas. They may have to become my new surrounds. Looking forward to future projects!

[Pogre]

Agreed. Congrats on the purchase Dave! You really made me look foolish for fearing you may have gone a different direction here! I'm very happy with how you ended up handling this substation and I'm excited for the v2 version of the Lunas. They may have to become my new surrounds. Looking forward to future projects!

I really don't see how or why you would have thought he'd go another direction. I didn't get that at all reading this thread and I think some of your comments are misplaced and influenced by the empassioned replies from a couple other members here. Dave seems genuinely concerned and sincerely tackled the issue, even through some serious injuries. You assuming anything else seems unfounded to me.

Btw Dave, glad to see you recovering! I've broken a couple of ribs and it's the most pain I've gone through over an extended period of time. I didn't puncture any lungs tho! Holy crap.

[chas]

Congrats on the purchase Dave! You really made me look foolish for fearing you may have been going in a different direction! I'm very happy with how you ended up handling this situation and I'm excited for the v2 version of the Lunas. They may have to become my new surrounds. Looking forward to future projects!

Also looking forward to what the future brings at Ascend!

[racrawford65]

Me, too.

Dave F - will the v1 Luna / Duo be upgradeable to V2? I'm assuming no.

Hope the recovery is going well!

[natetg57]

Me, too.

Dave F - will the v1 Luna / Duo be upgradeable to V2? I'm assuming no.

Hope the recovery is going well!

I'm wondering if there will be a price increase on V2 and/or a sale on V1 Lunas/Duos.

I have Luna V1s as surrounds and have been happy with them, but might be interested in upgrading the cabinets/crossovers depending on the cost/availability.

[Pogre]

I'm wondering if there will be a price increase on V2 and/or a sale on V1 Lunas/Duos.

I have Luna V1s as surrounds and have been happy with them, but might be interested in upgrading the cabinets/crossovers depending on the cost/availability.

Do you notice any shortcomings now? While Dave has noted an improved fr I suspect the difference won't be huge unless you're using them nearfield and/or full range.

[davef]

[QUOTE=davef;66348]Part 5 (conclusion)


Introducing the Luna V2 and Duo V2…..

As a satisfied customer (pair of Sierra-2 speakers), potential buyer of a pair of Lunas and a Duo speaker, and retired scientist, I feel compelled to just say this: Dave, I believe you may have set a new standard for transparency in product design and continued development. Congratulations and best wishes for good health and continued success.

Thank you, that really means a lot.

[davef]

I'm wondering if there will be a price increase on V2 and/or a sale on V1 Lunas/Duos.

I have Luna V1s as surrounds and have been happy with them, but might be interested in upgrading the cabinets/crossovers depending on the cost/availability.

Price increases on just about every product is inevitable at this point. Material costs are skyrocketing right now with no relief in sight. Add to that massive increases in transportation and labor costs - our already thin margins are not sustainable at this point.

Yes, there will be some price increases, but this is not due to the V2 versions. V2 versions do cost us a bit more to manufacture but we can and are willing to absorb that increased production cost.

Upgrading Luna / Duo to the new V2 standard will be available. I haven't worked out the details for this just yet, but if there is a cost - it will be extremely reasonable. Thankfully, there are no cabinet changes from V1 to V2.

[davef]

I really don't see how or why you would have thought he'd go another direction. I didn't get that at all reading this thread and I think some of your comments are misplaced and influenced by the empassioned replies from a couple other members here. Dave seems genuinely concerned and sincerely tackled the issue, even through some serious injuries. You assuming anything else seems unfounded to me.

Shaz hasn't been around here long enough to know how we do things, and having someone express doubt and uncertainty is never a bad thing IMO.


Btw Dave, glad to see you recovering! I've broken a couple of ribs and it's the most pain I've gone through over an extended period of time. I didn't puncture any lungs tho! Holy crap.

Thanks - I hit the gym Monday night for the first time since before my accident. That felt good, just very light weight and stretching. Yes, the only thing I have experienced that was more painful was a broken clavicle. That pain was worse in the short term, but after about 2 weeks it dramatically subdued and was easy to manage. Overall, the pain endured from this injury over about a 6 week period was simply horrible. I promised myself that I would never experience something like this again!

Until someone breaks a rib, they will never understand how something as simple as getting in and out of bed, or even just sitting up from laying on your back becomes a real challenge in dealing with pain. Even breathing was a painful chore for a while...

[Shazb0t]

Thank you, that really means a lot.

Any desire to post your response series over at ASR in the Luna/Duo thread? I think it would add a lot of value to that prior discussion.

[Pogre]

Until someone breaks a rib, they will never understand how something as simple as getting in and out of bed, or even just sitting up from laying on your back becomes a real challenge in dealing with pain. Even breathing was a painful chore for a while...

Oh it's awful. I only broke 2 ribs, tho they were clean breaks. The pain was bad enough in the short term, but it dragged out for months. They can't really set or cast anything so you just have to grin and bear it til things knit themselves back together naturally, and it seems like it takes forever. I had to sleep sitting up in my recliner for almost a week, and yeah, even breathing was painful. Literally every breath. Almost any movement was painful. I can only imagine more broken ribs, clavicle and a punctured lung. Good to hear you're getting back to the gym man. I'm sure you're still in some pain, but it's gotta feel good to get back to it.

[racrawford65]

Sounds like a similar experience when I had a torn rotator cuff repaired. Months sleeping (sort of) in my recliner and physical therapy - excruciating pain. pain killers didn’t help.

[natetg57]

Price increases on just about every product is inevitable at this point. Material costs are skyrocketing right now with no relief in sight. Add to that massive increases in transportation and labor costs - our already thin margins are not sustainable at this point.

Yes, there will be some price increases, but this is not due to the V2 versions. V2 versions do cost us a bit more to manufacture but we can and are willing to absorb that increased production cost.

Upgrading Luna / Duo to the new V2 standard will be available. I haven't worked out the details for this just yet, but if there is a cost - it will be extremely reasonable. Thankfully, there are no cabinet changes from V1 to V2.

Thanks for all your work on this. I don't know of another company who is so dedicated to providing a superior product at such reasonable prices. I'm excited to hear that the Luna's can be upgraded without needing new cabinets. Thanks again!

[Robert]

Thanks for all your work on this. I don't know of another company who is so dedicated to providing a superior product at such reasonable prices. I'm excited to hear that the Luna's can be upgraded without needing new cabinets. Thanks again!

I agree! Special thanks to Dave on all his hard work on updating the speakers, taking the feedback given, and doing something very constructive with it. I contacted Dave earlier this year via email after reading the initial review of the Duo and Lunas. I asked if there were any modifications offered on the Duo and Lunas and offered to send mine in for an upgrade. General disclaimer, I'm a fairly new Ascend customer and started purchasing my first set (Sierra 2 EX), along with the Duo and Lunas back in 2019.

I thought the Lunas sounded great and the Duo was great too (it is still a smaller MTM design, so if you still want the best of the best in a larger room and have the space, go with the Horizon, but the Duo isn't a slouch either). Overall, for their size, they performed really well. After shipping them back to Ascend and having him perform the modifications, they returned looking not much different than before. Within the ports is the foam he mentioned for port dampening. It doesn't draw attention to itself. Overall, they still sound great and perhaps a tad warmer (keep in mind audible memory is not very long term and I don't have two different types to perform blind testing). However, based on the new measurements, you can have more peace of mind. See attached photos of the Satin Expresso finish Duo and Luna:

21072108

Special thanks to Dina as well! She is one of the best at customer service that I have ever come across! The one thing that sets Ascend apart from many other companies, and I've been an audio guy tinkering with electronics since the mid-90s, is that you get that "old-fashioned" personal treatment that seems so rare these days. It's refreshing to have that level of friendly support. Dave isn't too bad at being helpful either. :)

[petmotel]

There was, to me anyway, a bit of a disconnect between part 4 and part 5c. In part 4 you were trying to get to the heart of the matter, namely why the significant difference between the Klippel measurements, and your previous system.

I appreciate this is likely complicated, possibly difficult to translate to a layman's level of understanding, but you really had my curiosity piqued with the deep dive in part 4. I also appreciate that the appearance of a whitewash would be unacceptable to your professional ethics, but I'm still curious about the journey that took you from part 4 to part 5c?

Jay

[Pogre]

There was, to me anyway, a bit of a disconnect between part 4 and part 5c. In part 4 you were trying to get to the heart of the matter, namely why the significant difference between the Klippel measurements, and your previous system.

I appreciate this is likely complicated, possibly difficult to translate to a layman's level of understanding, but you really had my curiosity piqued with the deep dive in part 4. I also appreciate that the appearance of a whitewash would be unacceptable to your professional ethics, but I'm still curious about the journey that took you from part 4 to part 5c?

Jay

I think after some trial, tweaking and dialing up the resolution Dave was able to at least partially replicate Amir's results.



Using MLSSA to do nearfield testing is rather simple, but to gain maximum resolution I had to reconfigure various setup parameters to make sure I was using the same measurement distances as the NFS. After much research and even more trial and error, I found that allowing a few minor reflections so that we can increase the time window from about 8ms to a massive 23ms, we were able to match Amir’s measurements from about 200Hz and up.

Bam, there it was… that nasty high Q port resonance.

[Pogre]

I agree! Special thanks to Dave on all his hard work on updating the speakers, taking the feedback given, and doing something very constructive with it. I contacted Dave earlier this year via email after reading the initial review of the Duo and Lunas. I asked if there were any modifications offered on the Duo and Lunas and offered to send mine in for an upgrade. General disclaimer, I'm a fairly new Ascend customer and started purchasing my first set (Sierra 2 EX), along with the Duo and Lunas back in 2019.

I thought the Lunas sounded great and the Duo was great too (it is still a smaller MTM design, so if you still want the best of the best in a larger room and have the space, go with the Horizon, but the Duo isn't a slouch either). Overall, for their size, they performed really well. After shipping them back to Ascend and having him perform the modifications, they returned looking not much different than before. Within the ports is the foam he mentioned for port dampening. It doesn't draw attention to itself. Overall, they still sound great and perhaps a tad warmer (keep in mind audible memory is not very long term and I don't have two different types to perform blind testing). However, based on the new measurements, you can have more peace of mind. See attached photos of the Satin Expresso finish Duo and Luna:

21072108

Special thanks to Dina as well! She is one of the best at customer service that I have ever come across! The one thing that sets Ascend apart from many other companies, and I've been an audio guy tinkering with electronics since the mid-90s, is that you get that "old-fashioned" personal treatment that seems so rare these days. It's refreshing to have that level of friendly support. Dave isn't too bad at being helpful either. :)

Man, that espresso finish looks great!

[XEagleDriver]

I have none of the issues Amir claims with my Duo center. It is not bright nor do I hear any port chuffing. It was a nice step up from the S2 I was previously using for a center in terms of dialog clarity.
+1 on racrawford's S2 to Duo center experience.

I found ASR's Luna & Duo reviews troubling and confusing. I own both speakers, for Surround and Center duty respectively to complement S2 mains.

Being a data guy professionally, I trust measurements generally and view them as a valid piece of the audio puzzle (troubling).
However, ASR's subjective comments were very much at odds with my experience (confusing).

I will be interested to see what remedy/upgrade options Dave is able to provide us V1 Duo and Luna owners down the road post his injury recovery (most important) and pandemic supply chain disruptions (a distant second).
Cheers,
XEagleDriver

[daddyo]

Whew, reading thru all 24 pages has been an endurance challenge. Can I re-ask the original thread question - "Which center ? Luna Duo v2.0, Sierra 2EX, or Horizon ?"

[petmotel]

Whew, reading thru all 24 pages has been an endurance challenge. Can I re-ask the original thread question - "Which center ? Luna Duo v2.0, Sierra 2EX, or Horizon ?"

If you've read this thread I would hope you've picked up on the information that would be helpful for this community to be able to help you make a decision. You've provided not a clue as to all the important considerations, all 3 solutions have their strengths, and all three have their weaknesses. Much like asking "What car should I buy", without listing your needs and desires, that answer would be pure speculation.

Jay

[racrawford65]

Whew, reading thru all 24 pages has been an endurance challenge. Can I re-ask the original thread question - "Which center ? Luna Duo v2.0, Sierra 2EX, or Horizon ?"

Depends on your budget, space (Horizon is big per measurements, etc), etc. I ran an S2 for a center for awhile with S2’s for FL/FR. it sounded very good. Moved to Towers with Raal for FL/FR, S2 went to surround. Added Duo as center which, IMO, was a step up as a center (dialogue clarity mainly). Sold S2 center. If I had the room, probably would have gone with the Horixon

[daddyo]

If you've read this thread I would hope you've picked up on the information that would be helpful for this community to be able to help you make a decision. You've provided not a clue as to all the important considerations, all 3 solutions have their strengths, and all three have their weaknesses. Much like asking "What car should I buy", without listing your needs and desires, that answer would be pure speculation.

Jay

Old ears and damaged hearing makes dialogue clarity key priority for me. I like the idea of a dedicated mid-range in a typical 3-way cc but the Horizon is just too big for my needs. Makes the Kefs or Elacs look pretty good with their coaxial drivers and nice packaging size or I might be able to squeeze in a SVS Ultra center. Even tho a 2-way, the Duo v2.0 is a consideration. 100% HT, 5.1.2 system, not loud, w/i 12 degrees to on-axis.

[davef]

There was, to me anyway, a bit of a disconnect between part 4 and part 5c. In part 4 you were trying to get to the heart of the matter, namely why the significant difference between the Klippel measurements, and your previous system.

Sorry, I had thought I covered this. This is not an exact science, I am not sure we will ever be able to look at any measurement and confirm that this is exactly what we are hearing, and vice versa. There was simply no way for me to determine, with the measurements I took - with the Klippel NFS, MLSSA and even Oscillator + RTA how audible, if at all, the port resonance was. I measured different results with different gear and at different mic distances. Because of this, I felt the best approach was to eliminate the resonance such that it simply does not show up in any of the test setups I used.

As to why the measurements of the resonance differ from one device to another, I must accept the very real possibility that I may never have a firm answer to this.

One reason may be that our MLSSA system uses what is known as a maximum length sequence (MLS) stimulus vs the NFS which uses swept sine waves. An MLS signal is a seemingly random sequence of frequencies (much like pink or white noise) that is sent to the DUT. The mic receives this sequence and changes in this pattern of frequencies is how various data is then extrapolated (Fast Fourier Transform)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_length_sequence

With swept sine waves, a series of sine wave signals from, for example, 20Hz to 20kHz is sent to the DUT. It might be that this sine wave sweep is (because it sends a direct 600Hz sine wave to the DUT, and then 601, 602, 603... depending on how the stimulus is configured) is causing a more reactive response from the port.

Of course, music is not a series of swept sine waves, nor is music a maximum length sequence - so as you can see, determining a final resolution as to why the measurements vary is quite complicated.

To my ear, which I consider quite good even at my age, I was never able to actually hear this resonance. However, that does not mean someone else didn't hear it. Often times though, someone will see something nasty in a measurement and then they do start "hearing" something off.

Even with the Klippel NFS, I have my doubts that there will ever be a direct correlation between a measurement and precisely what we are hearing. I do believe we are getting closer though (at least I hope we are)

I could write about this subject seemingly forever, and even without drawing a firm conclusion one way or another. I do have more to post, and will do so later this evening or tomorrow, but this thread and all the research done was really about the Luna and Duo so I wanted the focus to be mostly on them.

Hope this helps out!

[petmotel]

Sorry, I had thought I covered this. This is not an exact science, I am not sure we will ever be able to look at any measurement and confirm that this is exactly what we are hearing, and vice versa. There was simply no way for me to determine, with the measurements I took - with the Klippel NFS, MLSSA and even Oscillator + RTA how audible, if at all, the port resonance was. I measured different results with different gear and at different mic distances. Because of this, I felt the best approach was to eliminate the resonance such that it simply does not show up in any of the test setups I used.

As to why the measurements of the resonance differ from one device to another, I must accept the very real possibility that I may never have a firm answer to this.

One reason may be that our MLSSA system uses what is known as a maximum length sequence (MLS) stimulus vs the NFS which uses swept sine waves. An MLS signal is a seemingly random sequence of frequencies (much like pink or white noise) that is sent to the DUT. The mic receives this sequence and changes in this pattern of frequencies is how various data is then extrapolated (Fast Fourier Transform)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_length_sequence

With swept sine waves, a series of sine wave signals from, for example, 20Hz to 20kHz is sent to the DUT. It might be that this sine wave sweep is (because it sends a direct 600Hz sine wave to the DUT, and then 601, 602, 603... depending on how the stimulus is configured) is causing a more reactive response from the port.

Of course, music is not a series of swept sine waves, nor is music a maximum length sequence - so as you can see, determining a final resolution as to why the measurements vary is quite complicated.

To my ear, which I consider quite good even at my age, I was never able to actually hear this resonance. However, that does not mean someone else didn't hear it. Often times though, someone will see something nasty in a measurement and then they do start "hearing" something off.

Even with the Klippel NFS, I have my doubts that there will ever be a direct correlation between a measurement and precisely what we are hearing. I do believe we are getting closer though (at least I hope we are)

I could write about this subject seemingly forever, and even without drawing a firm conclusion one way or another. I do have more to post, and will do so later this evening or tomorrow, but this thread and all the research done was really about the Luna and Duo so I wanted the focus to be mostly on them.

Hope this helps out!

As always, thanks for the detailed explanation, clearly correlating what we hear to what can be measured is complicated, and somewhat an inexact science currently despite the massive amount of research that has been expended to quantify sound quality.

I truly hope that with the huge investment Ascend has put into R&D, the end result will be products that actually sound better to the end user, and not just satisfy a newer standard of measurement technology.

Edit: After rereading part 5 in the series, I understand that the crossover optimizations were to a large degree possible due to information garnered from the use of the Klippel NFS system. Any concerns about the new R&D being used for product enhancements are therefore put to rest.

Jay

[petmotel]

Old ears and damaged hearing makes dialogue clarity key priority for me. I like the idea of a dedicated mid-range in a typical 3-way cc but the Horizon is just too big for my needs. Makes the Kefs or Elacs look pretty good with their coaxial drivers and nice packaging size or I might be able to squeeze in a SVS Ultra center. Even tho a 2-way, the Duo v2.0 is a consideration. 100% HT, 5.1.2 system, not loud, w/i 12 degrees to on-axis.

Not sure my experience validates a response, as no one else has commented I'll give it a go. Since I don't own a Duo, I can only go by what others have posted (I have a RAAL equipped Horizon in my theater system), which I think is an incredible center channel, but those whom have posted their opinions regarding a Duo as a center channel have found the dialog clarity to be very good. I think the Duo would best fit your needs judging by the information you've provided.

One of Ascend's design goals is to provide excellent dynamic properties, their impulse energy graph and cumulative spectral decay plots show exceptional results which I would postulate translates to exceptional clarity. Give one a try, pretty much risk free less the shipping costs, although in my experience, I've never had an Ascend product that I even briefly considered returning.

Jay

[daddyo]

Depends on your budget, space (Horizon is big per measurements, etc), etc. I ran an S2 for a center for awhile with S2Â’s for FL/FR. it sounded very good. Moved to Towers with Raal for FL/FR, S2 went to surround. Added Duo as center which, IMO, was a step up as a center (dialogue clarity mainly). Sold S2 center. If I had the room, probably would have gone with the Horixon

Although I like the idea of a dedicated mid-range in a 3-way cc speaker (for dialogue) but can't physically fit the Horizon into my setup (max would be a SVS Ultra cc). Since we sit close to on-axis (w/i 10-12 degrees) it would seem that a relatively narrow dispersion cc would be better for cc dialogue clarity than a wide dispersion speaker (eg Duo). Comments or thoughts ?

[N Boros]

Although I like the idea of a dedicated mid-range in a 3-way cc speaker (for dialogue) but can't physically fit the Horizon into my setup (max would be a SVS Ultra cc). Since we sit close to on-axis (w/i 10-12 degrees) it would seem that a relatively narrow dispersion cc would be better for cc dialogue clarity than a wide dispersion speaker (eg Duo). Comments or thoughts ?


If you are sitting that close to directly on axis then the Duo would be not problem at all. The main advantage of the tweeter over midrange design of a center is the wider dispersion compared to that of a tweeter flanked by two woofer design. I own the CMT 340 center and was also very concerned about changes in timbre and dialog intelligibility off axis. In fact in that casual living room setup I have a seat 45 or maybe 60 degrees off axis outside of the right front speaker. Dialog comes through clean and clear. The biggest problem is that panning and surround effects aren’t that convincing, not that I can’t understand dialog.

For my home theater where I do more critical listening I have no reservations about getting the Duo center to match my Sierra 2s that I have as front speakers. I really wanted to fit a Horizon, but it didn’t fit height wise. I will sit pretty much dead center anyways and others will have great dialog intelligibility with the Duo.

Bottom line. If you have towers and/or have people sitting really far off axis (and you are really worried about that) then try to make the horizon fit. If not or you just can’t fit a horizon speaker then get the Duo. Both will be excellent center channels. I wouldn’t get another brand center speaker to use with ascends, just because you like the speaker design better. I’ve heard Svs ultras and KEF Q350 and Q150 speakers. They are fine speakers, but ascend is a step above. I thought the budget ascend speakers sounded better than KEFs. The Sierra 2s are in another league then the SVS Ultra bookshelf speakers. They are better in pretty much every way. Plus you want a really good match between your mains and center.

[Shazb0t]

If you're really concerned about the center dispersion and intelligibility, and I think that you should be, then I would go with the Horizon. You then avoid the lobing issues that a MTM 2-way center inherently has.

[davef]

Whew, reading thru all 24 pages has been an endurance challenge. Can I re-ask the original thread question - "Which center ? Luna Duo v2.0, Sierra 2EX, or Horizon ?"

Your post made me laugh... Somewhere / somehow your original question was forgotten, sorry about that.

Here is my recommendation in order of priority

Assuming you are a subwoofer:

1. Horizon
2. Sierra-2EX if can be positioned vertically
3. Duo V2 center
4. Sierra-2EX positioned horizontally.

If no subwoofer:

1. Horizon
2. Sierra-2EX positioned vertically
3. Sierra-2EX positioned horizontally
4. Duo V2 center

Hope this helps!

[Mahawkma]

Price increases on just about every product is inevitable at this point. Material costs are skyrocketing right now with no relief in sight. Add to that massive increases in transportation and labor costs - our already thin margins are not sustainable at this point.

Yes, there will be some price increases, but this is not due to the V2 versions. V2 versions do cost us a bit more to manufacture but we can and are willing to absorb that increased production cost.

Upgrading Luna / Duo to the new V2 standard will be available. I haven't worked out the details for this just yet, but if there is a cost - it will be extremely reasonable. Thankfully, there are no cabinet changes from V1 to V2.

Glad to hear upgrades will be available. Also glad that your recovery seems to be going well!

PS: If you guys start a list to notify owners when the upgrades are available, please add me as well.

[D33vious]

You've probably covered this before, but could you explain the difference between the Sierra 2EX and Duo V2 and their change in ordered preference between the two scenarios (sub or no sub)?

[SunByrne]

Dave,

Well, that was certainly a tour de force!

As a long-time and repeated Ascend customer I cannot tell you how gratifying it was to get that much detail on your process. I cannot imagine anyone else is that dedicated to both having the best possible measurement setup and being so transparent in providing their customers with the gory (but fascinating) details of the process. The fact that all of this got started because of a single negative review, well, that's just a testament to how seriously committed you are to what you do.

And through broken ribs, yikes. I broke a rib (and cracked a couple more) in graduate school. Your description is apt—at first, just breathing hurts. It's really no fun at all and takes a long time to recover—and that was when I was like 24 years old. I'm sure at my (and your) age it's an even longer and more challenging recovery. I'm amazed you were able to get through all that despite your health issues. We (your customers) are incredibly fortunate.

Also, I'm super-impressed with the V2 graphs! Those horizontal dispersion plots are just amazing, looks like even wider dispersion than the 2EX. Makes me just a tiny bit curious if there will be a new crossover for the 2EX coming as well.

And, of course, as someone who has upgraded multiple sets of S1 cabinets over the years and now owns three Duos (LCR), whenever you have the upgrade kits available, please let me know—that's an insta-buy from me. I'm curious about what they'll be; crossovers and some foam, yes?

Anyway, thanks, Dave. Super impressive.

[MDinno]

Your post made me laugh... Somewhere / somehow your original question was forgotten, sorry about that.

Here is my recommendation in order of priority

Assuming you are a subwoofer:

1. Horizon
2. Sierra-2EX if can be positioned vertically
3. Duo V2 center
4. Sierra-2EX positioned horizontally.

If no subwoofer:

1. Horizon
2. Sierra-2EX positioned vertically
3. Sierra-2EX positioned horizontally
4. Duo V2 center

Hope this helps!

Dave, what about the Sierra 1 center in the same position you put the 2EX?

[davef]

You've probably covered this before, but could you explain the difference between the Sierra 2EX and Duo V2 and their change in ordered preference between the two scenarios (sub or no sub)?

The center channel handles the majority of special effects, not just dialogue. Bass is critically important for a home theater system so if no sub is being used, the Sierra-2EX for the center is the better choice since it has significantly deeper bass extension and punch.

Hope this clarifies.

[John Galt]

Hey Dave, hope all is well.

Any idea of when you plan to release Klippel test results of your flagship RAAL towers?

[Shazb0t]

Hey Dave, hope all is well.

Any idea of when you plan to release Klippel test results of your flagship RAAL towers?
Very interested in this as well.

[davef]

Hey Dave, hope all is well.

Any idea of when you plan to release Klippel test results of your flagship RAAL towers?

Testing towers with the NFS is a bit complicated due to both height and mic distance limitations. Klippel offers 2 versions of the NFS, one standard and one with a longer Z-Axis (more expensive). We purchased the unit with the longer Z-Axis which was in anticipation of being able to test our towers.

Coincidentally, I spent much of the weekend reconfiguring our NFS to allow for a greater microphone distance (R-Axis extension) and increased microphone height (due to limited ceiling height). I am hoping this new configuration will allow for an accurate test of our towers, but we are not quite there yet.

[John Galt]

Testing towers with the NFS is a bit complicated due to both height and mic distance limitations. Klippel offers 2 versions of the NFS, one standard and one with a longer Z-Axis (more expensive). We purchased the unit with the longer Z-Axis which was in anticipation of being able to test our towers.

Coincidentally, I spent much of the weekend reconfiguring our NFS to allow for a greater microphone distance (R-Axis extension) and increased microphone height (due to limited ceiling height). I am hoping this new configuration will allow for an accurate test of our towers, but we are not quite there yet.

How much fun are you having with the Klippel on a scale of 1 to 10?