Bigger Ascend Towers

[ematthews]

I own the Sierra RAAL towers and after buying and selling a few other brands have found out you just can't replace the over all sound of the mids and highs of these Ascends. My only wish for a perfect Ascend. Or my perfect floor speaker for that matter... Make a bigger over all Tower with 8 in drivers to dig a little deeper. This way I don't have to run a sub. My room size is 12x14 approx. So bass response is OK with the Towers but I would like more. Any chance Dave could be working on a different Tower for the future, or has he found the perfect size? Just looking for some feedback.
Thanks

[shinny]

Agreed, that would be great.

[randyrlee2]

As much as I love my RAAL Towers, more is better! Gotta pay for a couple of Rythmik subs first though.

[ematthews]

As much as I love my RAAL Towers, more is better! Gotta pay for a couple of Rythmik subs first though.
I want to run mine without subs. These are for two channel music only system. Right now I have to run a sub with the towers.

[curtis]

Two things to consider....

A wider front baffle to accommodate larger driver causes other issues to deal with.

The best location for the bass source in the room is usually not the same as mids and highs.

[ematthews]

Two things to consider....

A wider front baffle to accommodate larger driver causes other issues to deal with.

The best location for the bass source in the room is usually not the same as mids and highs.
True
However Dave has given us a smaller Sierra. Maybe he would have a larger tower in the works too. A big full sounding loudspeaker in the Ascend makeup would be fantastic.

[Bruce Watson]

The best location for the bass source in the room is usually not the same as mids and highs.

Yes, exactly this. In the era of software room correction features like Audyssey and Dirac Live, etc. you get pinpoint timing accuracy so that the wavefronts hit your main listening position accurately. No matter where the speakers are. So that you can have the subs where they will work best within the room (and its various modes), and still blend seamlessly with your main stereo speakers.

I'm just sayin' that we are no longer dependent on the cabinetry doing the time alignment of the various drivers, and so aren't dependent on all-in-one towers.

That said, I can see why some people would still want the all-in-one towers. Especially those who object to software correction and room EQ. If there's sufficient market for it, why not?

But I'm a little leary of diluting Dave's time too much. I don't want to slow him down on projects like the Sierra-3. If there is one. Or the Atmos ceiling mount speakers. If any. Sorry Dave, couldn't resist. :cool:

[ematthews]

Yes, exactly this. In the era of software room correction features like Audyssey and Dirac Live, etc. you get pinpoint timing accuracy so that the wavefronts hit your main listening position accurately. No matter where the speakers are. So that you can have the subs where they will work best within the room (and its various modes), and still blend seamlessly with your main stereo speakers.

I'm just sayin' that we are no longer dependent on the cabinetry doing the time alignment of the various drivers, and so aren't dependent on all-in-one towers.

That said, I can see why some people would still want the all-in-one towers. Especially those who object to software correction and room EQ. If there's sufficient market for it, why not?

But I'm a little leary of diluting Dave's time too much. I don't want to slow him down on projects like the Sierra-3. If there is one. Or the Atmos ceiling mount speakers. If any. Sorry Dave, couldn't resist. :cool:

I have all of that in my HT set up. I have a music only room and currently run it in 2.1 set up with a Parasound P5 Pre and ATI 2000 amp. I like my pure music system and would like to get rid of the sub as well. I would just like my Towers to dig a little deeper since I am a bit of a bass head.

[curtis]

True
However Dave has given us a smaller Sierra. Maybe he would have a larger tower in the works too. A big full sounding loudspeaker in the Ascend makeup would be fantastic.
Understood, but what are you willing to give up? There are always trade offs.

[curtis]

I have all of that in my HT set up. I have a music only room and currently run it in 2.1 set up with a Parasound P5 Pre and ATI 2000 amp. I like my pure music system and would like to get rid of the sub as well. I would just like my Towers to dig a little deeper since I am a bit of a bass head.
Many music recording studios use subs.

[ematthews]

Understood, but what are you willing to give up? There are always trade offs.

Maybe my wife.:D

[ematthews]

Understood, but what are you willing to give up? There are always trade offs.

Well. Anytime you add bigger drivers you may have an issue with a mix in the mids. For instance my RBH Sound Towers dig really low but sound muddy compared to my Ascends. With the right person designing the speaker I feel we could get the the same tower we have now but with a lower HZ and still keep the balanced sound with the mids and RAAL ribbon. I know other brands out there offer this, but I like Ascend and what you get with the company. It would just be great to get it in a bigger Tower.

[curtis]

Maybe my wife.:D
LOL!


Well. Anytime you add bigger drivers you may have an issue with a mix in the mids. For instance my RBH Sound Towers dig really low but sound muddy compared to my Ascends. With the right person designing the speaker I feel we could get the the same tower we have now but with a lower HZ and still keep the balanced sound with the mids and RAAL ribbon. I know other brands out there offer this, but I like Ascend and what you get with the company. It would just be great to get it in a bigger Tower.
I know what you want, and can’t fault you for it, I just think there is a better and more cost effective way to do it.

My setup goes down below 20hz. It’s integrated well, and I bet any blindfolded person would be hard pressed to tell me if there is a subwoofer being used. Maybe only because it goes deep.

I haven’t heard bass from any passive L/R speakers sound as good as my Rythmik.

[RPM]

If you are NOT running a sub and like myself want to “feel” the bass not just hear it
I can see why you would want this. The Towers easily go into 100db if you want
So there is plenty of volume so why not just add a quality sub which would be more
Economical than if Dave had to incorporate the equivalent into a tower?
Now if it’s just the for wow factor of an Ascend Tower with 2 12” Woofers ....yeah I’ll take pair too...lol

[davef]

I own the Sierra RAAL towers and after buying and selling a few other brands have found out you just can't replace the over all sound of the mids and highs of these Ascends. My only wish for a perfect Ascend. Or my perfect floor speaker for that matter... Make a bigger over all Tower with 8 in drivers to dig a little deeper. This way I don't have to run a sub. My room size is 12x14 approx. So bass response is OK with the Towers but I would like more. Any chance Dave could be working on a different Tower for the future, or has he found the perfect size? Just looking for some feedback.
Thanks

As others have mentioned, there are always compromises. That said, just for my own curiosity - if we were able to create a larger more powerful tower speaker with deeper bass yet retained the same mids and highs performance (or at least close) -- how much would you be willing to spend?

[Blutarsky]

$3,500 - $4,000 for Ascend sound. We would love to get rid of our pair of Subs/

If you add the price of good Subs to the price of Sierra Towers.......

[shinny]

+1 for $3000-$4000 w/ tweeter options?

[diesel79]

Ascend towers with big dual woofers ( 8” -10” I’m assuming) would be really, really cool. I bet the cost would be far greater than $4k thought. That seems like it would be A substantially larger cabinet and a lot more woofer especially anything bigger than a 8”. 2.0 music with RAAL tweeters would be crazy good though.

[ematthews]

As others have mentioned, there are always compromises. That said, just for my own curiosity - if we were able to create a larger more powerful tower speaker with deeper bass yet retained the same mids and highs performance (or at least close) -- how much would you be willing to spend?
4000-5000 would be my budget.. But I would go up to get all the Ascend quality. I'm tired of looking for the RIGHT speaker for me. As I said my current Ascend Towers are damn near perfect and beat out others I have tried.

[ematthews]

A larger Ascend tower would be fantastic. I could see 8in drivers added to the mix being perfect. 10's like a Klipsch RF 3 would be very hard to blend right.

[curtis]

...deeper bass yet retained the same mids and highs performance (or at least close)...
So you guys are willing to give up quality on mids and highs for your deep bass?

You will get deeper/better bass if you just get quality subwoofers and integrate them properly.

[ematthews]

So you guys are willing to give up quality on mids and highs for your deep bass?

You will get deeper/better bass if you just get quality subwoofers and integrate them properly.

Curtis. It kind of seems that you are saying any loud speaker above 5.25 in bass driver will sacrifice mids and highs. If that were the case why would any other manufacture make bigger towers in their line up?
I do have other high quality speakers. For instance I have the KEF LS 50 running with a Rythmik sub. I don't care for it and the detail those have are insane. More detail than the Ascends to a point they can sound to bright. My point. If other manufactures are making bigger towers and they are very good, I think Dave could perfect a bigger tower as well. And I would buy it in a second. I run subs in my HT set up and they are great. I just want a true high end 2.0 system without the trouble of a sub. I do have to play around with the bass sometimes depending on the recordings. Just trying to have both flavors if you will. And having the choice between a regular Ascend tower and a bigger brother would be nice.

[curtis]

Curtis. It kind of seems that you are saying any loud speaker above 5.25 in bass driver will sacrifice mids and highs. If that were the case why would any other manufacture make bigger towers in their line up?
I do have other high quality speakers. For instance I have the KEF LS 50 running with a Rythmik sub. I don't care for it and the detail those have are insane. More detail than the Ascends to a point they can sound to bright. My point. If other manufactures are making bigger towers and they are very good, I think Dave could perfect a bigger tower as well. And I would buy it in a second. I run subs in my HT set up and they are great. I just want a true high end 2.0 system without the trouble of a sub. I do have to play around with the bass sometimes depending on the recordings. Just trying to have both flavors if you will. And having the choice between a regular Ascend tower and a bigger brother would be nice.
All I did was quote Dave.

Why would any other manufacturer make bigger towers...because to satisfy those that think bigger is better. There are some big speakers out there from well known manufacturers that are clearly not as good as their smaller offerings. Yes, I do think Dave can make a bigger and great Tower, but like I said, I was just quoting him, and also agreed that there are trade-offs. It seems that information was overlooked by some.

If you need to play around with the bass, it is so much easier to do if you are only dealing with a sub, and not a full range speaker.

I actually think the S2's have more detail than the LS50, but I agree with you that the LS50 seems brighter than the S2.

I guess I am very surprised that people are willing to give up other parts of a speaker to get more bass, when using a subwoofer properly negates the need to do that.

[ematthews]

Fair enough. I didn't see that you were quoting Dave. I'm not a sound engineer nor an expert. I guess I am on the band wagon of bigger is better on speakers too. However, I do know in regards to KEF. The Q100 bookshelf is more balanced and better sounding than it's bigger brother 300. Tested in my own room. I hear the Monitor Audio silver 8 is better sounding than their 10. Heck I hear great things on their 6 too. So maybe I am putting out a lot of wasted air here.

[curtis]

If Dave goes down this route, we know that with his processes, he will not release something he isn't happy with.

[N Boros]

4000-5000 would be my budget.. But I would go up to get all the Ascend quality. I'm tired of looking for the RIGHT speaker for me. As I said my current Ascend Towers are damn near perfect and beat out others I have tried.

Since you said that you can spend around $2800 on the towers with the Raal ribbon tweeter, why not take the extra $1,200 to $2,200 and get a pair of Rythmik subwoofers. Even if you had a larger room and got a pair of either FVX15s or E15HPs, you could stay within that budget and you would get better performance having the flexibility of locating them optimally to reduce the standing waves as much as possible. Furthermore, I would be very surprised if the output capabilities of the “Bigger Towers” would exceed or even match what these Rythmik subs could do. Since you did mention having a smaller room, these would very much be overkill. A pair of F8s, L12s, or F12s would be just fine and come within the budget.

[RPM]

Since you already spend around $2800 on the towers with the Raal ribbon tweeter, why not take the extra $1,200 to $2,200 and get a pair of Rythmik subwoofers. If you got a pair of either FVX15s or E15HPs, you could stay within that budget and you would get better performance having the flexibility of locating them optimally to reduce the standing waves as much as possible. Furthermore, I would be very surprised if the output capabilities of the “Bigger Towers” would exceed or even match what these Rythmik subs could do.

I would be very surprised as well. Doing low bass properly is expensive, And as you
Said would it even be as good?

[billy p]

I'm often fascinated by discussion into incorporating a sub or not? Given the right circumstances...I'd take a set of full range towers in a music only set up... capable of playing down into those lower octaves. As close as I come to a seemless transition for music with my sub.... 2.0 would be my preference if only for music!

[curtis]

I'm often fascinated by discussion into incorporating a sub or not? Given the right circumstances...I'd take a set of full range towers in a music only set up... capable of playing down into those lower octaves. As close as I come to a seemless transition for music with my sub.... 2.0 would be my preference if only for music!
Billy!! Good to see you!

....would you be willing to give up the imaging, mids, and highs, you have now to go to 2.0?

[RPM]

So you guys are willing to give up quality on mids and highs for your deep bass?

You will get deeper/better bass if you just get quality subwoofers and integrate them properly.

No. not me, I understand what ematthews is looking for and it sounds enticing but If i have to sacrifice
to have all in one then no.

[billy p]

Billy!! Good to see you!

....would you be willing to give up the imaging, mids, and highs, you have now to go to 2.0?

Hi Curtis,

well...I could perhaps live with some type of compromise...so long its negligible and it doesn’t alter the complete tonal balance of a properly implemented 3-way design.

I don’t like making this comparison here on Ascend forum...but look at Salk sound offerings. Sure the majority of his work is custom and usually comes at a premium that’s largely how Salk, differs from the Ascend model. Now, look at his new Song 3s...perhaps the 3A(3.8k) but in particular the Encore design(5.8k) something similar could become a welcomed addition to the Ascend family for those seeking 2.0 preferences.

Obviously, there is a market for full range speakers...just how large I can’t say....thou a new Sierra Tower (3.5-5k) within that realm is not entirely a stretch? Beyond that price point thou...I believe it’s a niche market player.

Regards,

Bill

[N Boros]

We have all the components needed to have a bigger tower, right now. Buy a pair of Horizon’s and have the tweeter turned 90 degrees so that the speakers can be used in the vertical orientation. Buy a pair of Rythmik F8’s and use them as speaker stands. Done.

Now the tweeter might be a touch low, where you would want to space it up a bit. Could use those studio sound isolation pads between them to help space it up a bit. I might need a few more inches than that though. This “speaker” wouldn’t actually be too bad, because here you at least have phase adjustment to better integrate the subs into the room. However, you could do a much better job of integrating the subs into the room if you just get a pair of speaker stands to put underneath the Horizon’s and just move the subs into the room, in locations that have been tested for an optimal reduction in standing waves by Harmon.

But, I don’t think that this is what others had in mind. I think that what others want are the “sub drivers” together with the Horizon in one cabinent because other speaker manufacturers are doing this. In this design you would lose the control to simulate moving the “sub drivers” around the room and with them all being together in one cabinent now, you can’t physically do it either. This is a step down in performance from just putting the Horizon on the F8’s as speaker stands. Just because other speaker manufacturers are doing something doesn’t necessarily mean it is the best approach, or even a good approach. I owned some A**** speakers for years, before I sold them and moved to some much better Ascend speakers. They have a unique design for some of their center channel speakers, where there are two tweeters on the outside of the speaker. I owned the smaller of the two speakers, and it was worse than just using a phantom center. Should Ascend start making one of those too, if that design becomes more popular? For a less extreme example. How about a three way bookshelf speaker? Dave has mentioned that with the loss in efficiency, doesn’t make much sense, but several other manufacturers make the speaker.

[curtis]

Hi Curtis,

well...I could perhaps live with some type of compromise...so long its negligible and it doesn’t alter the complete tonal balance of a properly implemented 3-way design.

I don’t like making this comparison here on Ascend forum...but look at Salk sound offerings. Sure the majority of his work is custom and usually comes at a premium that’s largely how Salk, differs from the Ascend model. Now, look at his new Song 3s...perhaps the 3A(3.8k) but in particular the Encore design(5.8k) something similar could become a welcomed addition to the Ascend family for those seeking 2.0 preferences.

Obviously, there is a market for full range speakers...just how large I can’t say....thou a new Sierra Tower (3.5-5k) within that realm is not entirely a stretch? Beyond that price point thou...I believe it’s a niche market player.

I have no doubt there is a market for a bigger speaker. My point is there are tradeoffs, and what is one willing to give up.

ematthew said the Tower right now is near perfect for him, and if it had more bass, it would be perfect. If he loses something to get that bass, then it is possibly no longer perfect.

Salk definitely has a wider range of speakers, but what is lost/gained when moving between speakers in the same line?

For me, to get that bass below 50hz, in a music setup, subs are the way to go. For setup, quality, and capability, it just makes more sense to me. I realize there differing opinions on this. :)

[curtis]

Now that I re-read the thread...

What is the argument against the use of subwoofers in a music setup? I am not clear on that.

Good discussion.

[N Boros]

There are two reasons that I can come up with.

1. Asthetic reasons, for not wanting to have subs in the room, yet want to get as much bass as possible. But, okay giving up performance.
2. Not having anywhere in the room to put subwoofer(s).

But, the reasons are not based on economically getting the best possible bass.

[curtis]

There are two reasons that I can come up with.

1. Asthetic reasons, for not wanting to have subs in the room, yet want to get as much bass as possible. But, okay giving up performance.
2. Not having anywhere in the room to put subwoofer(s).

But, the reasons are not based on economically getting the best possible bass.
Those I understand.

[Bruce Watson]

...the reasons are not based on economically getting the best possible bass.

Or on getting the best bass possible generally.

[Jaybeez]

I actually like the flexibility of my Sierra 2 / sub set up. I can dial up / dial down the sub as needed for the music I'm listening to. Most days it's set to cross over at 60 and the gain is pretty low. I know subs aren't the most attractive to look at, but I feel I can mimic a large floor stander if / as needed with this arrangement.

[curtis]

Like I mentioned, I understand space and aesthetic issues...heck, that is the main reason I went from 7.1 back to 5.1.

I was wondering if there was a performance issue that I overlooked.

I know, in the past, integration could be tough. For me, it was a two man job, had to know what to measure, what settings to change, and critical listening. Now, with the different room correction/automated speaker setup abilities of pre/pros and receivers, it is much easier, at least with the ones I have used and experienced.

[davef]

I feel it is important to state that we would not be able to approach Rythmik subwoofer bass performance in a passive speaker. The advantages a powered sub has over a passive speaker are too numerous to mention and achieving a true -3dB at 20Hz in a passive speaker is extremely problematic and expensive.

In addition, one of the biggest hits will be in efficiency - you can't have a passive speaker with an honest 90dB sensitivity spec (anechoic) with near full range bass, unless the speaker cabinet is HUGE - and that presents a host of other problems....

This is definitely a worthy discussion and the input I am receiving is very valuable.

[surroundnewbie]

This is definitely a worthy discussion and the input I am receiving is very valuable.

I'm a big fan of side mounted driver designs. I recently decided on a pair of Rega RS5 and they are slim but have great low end with 7" side drivers (passive). Are they the most accurate speakers? No, but they are definitely among the most fun and engaging I've heard. I still run a sub with them but I love how they fill out the mid-bass.

I definitely think it's a great topic!

[Blutarsky]

My Genesis speakers had two 15" self amplified side firing woofers in each speaker which were adjustable for hi pass, lo pass, gain, and phase. I was able to integrate them well.
Now, I am not suggesting this large for Ascend, but the self amplified concept with adjustments is a way of doing this.

Maybe side firing helps with integration and placement?

Rock on!

[surroundnewbie]

There are two reasons that I can come up with.

1. Asthetic reasons, for not wanting to have subs in the room, yet want to get as much bass as possible. But, okay giving up performance.
2. Not having anywhere in the room to put subwoofer(s).

But, the reasons are not based on economically getting the best possible bass.

I can think of a third reason: simply wanting a 2.0 system. I think the argument that "a sub is the way to go" is silly, if the person simply does not want a sub, period. Are all 3-way, full range speakers from 20-50 years ago now worthless? Maybe they are, I don't know, but I doubt it. I auditioned some very well regarded full sized towers in the 2-3K range and they had lovely mids and highs and detail but no real guts. For HT subs are required, but for everything else they should be optional. I wish more effort would go into low end frequency innovation in speakers. Just my two cents.

[kongar]

I wouldn’t buy them.

My towers sound great and they play very loud in my large room. My pair of rythmic subs took a long time to place properly and integrate, and if they were forced to be in the tower cabinets, I’d have to deal with room nulls and issues I’ve already “fixed.” Assuming there was no quality loss, the only thing left would be decibels - and I simply don’t need it. The towers play loud enough in a large room to cause hearing loss.

The push forward should be about even better quality sounding speakers at affordable internet direct pricing - that’s ascend’s strong point and they should stick to it.

My opinion...

[jjackkrash]

I feel it is important to state that we would not be able to approach Rythmik subwoofer bass performance in a passive speaker. The advantages a powered sub has over a passive speaker are too numerous to mention and achieving a true -3dB at 20Hz in a passive speaker is extremely problematic and expensive.

In addition, one of the biggest hits will be in efficiency - you can't have a passive speaker with an honest 90dB sensitivity spec (anechoic) with near full range bass, unless the speaker cabinet is HUGE - and that presents a host of other problems....

This is definitely a worthy discussion and the input I am receiving is very valuable.

My vote would be for bigger drivers if doing so increased efficiency/sensitivity and output in the mid-bass range and up and at the same time kept the speakers accurate on and off axis and smooth through the crossover points.

I personally would never give up having separate stacks of powered subs, but view more sensitivity and output as a plus from 60Hz on up.

[ematthews]

Now that I re-read the thread...

What is the argument against the use of subwoofers in a music setup? I am not clear on that.

Good discussion.

For me. It's the blending of the sub and speaker. Depending on the recorded material it seems I either have to turn it up or down at times. I like the fact of keeping things simple and not distracting me from the music time experience. A simple 2.0 system where the mains can dig deeper can have a really nice balanced sound. Maybe I am not good at set up after 8 years of being into this hobby. But my OCD keeps me adjusting my sub. I also don't have the best rooms in my house to help me.

[ematthews]

I feel it is important to state that we would not be able to approach Rythmik subwoofer bass performance in a passive speaker. The advantages a powered sub has over a passive speaker are too numerous to mention and achieving a true -3dB at 20Hz in a passive speaker is extremely problematic and expensive.

In addition, one of the biggest hits will be in efficiency - you can't have a passive speaker with an honest 90dB sensitivity spec (anechoic) with near full range bass, unless the speaker cabinet is HUGE - and that presents a host of other problems....

This is definitely a worthy discussion and the input I am receiving is very valuable.

Dave.. So going with a bigger cabinet, two 8in bass drivers with maybe a bigger mid and RAAL tweeter wouldn't duplicate the Sierra sound on a larger scale? I have a hard time believing that a lot of other manufactures do this but only their smaller offerings create the best sound. This is what I am gathering from some of the replies.

[surroundnewbie]

A RAAL tower with integrated side firing rhythmik sub? You could call them the Ascend Rockies--bc they rock so hard AND knock out the competition! 😀

[Bruce Watson]

So going with a bigger cabinet, two 8in bass drivers with maybe a bigger mid and RAAL tweeter wouldn't duplicate the Sierra sound on a larger scale?

I'm not Dave, but I think that is what he's telling you, yes.


I have a hard time believing that a lot of other manufactures do this but only their smaller offerings create the best sound. This is what I am gathering from some of the replies.

I think what you're missing is the laws of physics. It's not linear. The bottom end is much more difficult to deal with than the mids and highs.

Some reasons for that include that in real rooms, the optimal location for the speakers that produce the mids and highs are not the same as the optimal location for the speakers that produce the lows. The reason for this is that the mids and higher frequencies are what establish the sound stage and let you localize instruments and singers in that sound stage. Most people can't localize any sound below around 80 Hz, so it doesn't matter from the sound stage point of view where the subs are. At the same time, all real rooms suffer from room mode problems which are (usually) profoundly effected by the location of the subs, but not so much by the location of the mids/highs. And the location directly under the mid/high driver is not helpful in mitigating problems with room modes. Not at all helpful.

So while I get what you want and why you want it, you should know that the laws of physics aren't in your favor and in fact work against you.

And I haven't even touched on passive vs. active drivers, and why active is so much better for subs. And why servo subs are so much better than non-servo subs, and that servo systems require an integrated amp (active) to work.

It's true that other suppliers will give you what you say you want. And it's true that their smaller offerings that separate their mids/highs from their subs usually sound better. And now I've explained as best I can (flawed as I know it is) why that is.

I think Dave is heading in exactly the right direction with his designs so far. I look forward to where he puts his energy going forward.

[ematthews]

I'm not Dave, but I think that is what he's telling you, yes.



I think what you're missing is the laws of physics. It's not linear. The bottom end is much more difficult to deal with than the mids and highs.

Some reasons for that include that in real rooms, the optimal location for the speakers that produce the mids and highs are not the same as the optimal location for the speakers that produce the lows. The reason for this is that the mids and higher frequencies are what establish the sound stage and let you localize instruments and singers in that sound stage. Most people can't localize any sound below around 80 Hz, so it doesn't matter from the sound stage point of view where the subs are. At the same time, all real rooms suffer from room mode problems which are (usually) profoundly effected by the location of the subs, but not so much by the location of the mids/highs. And the location directly under the mid/high driver is not helpful in mitigating problems with room modes. Not at all helpful.

So while I get what you want and why you want it, you should know that the laws of physics aren't in your favor and in fact work against you.

And I haven't even touched on passive vs. active drivers, and why active is so much better for subs. And why servo subs are so much better than non-servo subs, and that servo systems require an integrated amp (active) to work.

It's true that other suppliers will give you what you say you want. And it's true that their smaller offerings that separate their mids/highs from their subs usually sound better. And now I've explained as best I can (flawed as I know it is) why that is.

I think Dave is heading in exactly the right direction with his designs so far. I look forward to where he puts his energy going forward.

Fantastic reply. Very informative and I appreciate it. This could potentially save me some money.

[Bruce Watson]

It's the blending of the sub and speaker.

My experience is somewhat limited, because I pretty much stopped experimenting when I got the blend I wanted. Because I just wanted to listen and not continue to frick with things.

But what I found was that servo subs are considerably easier to integrate with separates like the Sierra-2s than non-servo subs. I think the reason for that might be in the considerably lower distortion one gets from a servo sub over a non-servo sub. That distortion can come across as coloration, and can put out some interestingly strong harmonics up in the range normally handled by the mid/high speakers, which makes both both the sub and the mid driver sound... distorted.

Interestingly it looks like the benefits of a servo system tail off dramatically with an increase in frequency. Which is probably why I've never seen it used in mid range speakers or higher. Not that it hasn't been done, just that I personally haven't seen it.

[billy p]

Im not getting into the pros and cons of how a subwoofer is designed....I certainly understand and appreciate the benefits of a servo but for music I doubt it really is a factor...those higher distortion harmonics we speak of are usually found within movies and that's potentially where servos have the advantage so to speak. I dont need my mains for a 2.0 to play down to those levels where distortion becomes problematic....and I strongly suspect the types of music you listen to could exacerbate those problems you alluded to and Id be fine with...just saying. :)

[davef]

Im not getting into the pros and cons of how a subwoofer is designed....I certainly understand and appreciate the benefits of a servo but for music I doubt it really is a factor...those higher distortion harmonics we speak of are usually found within movies and that's potentially where servos have the advantage so to speak. I dont need my mains for a 2.0 to play down to those levels where distortion becomes problematic....and I strongly suspect the types of music you listen to could exacerbate those problems you alluded to and Id be fine with...just saying. :)

Hi Billy,

The advantage of Direct Servo for music isn't the decrease in distortion, it is with the rather dramatic improvement of transient response - which I feel is a far more important aspect of performance than distortion.

[davef]

My Genesis speakers had two 15" self amplified side firing woofers in each speaker which were adjustable for hi pass, lo pass, gain, and phase. I was able to integrate them well.
Now, I am not suggesting this large for Ascend, but the self amplified concept with adjustments is a way of doing this.

Maybe side firing helps with integration and placement?

Rock on!

Agreed... There are major advantages going with an active bass system. Side firing / front firing / rear firing makes no difference in the quality of the bass or placement, we are dealing with wavelengths that are typically longer than the room itself - a few inches won't matter. The advantage to side firing is that it allows a much slimmer front baffle.

[davef]

Dave.. So going with a bigger cabinet, two 8in bass drivers with maybe a bigger mid and RAAL tweeter wouldn't duplicate the Sierra sound on a larger scale? I have a hard time believing that a lot of other manufactures do this but only their smaller offerings create the best sound. This is what I am gathering from some of the replies.

We already use a 5 1/4" midrange driver, going with a larger midrange will hurt performance, not improve performance. A larger midrange means a lower crossover point to the tweeter to avoid both beaming issues and cone resonance. We can not cross our tweeters over any lower than we already do - nor should any manufacturer - doing so dramatically increases distortion and significantly lowers power handling.

I have a suspicion as to what type of sound you are looking for, if my suspicion is correct - it really has nothing to do with driver size, more to do with a slower transient response, which creates an overall less light and airy sound. We can do this for you if you want to experiment a bit, by lowering the efficiency of your towers.

[Mag_Neato]

Line array!!

[curtis]

Line array!!
Completely different design, and imagine what that would cost with all those RAAL tweeters!! Ha!

[diesel79]

Completely different design, and imagine what that would cost with all those RAAL tweeters!! Ha!

Oh but the sound!!!!! :)

[ematthews]

We already use a 5 1/4" midrange driver, going with a larger midrange will hurt performance, not improve performance. A larger midrange means a lower crossover point to the tweeter to avoid both beaming issues and cone resonance. We can not cross our tweeters over any lower than we already do - nor should any manufacturer - doing so dramatically increases distortion and significantly lowers power handling.

I have a suspicion as to what type of sound you are looking for, if my suspicion is correct - it really has nothing to do with driver size, more to do with a slower transient response, which creates an overall less light and airy sound. We can do this for you if you want to experiment a bit, by lowering the efficiency of your towers.
Interesting. And a bit scary if I made any change to my current towers. Let me email you off line to see what it would take.

[ematthews]

As far as looking at maybe keeping a sub and tower or maybe one of my many bookshelf speakers, maybe going with a better Rythmik would be an answer and get it blended correctly. I currently own other makes like the LS50, Polk LSim 703 and could play around in that room with a 15in Rythmik.
Right now I am running my Sierra towers with a few different sub options. An Outlaw Ultra X12, Martin Logan Grotto and an SVS SB12 NSD. I am not happy with any of these subs for music. The Grotto was the best but it has some issues and is old.
I may just order a Rythmik from Dave before doing anything else and try it before moving to a no sub 2.0 set up.

[billy p]

If you eventually decide on a sub ...go for the New Rythmik F18...ha....leave no doubt.

[curtis]

As far as looking at maybe keeping a sub and tower or maybe one of my many bookshelf speakers, maybe going with a better Rythmik would be an answer and get it blended correctly. I currently own other makes like the LS50, Polk LSim 703 and could play around in that room with a 15in Rythmik.
Right now I am running my Sierra towers with a few different sub options. An Outlaw Ultra X12, Martin Logan Grotto and an SVS SB12 NSD. I am not happy with any of these subs for music. The Grotto was the best but it has some issues and is old.
I may just order a Rythmik from Dave before doing anything else and try it before moving to a no sub 2.0 set up.
Before I got Sierra-1’s, I was using a Hsu sub and it was great with every Ascend combo I had up until that time, I could not make it work to my liking with the Sierra-1. I needed cross them lower than I wanted to if I didn’t want to hear a transition in the bass from the speaker to sub.

Then, before Ascend started selling Rythmiks, I tried one...boom, done deal! I love that thing.



If you eventually decide on a sub ...go for the New Rythmik F18...ha....leave no doubt.
I saw pics of a Funk 21...Yow!!

[billy p]

Before I got Sierra-1’s, I was using a Hsu sub and it was great with every Ascend combo I had up until that time, I could not make it work to my liking with the Sierra-1. I needed cross them lower than I wanted to if I didn’t want to hear a transition in the bass from the speaker to sub.

Then, before Ascend started selling Rythmiks, I tried one...boom, done deal! I love that thing.



I saw pics of a Funk 21...Yow!!

Naturally Rythmik subs come to mind for intrgration in a music only setup...I'd highly recommend Funk subs too.

I never thought in a million years I'd own a 18" sub.... yea...those in house 21" units are sweet but way to rich for my pockets. As discussed recently...we both have other priorities pending...lol.

[kongar]

Get 2 smaller subs instead of one bigger one imo.

[ematthews]

For those running the RAAL Towers and a sub. Do you run the Sierra's on full? I have the Parasound P5 Pre amp so I can do both full and trim them at a point I want. I run full as I feel I get a better more full sound. I know this is wrong but....... I guess there is no wrong and right in audio.
Also, looking at back on all these years of music for me. I remember getting my first Dolby Pro Logic receiver and loved putting the sound on Hall Effect. So maybe I don't like perfect flat sound and like inaccurate big full sounding echo effects in my music.

[curtis]

For those running the RAAL Towers and a sub. Do you run the Sierra's on full? I have the Parasound P5 Pre amp so I can do both full and trim them at a point I want. I run full as I feel I get a better more full sound. I know this is wrong but....... I guess there is no wrong and right in audio.
Also, looking at back on all these years of music for me. I remember getting my first Dolby Pro Logic receiver and loved putting the sound on Hall Effect. So maybe I don't like perfect flat sound and like inaccurate big full sounding echo effects in my music.
IMO, you should always use bass management between the mains and sub(s).

That P5 also has a sub level control on the front panel, so that should help you.

[kongar]

For those running the RAAL Towers and a sub. Do you run the Sierra's on full? I have the Parasound P5 Pre amp so I can do both full and trim them at a point I want. I run full as I feel I get a better more full sound. I know this is wrong but....... I guess there is no wrong and right in audio.
Also, looking at back on all these years of music for me. I remember getting my first Dolby Pro Logic receiver and loved putting the sound on Hall Effect. So maybe I don't like perfect flat sound and like inaccurate big full sounding echo effects in my music.

My subs take over, so to speak, on the lower end. So much so that running the towers full range doesn't produce a noticeable difference unless you get right up next to the towers. So running them on small is recommended and probably the way to go. There's just no benefit - just downside in the form of distortion (which I honestly can't hear but whatever).

Now, that all said. I run mine on large / full range for a different reason. I often listen to music quietly (working at home and whatnot), and I find every once and a while my Rythmik subs won't automatically trigger on (signal isn't large enough) or they'll go back to sleep mid song. This annoys me and the sound difference is then really noticeable (obviously). So I run my towers on large and end up in effectively a 2.0 configuration when this happens. I don't notice a degradation in quality, nor "more bass" - either way sounds the same to me. So I do full range for convenience...

[natetg57]

My subs take over, so to speak, on the lower end. So much so that running the towers full range doesn't produce a noticeable difference unless you get right up next to the towers. So running them on small is recommended and probably the way to go. There's just no benefit - just downside in the form of distortion (which I honestly can't hear but whatever).

Now, that all said. I run mine on large / full range for a different reason. I often listen to music quietly (working at home and whatnot), and I find every once and a while my Rythmik subs won't automatically trigger on (signal isn't large enough) or they'll go back to sleep mid song. This annoys me and the sound difference is then really noticeable (obviously). So I run my towers on large and end up in effectively a 2.0 configuration when this happens. I don't notice a degradation in quality, nor "more bass" - either way sounds the same to me. So I do full range for convenience...

What is your subwoofer trim set at on your receiver? If it is set at something like -10 then the signal from the receiver is not strong enough to turn the subwoofer on. If you turn the volume knob lower on the sub and then rerun auto setup or turn the trim up to 0 or higher, that should help the issue.

[bkdc]

Placing full-range speakers that plumb to 20-something Hz levels SUCKS. It's far far far far easier to place separate subs in the room.

[kongar]

What is your subwoofer trim set at on your receiver? If it is set at something like -10 then the signal from the receiver is not strong enough to turn the subwoofer on. If you turn the volume knob lower on the sub and then rerun auto setup or turn the trim up to 0 or higher, that should help the issue.

Ya it’s annoying, my trim isn’t set crazy low or anything - I’m at 0 (which is actually a bit hot according to both audessey and a separate calibrated microphone). But I have to get above -40ish for them to kick on and stay on. Which is fine 95% of the time. But every once and a while, I just want background music and they drop out. It’s not about accelerating my hearing loss EVERY time I turn it on :)

Maybe I’ll do just that, turn the subs down and turn the trim up even more. Didn’t think of that... :)

[diesel79]

You can also try a Y cable into the sub. Mine was a little lazy to turn on in the auto mode at low volume. The Y cable took care of my issues.

I’m thinking it would also remedy your issue. You would have to re-calibrate your sub level though.

[crazycuz2k]

Dave. F. What are your thoughts on an active servo sub integrated with passive mids and highs? Wouldn't you then get the best of both world? I imagine 1-2 8 inch drivers like the ones in the Rythmik F8. I think his dual driver F8's can hit your target of -3dB at 20Hz.

Since you already have a relationship with Brian Ding, just would make sense for you to integrate his drivers and amps into your passive design and you building the crossover.

Am I crazy that this might work?

BTW. 3,500K- 5K seems the right price point depending on tweeter

Hell can I dream and say 10K if you add the diamond tweeter? :cool:

Audio Nirvana 2.0

[ematthews]

Dave. F. What are your thoughts on an active servo sub integrated with passive mids and highs? Wouldn't you then get the best of both world? I imagine 1-2 8 inch drivers like the ones in the Rythmik F8. I think his dual driver F8's can hit your target of -3dB at 20Hz.

Since you already have a relationship with Brian Ding, just would make sense for you to integrate his drivers and amps into your passive design and you building the crossover.

Am I crazy that this might work?

BTW. 3,500K- 5K seems the right price point depending on tweeter

Hell can I dream and say 10K if you add the diamond tweeter? :cool:

Audio Nirvana 2.0
Seems to me there are a few out there doing this like DefTec Golden Ear etc. I know even Polk had it in the old LSI series. I have never listened to a tower like this. Would be interesting to hear.

[Blutarsky]

I have heard the Golden Ear speakers, and like them. Plus, they aren't even servo.

If Ascend and Rythmik get together for a similar project, it might be a good marriage.

My wife wouldn't mind getting the floor space of our dual subs back.

How many of us have the freedom to place our subs in optimal locations anyway?

B.

[curtis]

I have heard the Golden Ear speakers, and like them. Plus, they aren't even servo.

If Ascend and Rythmik get together for a similar project, it might be a good marriage.

My wife wouldn't mind getting the floor space of our dual subs back.

How many of us have the freedom to place our subs in optimal locations anyway?

B.


Dave. F. What are your thoughts on an active servo sub integrated with passive mids and highs? Wouldn't you then get the best of both world? I imagine 1-2 8 inch drivers like the ones in the Rythmik F8. I think his dual driver F8's can hit your target of -3dB at 20Hz.



Seems to me there are a few out there doing this like DefTec Golden Ear etc. I know even Polk had it in the old LSI series. I have never listened to a tower like this. Would be interesting to hear.
Aesthetically..you want the space back from placement of your sub(s). I get that.

But this still makes the speaker cabinet larger(you have to add the same volume/size as the sub alone. With bamboo, this is going to cost you), and doesn't offer any gains in performance over the use of separate sub(s).

[bkdc]

There is no performance gain. Only a horrid headache in trying to deal with speaker placement to deal with the bass. Give me separate subs every time.

[Blutarsky]

The Golden Ear Triton 2 ( the middle size) is narrower than the Ascend Towers and 15 inches deep.

I felt that my Genesis 6.1 was as easy to place and configure as separate subs. I do have Room Correction now, but I can't place my subs perfectly because I don't have a dedicated listening room, and consider my wife's feelings.

This is fun to talk about, and I'm sure that we will see more speakers with powered subs built in.

[justthinking]

Sierra Tower w/ RAAL + subwoofer is all you need

More often than not, the ideal location for low frequency in any given room is different than the ideal locaion for mid and high frequency, so even if Dave do release a bigger tower, I would bet the overall sound of Sierra Tower w/ RAAL + a pair of subwoofers with proper placement will sound better than the bigger tower..

As far as integrate subwoofer to 2 channel setup, you can get an active cross-over like Marchand XM66...

[justthinking]

Naturally Rythmik subs come to mind for intrgration in a music only setup...I'd highly recommend Funk subs too.


I am a strong advocate of utilizing high pass filter to add subwoofer to any system, never like using y-cable and send full signal to speakers

While Rythmik does have the F12 with A370PEQ which offers fixed 80Hz / 12dB HPF, IMO it is not flexible enough and I always found 24dB HPF to work better...

Other than active subwoofer cross-over, any other option would be MiniDSP...

[davef]

While Rythmik does have the F12 with A370PEQ which offers fixed 80Hz / 12dB HPF, IMO it is not flexible enough and I always found 24dB HPF to work better...

Are you referring to the high level speaker inputs on the F12 with A370PEQ or the low level HPF outs?

[justthinking]

Are you referring to the high level speaker inputs on the F12 with A370PEQ or the low level HPF outs?

Low level output, a while back I had a conversation with Brian and he confirmed the line out on the A370PEQ has a fixed 80Hz 12dB high pass filter build in while the low pass filter on the line in side can be either 12dB or 24dB slope depend on the setting..

I also found out there is another version of the A370PEQ offered by GR Research with modified low level line out with 100Hz -3dB q=0.6 (12dB) high pass filter, I guess it is used with the GR Research paper driver which can cross-over higher than the Rythmik aluminum cone?

[davef]

Low level output, a while back I had a conversation with Brian and he confirmed the line out on the A370PEQ has a fixed 80Hz 12dB high pass filter build in while the low pass filter on the line in side can be either 12dB or 24dB slope depend on the setting..

Yeah, it is a nice feature but it is being phased out. It's rarely found on subwoofers these days - much better off having the receiver, processor or an external active crossover handle the speaker HPF.

[ematthews]

Yeah, it is a nice feature but it is being phased out. It's rarely found on subwoofers these days - much better off having the receiver, processor or an external active crossover handle the speaker HPF.

Dave. What Rythmik would you suggest to use with either my RAAL towers or if I add the Sierra 2'S to the mix again. I would like extra power and low end on hand if needed. Audio only system in a 12x14 room.

[justthinking]

Dave. What Rythmik would you suggest to use with either my RAAL towers or if I add the Sierra 2'S to the mix again. I would like extra power and low end on hand if needed. Audio only system in a 12x14 room.

If budget allow, I would think F12 would work really well in your room size...

[billy p]

The OP iirc had gone down this path of owning S2 and Rythmik sub and why he switched to the Raal towers. Sounds as though he's at the crossroads....I hope he finds a happy medium....and i understand his desire of a full range towers for a simple 2.0 system

[davef]

Dave. What Rythmik would you suggest to use with either my RAAL towers or if I add the Sierra 2'S to the mix again. I would like extra power and low end on hand if needed. Audio only system in a 12x14 room.

Since you are looking to really feel the bass - I would recommend the F15HP (sticking with sealed for better transient accuracy) You will also want to spend time on proper placement and integration -- the results will be well worth it...

[davef]

Dave. F. What are your thoughts on an active servo sub integrated with passive mids and highs? Wouldn't you then get the best of both world? I imagine 1-2 8 inch drivers like the ones in the Rythmik F8. I think his dual driver F8's can hit your target of -3dB at 20Hz.

Since you already have a relationship with Brian Ding, just would make sense for you to integrate his drivers and amps into your passive design and you building the crossover.

Am I crazy that this might work?

BTW. 3,500K- 5K seems the right price point depending on tweeter

Hell can I dream and say 10K if you add the diamond tweeter? :cool:

Audio Nirvana 2.0

This is actually a good option but with the popularity of Class D amplifiers, there are major compatibility issues. Class D amps typically don't have a true ground thus running a high level speaker output into another amplifier can present significant issues. It would really need to be done such that only a low-level signal feed the subwoofer section of the speaker - and then this basically rules out the 2-channel crowd, for which the speakers would mostly be designed for anyhow.

If customers stuck only with Class A or Class A/B amps -- very doable, but many consumers are not sure what type of amp they are using and Class D is quickly gaining very significant market share due to higher power at lower costs.



BTW. 3,500K- 5K seems the right price point depending on tweeter

Hell can I dream and say 10K if you add the diamond tweeter? :cool:

Audio Nirvana 2.0

~ $5K - $6K would be about right with integrating Rythmik active bass, but you are likely looking at $12K - $13K with the SEAS Diamond Tweeter (we are actually in the process of building a pair of towers with the diamond tweeters for a customer)

[crazycuz2k]

~ $5K - $6K would be about right with integrating Rythmik active bass, but you are likely looking at $12K - $13K with the SEAS Diamond Tweeter (we are actually in the process of building a pair of towers with the diamond tweeters for a customer)

Will you show the custom speaker on the forum and your impressions. I've been following the diamond tweeter thread.

[ematthews]

Since you are looking to really feel the bass - I would recommend the F15HP (sticking with sealed for better transient accuracy) You will also want to spend time on proper placement and integration -- the results will be well worth it...
Thanks a bunch. This is on my list to order soon.

[davef]

Will you show the custom speaker on the forum and your impressions. I've been following the diamond tweeter thread.

Most definitely :)

[jaxtitleman]

From what I have read the bass on the current towers must be pretty good, so I am wondering...why not just a slightly larger driver, but very well designed and implemented ( as is the current 5 1/4" ). Would that not perhaps provide an extra ounce or two of bass while still keeping cabinet profiles a reasonable size and cost to a reasonable number? I ask because I recently had a pair of Monitor Audio Silver 6 (dual 6" drivers ) for 30 day trial and in my room their bass was substantial, well controlled and very musical. But I found the mids and highs lacking so back they went. Of course, I know very little about actual speaker design so I may well be missing something.

[ematthews]

I never thought when I started this thread it would get so much feedback. But a few months later and I really wish they had a large RAAL tower with 8in drivers that dug down deep enough so I could get rid of the sub. And keep all the current mid and upper qualities. This is a 2 channel only set up. I use a sub only because I am a bass head. I acknowledge all of the feedback about the benefits of using a sub, but would still love to see a large Ascend tower sitting R and L of my rack.;)

[curtis]

I never thought when I started this thread it would get so much feedback. But a few months later and I really wish they had a large RAAL tower with 8in drivers that dug down deep enough so I could get rid of the sub. And keep all the current mid and upper qualities. This is a 2 channel only set up. I use a sub only because I am a bass head. I acknowledge all of the feedback about the benefits of using a sub, but would still love to see a large Ascend tower sitting R and L of my rack.;)
Many mixing/sound engineers use a sub for two-channel.

[Mose Harper]

I recently upgraded to an Oppo 205 shortly after they announced they would cease manufacturing of their consumer electronics.

It's got the top of the line ESS ES9038PRO Sabre Pro DACs. This turned out to be the missing piece of the puzzle for me after I completed upgrading my 5.0 set up last year with the Lunas in the back.

I've got the Towers and Horizon in front with RAALs all around. It sounded great before with analog outs from my previous Oppo 103. However the better DACs in the 205 have made a readily appreciable difference in some key areas- most notably the low end.

A little amazing, and supremely satisfying, to find out just how much untapped untapped potential was in there all along.