-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
SEAS has finished the first batch of prototypes and I am *slowly* starting on the cabinet design. I should have a good estimate on cabinet size and porting requirements within a week or so -- if we can ever get caught up with fulfilling holiday orders.
The bad news is that pricing on these woofers has come back a bit higher than I anticipated. The Curv cones are expensive and we will also have to invest in some new tooling. That said, I will be looking into ways to cut some costs here and there.
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davef
SEAS has finished the first batch of prototypes and I am *slowly* starting on the cabinet design. I should have a good estimate on cabinet size and porting requirements within a week or so -- if we can ever get caught up with fulfilling holiday orders.
The bad news is that pricing on these woofers has come back a bit higher than I anticipated. The Curv cones are expensive and we will also have to invest in some new tooling. That said, I will be looking into ways to cut some costs here and there.
I have no idea how these things work but would it help to have presales so you can commit to a larger/cheaper order?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davef
Regrettably, this is unlikely at this point in time. This type of finishing has become extremely expensive and high gloss finishes seem to have lost their appeal.
Understandable. It is odd to me though since I think my speakers look better than the satin ones. Maybe looking at them every day for 6 years has biased me..
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
This is exactly what I've been looking for. I hope they can be front-ported to facilitate placement of the speakers. As satellites, i'll be happy if frequency response hits 100Hz because the sub will take care of the rest.
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Dave,
How about a CBM 170 RAAL?
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
If these will replacing my current surrounds, I'd prefer them to be plain black matte. In fact, if I replace my Sierra-2 fronts, those replacements will be matte black vs. the current piano gloss. The surrounds will blend in better and the fronts won't reflect off the projection screen if they're matte. Gloss is pretty but the shininess causes its own problems.
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sonicboom
Dave,
How about a CBM 170 RAAL?
I honestly hadn't really thought about this. My concern would be directivity issues with crossing the 170 woofer at a higher point than this woofer was designed for. It wouldn't be a problem if we used the 70-20 ribbon (what we use in the towers and can be crossed very low) - but then this speaker would be nearly the same price as the Sierra-2.
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
First batch of prototype woofers have arrived from SEAS. For a 4.5" woofer, these things are massive!
Interestingly enough, these will work very well in a very small enclosure (-3dB at 60Hz) The challenge now becomes how to design this enclosure to meet the goals stated in this thread, while also employing the proper port tune... This is quite a challenge.
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davef
First batch of prototype woofers have arrived from SEAS. For a 4.5" woofer, these things are massive!
Interestingly enough, these will work very well in a very small enclosure (-3dB at 60Hz) The challenge now becomes how to design this enclosure to meet the goals stated in this thread, while also employing the proper port tune... This is quite a challenge.
Awesome, I can't wait to see a frequency chart for these speakers. Roll-off is supposedly great due to the rigidity of the CURV woofers. When do you think you will have a unit put together?
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pj-
I have no idea how these things work but would it help to have presales so you can commit to a larger/cheaper order?
We already purchase in large enough quantities to receive the maximum volume discounts that our vendors offer, especially when it comes to SEAS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
pj-
Understandable. It is odd to me though since I think my speakers look better than the satin ones. Maybe looking at them every day for 6 years has biased me..
I too liked the old gloss wood finishes, but it just isn't popular these days.
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davef
This is quite a challenge.
I have a feeling this is one of the reasons to love (or hate) designing and building speakers.
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Hi Dave.
How about naming it "Sierra mini"; so as to better suggest the possibility of using them as mains, specially in a small desktop setup.
Keep up the good work!:)
Best wishes.
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
I think "Sat" works just fine, especially given the market segment these are aimed at, which includes (to some degree) the new SVS Prime Sat. If someone is searching for satellite type speakers these will come up in a search. I have a pair of small 2-way bookshelf speakers that are named Micromonitors" that are substantially larger than the intended size for these.
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Drowningshrimp
Awesome, I can't wait to see a frequency chart for these speakers. Roll-off is supposedly great due to the rigidity of the CURV woofers. When do you think you will have a unit put together?
This is exactly why we are going with the Curv woofers. We tested dozens of other woofers, with different materials and varying types of motors -- the SEAS Curv woofers offer incredible rigidity combined with the best self damping I have yet to measure in woofers this size. In addition, they are much lower mass which greatly improves transient accuracy and stored enery. I feel they are the perfect match to our Sierra-2 RAAL ribbon tweeter (which requires a higher crossover point), even compared to more expensive - "more exotic" woofers ;)
It will be a while before we have a fully functional prototype...
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
I volunteer as a beta tester!!!!! :-)
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mag_Neato
I think "Sat" works just fine, especially given the market segment these are aimed at, which includes (to some degree) the new SVS Prime Sat. If someone is searching for satellite type speakers these will come up in a search. I have a pair of small 2-way bookshelf speakers that are named Micromonitors" that are substantially larger than the intended size for these.
I have to agree... For me, "Sierra Mini" conjures up something entirely different than what we are at least trying to accomplish. However, we certainly are not there yet so who knows ;)
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Thanks for your response.
You have my best wishes.:)
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davef
I have to agree... For me, "Sierra Mini" conjures up something entirely different than what we are at least trying to accomplish. However, we certainly are not there yet so who knows ;)
Dave, if the new sat will be intended to act as a center as well just be sure to design the baffle symmetrically like the rest of your speakers. The only gripe I have with the SVS sat is that the baffle has chamfered sides that taper from bottom to top with a matching grill. They look sharp vertically but not so hot horizontally. Can't even remove the SVS logo to try relocating it.
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
My listening area necessitates that my speakers are wall-mounted.
Currently I have a pair of CBM 170-SEs, a pair of CMT-340 SEs and a CMT 340 center. Oddly, due to the mounting situation, the smaller CBMs are presently serving as mains, while the bigger CMTs are doing surround duty.
The reason for that is I have found the CMT's sound to be muddy (boxy, bass-heavy and indistinct) in my front wall-mounted set-up. This is due to the CMT's depth, which does not allow enough space between the back wall. I wish my wall mounting hardware had longer arms. I have around 2 inches of space between the port hole and the front wall. I am crossing my speakers to my sub at 80hz.
In contrast, the CBMs are not suffering from the same problem.
My question is:
Will the Sierra 1 or 2 pose the same problem (when wall-mounted) as the CMTs due to their identical footprint? Please advise. I am looking to upgrade.
Or... will the Sierra Sats be the solution? Will they provide an obvious upgrade from my present set-up?
Thanks,
Daniel
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sonicboom
My question is:
Will the Sierra 1 or 2 pose the same problem (when wall-mounted) as the CMTs due to their identical footprint? Please advise. I am looking to upgrade.
Or... will the Sierra Sats be the solution? Will they provide an obvious upgrade from my present set-up?
Thanks,
Daniel
Hi Daniel,
For the Sierra-1 / Sierra-2 -- we offer this solution which works extremely well: http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/sho...on-enhancement!
For the forthcoming Sierra Sat, the problem you are having now will definitely not be an issue :)
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davef
Dave,
I'm a little confused. I thought I remembered you mentioning in a previous thread, maybe a year ago, not to use the port plugs in the Sierra 2s, since they were designed specifically for the Sierra 1. I thought I remembered you saying to just cross them over at 80Hz, if you want to place the Sierra 2s close to the wall. I could have remembered this completely wrong but I just wanted to check with you. Thanks.
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
N Boros
Dave,
I'm a little confused. I thought I remembered you mentioning in a previous thread, maybe a year ago, not to use the port plugs in the Sierra 2s, since they were designed specifically for the Sierra 1. I thought I remembered you saying to just cross them over at 80Hz, if you want to place the Sierra 2s close to the wall. I could have remembered this completely wrong but I just wanted to check with you. Thanks.
Here is the exact quote from the Sierra-2 thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davef
I apologize for the delay on this question. I had to do some testing... Q-Plugs work fine with the Sierra-2, however -- since the bass response of the Sierra-2 is different -- in general, the use of Q-Plugs with Sierra-2 will be less likely. For those who have Q-Plugs, I suggest experimenting.
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davef
Thanks for the response, Dave.
Next question is:
For my wall-mounted set-up, what would you recommend... Sierra 2 with Q plugs or wait for the Sierra Sats?
-
1 Attachment(s)
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sonicboom
Thanks for the response, Dave.
Next question is:
For my wall-mounted set-up, what would you recommend... Sierra 2 with Q plugs or wait for the Sierra Sats?
I'm not Dave but I would recommend waiting for the Sats if possible. I'm using the Sierra-2s as surrounds and they work well. The Q-plugs also help a great deal because I'm so close to the corners.Attachment 1248
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Dave - has anyone told you just how awesome you are lately. Curtis just pointed me to this thread today, if you need a beta tester/early purchaser let me know. I will have to figure out what to do with my Sierra 1s - just can't bring myself to sell any of your speakers let alone my first pair.
By the way I was using a pair of 200s for my one pair of my tops - Atmos - just swapped them out and plan to use them at work with a Emo Mini X - can't wait to hear how they really sound and rock the office - plus see inability to sell comment :)
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
natetg57
I'm not Dave but I would recommend waiting for the Sats if possible. I'm using the Sierra-2s as surrounds and they work well. The Q-plugs also help a great deal because I'm so close to the corners.
Attachment 1248
That looks really close to the corner. Please describe the difference in the sound before and after using the Q-plugs. Thanks.
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sonicboom
That looks really close to the corner. Please describe the difference in the sound before and after using the Q-plugs. Thanks.
I ran Audyssey both with the plugs in and out. I went with the plugs in because Audyssey doesn't have to cut the 63 and 125 frequencies as much. Especially at 63hrtz. I figure the less Audyssey has to do, the better.
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
For an all RAAL ribbon setup in a Atmos/DTS:X/Auro3D 7.1.4 speaker configuration, the Sierra Sat are an interesting option.
It will much depend on the Sierra Sat being ceiling mountable and if it can be painted to match the decor.
When will the Sierra Sat specs and frequency response graph be available?
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Hi Dave,
What will you recommend as a clear upgrade from my current SE set-up, wall-mounted all around? Debating between Sierra-2s + Q-plugs (as LCR) and waiting for the Sierra Sats (identical speakers all around for a 5.1). Thanks.
Daniel
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sonicboom
Hi Dave,
What will you recommend as a clear upgrade from my current SE set-up, wall-mounted all around? Debating between Sierra-2s + Q-plugs (as LCR) and waiting for the Sierra Sats (identical speakers all around for a 5.1). Thanks.
Daniel
Hi Daniel,
I would definitely go with Sierra-2's -- but you should consider the forthcoming Sierra Sat for use as the rears (just to save a few $$$)
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
N Boros
Dave,
I'm a little confused. I thought I remembered you mentioning in a previous thread, maybe a year ago, not to use the port plugs in the Sierra 2s, since they were designed specifically for the Sierra 1. I thought I remembered you saying to just cross them over at 80Hz, if you want to place the Sierra 2s close to the wall. I could have remembered this completely wrong but I just wanted to check with you. Thanks.
The Q-Plugs work fine with Sierra-2's -- but because the bass alignment between Sierra-1 and Sierra-2 are different, in most close proximity placements, the plugs won't be needed with the 2's...
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davef
The Q-Plugs work fine with Sierra-2's -- but because the bass alignment between Sierra-1 and Sierra-2 are different, in most close proximity placements, the plugs won't be needed with the 2's...
Hi Dave,
This is interesting. In my wall-mounted set-up, the CMTs sounded muddy, even when crossed-over at 80Hz. I attribute this to the speakers' close proximity to the wall. My speaker mounts only allow about 2 inches between the port and the wall. Because of this, I am using the CBMs as my wall-mounted mains. For some reason they are not plagued by the same muddiness.
Now, I understand that the Sierra line is more bass-capable than the SE series. Please enlighten me as to why the Sierra-2 will not pose problems in close proximity placements unlike the CMTs.
Thanks, Dave.
Daniel
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Dave,
Will the sat be available with the NrT tweeter by chance? I know I could just use a Sierra-1 with NrT, but I'd prefer something in a smaller form factor that would match my Sierra Towers and Horizon (NrT).
Jason
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sonicboom
Hi Dave,
This is interesting. In my wall-mounted set-up, the CMTs sounded muddy, even when crossed-over at 80Hz. I attribute this to the speakers' close proximity to the wall. My speaker mounts only allow about 2 inches between the port and the wall. Because of this, I am using the CBMs as my wall-mounted mains. For some reason they are not plagued by the same muddiness.
Now, I understand that the Sierra line is more bass-capable than the SE series. Please enlighten me as to why the Sierra-2 will not pose problems in close proximity placements unlike the CMTs.
Thanks, Dave.
Daniel
Daniel,
I am not sure how the 340's entered into the discussion when comparing the bass response of the Sierra-1 and Sierra-2, but I will address your question.
First off, there is a great misunderstanding in the general public regarding rear ported speakers and the clearance behind them. Most people seem to think that clearance is needed because the output of the port fires directly into the wall behind the port and then bounces off causing things to sound muddy when the port is too close.
Clearance behind the port is needed so as to not hinder the airflow in and out of the port. Hindering the airflow will change (lower) the port tune frequency which would typically result in changing the low frequency response by lowering the -3dB point but with less output above this point. As a rule of thumb, it is recommended to provide enough clearance behind the rear port that is equal to the diameter of the port to provide unhindered airflow.
That said, for all of our speakers, the port tune frequency is at least 2 octaves lower than the baffle step frequency such that all audible wavelengths produced by the port travel in all directions around the cabinet - not just towards the back of the speaker, but to the front as well. It would be the same if the speaker had the same bass response but was sealed, the same low frequencies produced by the front woofer would also wrap around the cabinet - not just project forward.
I can understand your assumption that the Sierra-2 would sound even muddier than the 340's in the same positioning in your room (because the Sierra-2 have deeper bass), but you really can't make this assumption. There is much more to bass response than simply how deep the speaker will go. There are all of the frequencies above that -3dB point and the energy of those frequencies is determined by the bass alignment of the speaker. For ported speakers, there are many different types of bass alignments - which is precisely why one ported speaker might have a -3dB at 40Hz and another at 60Hz, yet the speaker with -3dB at 60Hz might sound warmer or sound like it even has more bass.
The bass alignment of the Sierra-2 is tuned for the most accurate transient response, which is different than the bass alignment of the Sierra-1 and the CMT-340. So while the Sierra-2 has a lower -3dB point than the 340, the 340 is tuned differently so it will have more output at certain higher bass frequencies than the Sierra-2. It is in these upper bass frequencies (typically in the 60-110Hz range) that bass reinforcement occurs with close wall proximity (nothing to do with the rear port) such that a speaker might start to sound muddy as it gets closer to that wall.
There are additional factors as well but I hope this at least provides a general explanation.
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jahjd2000
Dave,
Will the sat be available with the NrT tweeter by chance? I know I could just use a Sierra-1 with NrT, but I'd prefer something in a smaller form factor that would match my Sierra Towers and Horizon (NrT).
Jason
We are planning on offering all (3) tweeter options. Sierra-1 dome, NrT dome, and Sierra-2 ribbon :)
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Is it official that the Sierra Sat will be rear ported?
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eliwankenobi
Is it official that the Sierra Sat will be rear ported?
No --not sure why you drew this conclusion. Currently in the lengthy process of cabinet design.
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davef
We are planning on offering all (3) tweeter options. Sierra-1 dome, NrT dome, and Sierra-2 ribbon :)
Sweet! Thanks Dave.
A few more inquires. And are you able to share what the recommended x-over frequency will be for the sat? And since I have you, what is the lowest recommended x-over for the Sierra-1, again for HT use? I ask because I read a thread today describing the merits of full range surrounds. Apparently some users swear by it. I've been debating getting b-stock Sierra-1s for my surrounds (to pair with my NrT towers and Horizon) but I'm intrigued by the sat.
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davef
No --not sure why you drew this conclusion. Currently in the lengthy process of cabinet design.
Thanks for the reply Dave.
I wasn't sure if final cabinet design was done. Thanks for confirming that. I remember a sealed cabinet was in consideration, and btw, your comments about the Sierra-2 rear port, make me feel better about having my speakers less than a foot a away from the front wall
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davef
Daniel,
I am not sure how the 340's entered into the discussion when comparing the bass response of the Sierra-1 and Sierra-2, but I will address your question.
First off, there is a great misunderstanding in the general public regarding rear ported speakers and the clearance behind them. Most people seem to think that clearance is needed because the output of the port fires directly into the wall behind the port and then bounces off causing things to sound muddy when the port is too close.
Clearance behind the port is needed so as to not hinder the airflow in and out of the port. Hindering the airflow will change (lower) the port tune frequency which would typically result in changing the low frequency response by lowering the -3dB point but with less output above this point. As a rule of thumb, it is recommended to provide enough clearance behind the rear port that is equal to the diameter of the port to provide unhindered airflow.
That said, for all of our speakers, the port tune frequency is at least 2 octaves lower than the baffle step frequency such that all audible wavelengths produced by the port travel in all directions around the cabinet - not just towards the back of the speaker, but to the front as well. It would be the same if the speaker had the same bass response but was sealed, the same low frequencies produced by the front woofer would also wrap around the cabinet - not just project forward.
I can understand your assumption that the Sierra-2 would sound even muddier than the 340's in the same positioning in your room (because the Sierra-2 have deeper bass), but you really can't make this assumption. There is much more to bass response than simply how deep the speaker will go. There are all of the frequencies above that -3dB point and the energy of those frequencies is determined by the bass alignment of the speaker. For ported speakers, there are many different types of bass alignments - which is precisely why one ported speaker might have a -3dB at 40Hz and another at 60Hz, yet the speaker with -3dB at 60Hz might sound warmer or sound like it even has more bass.
The bass alignment of the Sierra-2 is tuned for the most accurate transient response, which is different than the bass alignment of the Sierra-1 and the CMT-340. So while the Sierra-2 has a lower -3dB point than the 340, the 340 is tuned differently so it will have more output at certain higher bass frequencies than the Sierra-2. It is in these upper bass frequencies (typically in the 60-110Hz range) that bass reinforcement occurs with close wall proximity (nothing to do with the rear port) such that a speaker might start to sound muddy as it gets closer to that wall.
There are additional factors as well but I hope this at least provides a general explanation.
Hi Dave,
Your response is deeply appreciated. I did not expect my post to get such a comprehensive answer. The way you treat forum members is an excellent expression of top notch people relations.
Thank you, sir.
Daniel
-
Re: New for 2016 - Introducing the Sierra Satellite, or “Sierra Sat” for short!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jahjd2000
Sweet! Thanks Dave.
A few more inquires. And are you able to share what the recommended x-over frequency will be for the sat? And since I have you, what is the lowest recommended x-over for the Sierra-1, again for HT use? I ask because I read a thread today describing the merits of full range surrounds. Apparently some users swear by it. I've been debating getting b-stock Sierra-1s for my surrounds (to pair with my NrT towers and Horizon) but I'm intrigued by the sat.
An 80Hz crossover would be ideal for the sat's, that is the design goal. Depending on the final cabinet design and port tuning (which is very complicated for this speaker - how do you fit a 10" long port in a 5" deep cabinet? lol) - it might be possible to even cross lower, 70 or even 60. Keep in mind that the deeper I tune the bass, the larger the cabinet will be and I am aiming for something at least as compact as the HTM-200 (hopefully a bit smaller).