Ascend Acoustics Sierra - 1

[audiodelic]

So after listening to bunch of tower speakers the only one i really liked were the focal chorus which would cost me about 1.5 lakh. So i'm in the mood of saving some money and going in the opposite direction, for an internet direct brand bookshelf speakers based purely on reviews and hoping that i get good value for money. Later down the line i will pair these with a rythmik servo based/svs sealed sub woofer.

What is the general consensus on the ascend acoustics sierra-1, they were the audio forum's best value star back in the day.
Any views/inputs/advice on this speaker guys ?

Product Specifications

some professional reviews

thanks in advance

 

[grubyhalo]

Back in the day when I had not decided on DIY, this was at the top of my list after quite some research. Pairing it with the Rythmik servo sub should be an excellent combo. However, IF DIY is even a remote possibility, read up a bit on the N2X, N3S and N3TL from GR Research. The N3/Rythmik combo is supposed to be killer. There are a few builders in their forum who could build one of these and ship them to India if that would work for you...

 

[audiodelic]

The design philosophy behind the bamboo cabinet of the sierra-1 by the designer/owner of the ascend acoustics ..... nice info about different cabinet materials and resonance.

Design Philosophy/Aim behind the Sierra-1

 

[sdurani]

I visited Ascend Acoustics (about 75 miles south of me) a couple of times last year to listen to their prototype 3-way tower speakers. We used an A/B switcher to do comparisons between the towers and the Sierras and Salk Songtowers.

The Sierras were a little clearer/brighter than the Salks, which had more of a warmer/less detailed sound. Both were pretty good, but what set the Sierras apart was the wide sweet spot and solid imaging. Even if you were sitting off-centre, they still threw a nice soundstage. By comparison, the Salks sounded great in the sweet spot but the sound collapsed to two speakers the moment you tilted your head a foot left or right.

So if you like detailed sound and need a wide sweet spot (e.g, multiple listeners on a sofa), then the Sierra bookshelf speakers will be a good fit for your needs. (The tower speaker, which adds a dedicated midrange, are on another level.)

 

[audiodelic]

@sdurani: Interesting .... when are these tower speakers being released ?

 

[sdurani]

I think the towers have started shipping in limited quantities.

My initial impressions of the tower prototypes:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=19125570&postcount=2067

Pics of different finishes:
Ascend Acoustics Community - View Single Post - The Tower Discussion Thread!

 

[sarge_in]

Interesting comments Sanjay. Are your comments about the regular or NrT tweeter version? From what I seem to remember from various reviews/posts is that the Sierras have somewhat rolled-off highs (and therefore a bit smoother) while the Salks are more detailed and airy. I had the SongTowers (dome tweeter) for few months and found them pretty detailed with wonderful imaging. In fact, any more and it would start venturing in the bright territory. Also, how did the bass and mids between those three compare?

Sierra-1 are a pretty well-regarded speaker of course, though I have not heard them myself yet. Most recommend opting for the NrT tweeter upgrade from what I remember though..

I visited Ascend Acoustics (about 75 miles south of me) a couple of times last year to listen to their prototype 3-way tower speakers. We used an A/B switcher to do comparisons between the towers and the Sierras and Salk Songtowers.

The Sierras were a little clearer/brighter than the Salks, which had more of a warmer/less detailed sound. Both were pretty good, but what set the Sierras apart was the wide sweet spot and solid imaging. Even if you were sitting off-centre, they still threw a nice soundstage. By comparison, the Salks sounded great in the sweet spot but the sound collapsed to two speakers the moment you tilted your head a foot left or right.

So if you like detailed sound and need a wide sweet spot (e.g, multiple listeners on a sofa), then the Sierra bookshelf speakers will be a good fit for your needs. (The tower speaker, which adds a dedicated midrange, are on another level.)

 

[sdurani]

Are your comments about the regular or NrT tweeter version?

The Sierras and prototype towers both had NrT tweeters. In fact, Dave (David Fabrikant - owner of Ascend) only had one set of those tweeters at the time. Whenever we wanted to switch from listening to the towers to the Sierras, he had to move the tweeters over to the other cabinet.

From what I seem to remember from various reviews/posts is that the Sierras have somewhat rolled-off highs (and therefore a bit smoother) while the Salks are more detailed and airy.

I found it the other way 'round: the Sierras with the NrT tweeters were brighter than the SongTowers. Keep in mind we were listening to the SongTowers with dome tweeters, not the custom version with the ribbon tweeters.

Also, how did the bass and mids between those three compare?

Mids were comparable between the Sierras and the SongTowers. No surprise, since both are 2-way speakers. The Ascend towers sounded the best of the three. Again, no surprise, since it had a dedicated midrange driver (which, oddly enough, was slightly larger than the woofers).

As for bass, naturally the Ascend and Salk floorstanding towers went deeper than the Sierra bookshelves (though not by much). However, it felt like much more bass. I'm guessing that since both pairs of towers used two bass drivers each, they moved more air than the single woofer in the Sierras, giving the impression of going lower and louder than the bookshelves.

On bass heavy material, the Salks bottomed out a couple of times when played at reference level (pretty loud) while the Ascend towers maintained their cool.

 

[sarge_in]

The Sierras and prototype towers both had NrT tweeters. In fact, Dave (David Fabrikant - owner of Ascend) only had one set of those tweeters at the time. Whenever we wanted to switch from listening to the towers to the Sierras, he had to move the tweeters over to the other cabinet. I found it the other way 'round: the Sierras with the NrT tweeters were brighter than the SongTowers. Keep in mind we were listening to the SongTowers with dome tweeters, not the custom version with the ribbon tweeters. Mids were comparable between the Sierras and the SongTowers. No surprise, since both are 2-way speakers. The Ascend towers sounded the best of the three. Again, no surprise, since it had a dedicated midrange driver (which, oddly enough, was slightly larger than the woofers).

As for bass, naturally the Ascend and Salk floorstanding towers went deeper than the Sierra bookshelves (though not by much). However, it felt like much more bass. I'm guessing that since both pairs of towers used two bass drivers each, they moved more air than the single woofer in the Sierras, giving the impression of going lower and louder than the bookshelves.

On bass heavy material, the Salks bottomed out a couple of times when played at reference level (pretty loud) while the Ascend towers maintained their cool.

Yeah just found the posts of the comparison over at avsforum and realized they were NrT. The rolled-off-highs comments seem to be still valid for the original Sierra's, while the NrT is brighter. For me, the ST were walking the line of detail/brightness. Wonder if NrT would make it too bright?! To each his own, of course

Good to know about other differences too. Wish I had read about the session earlier - would have loved to drop in (I am in OC).

audiodelic - Sierras and Salks are both highly regarded ID speaker companies, certainly the top 2 in my view in that range...you can't go wrong with them!

 

[sdurani]

The rolled-off-highs comments seem to be still valid for the original Sierra's, while the NrT is brighter.

The NrT tweeters were a little too bright for my tastes, at least in that room. But a small turn of the treble knob can fix that.

BTW, for personal purchases, I tend not to worry too much about the tonality of a speakers. A little bright, a little warm, a little thin on bass; those things can be addressed with tone controls.

The things I look for in a speaker are good imaging, soundstage and consistent off-axis response. If those things aren't present, there isn't a knob on any pre-pro or receiver that can fix that.

 

[sarge_in]

The NrT tweeters were a little too bright for my tastes, at least in that room. But a small turn of the treble knob can fix that.

BTW, for personal purchases, I tend not to worry too much about the tonality of a speakers. A little bright, a little warm, a little thin on bass; those things can be addressed with tone controls.

The things I look for in a speaker are good imaging, soundstage and consistent off-axis response. If those things aren't present, there isn't a knob on any pre-pro or receiver that can fix that.

I guess I have a different opinion on that. I feel the speakers still retain their character, tone controls can tweak a bit but difficult to change the basic character. I don't even like to mess with tone controls or Audyssey etc - just run everything flat (I have tried them several times, just didn't like the results). EQ just for the sub for me.

But u r right that imaging etc cannot be tweaked at all.

 

[sdurani]

I don't even like to mess with tone controls or Audyssey etc - just run everything flat (I have tried them several times, just didn't like the results). EQ just for the sub for me.

I guess I've always approached it from the opposite perspective. First rule of acoustics: every room is an equalizer. Having seen measurements of what rooms do to the sound of speakers (response looks like a rollercoaster), I've always thought of tone controls and room correction as what gets the sound back to flat. But if you don't like the results, then you don't like it (I won't try to convince you otherwise). Just pointing out that not using them (to tame peaks and dips) guarantees that the response will be anything but flat.

 

[sarge_in]

Of course, completely agree about the room. And as you said there are various schools of thought on EQ and the like, and the pros-cons can go ad nauseum. Some don't even like to have tone controls in their pre-amp to maintain 'purity'. Parametric EQ for sub is, however, quite universally accepted and even strongly encouraged. One school recommends not using EQ above the Schroeder frequency (which is formula-based, but usually close to 200 Hz if I am not mistaken). I am for room treatements before EQ, but certainly EQ for sub.

Btw, tone controls won't flatten out the response. Need much finer tuning for that, using a separate equalizer and such (or the ones built-in to AVRs / Audyssey) but like I said I never liked what they did (have only tried the AVR ones). But hey, like you said, whatever works for each!

I guess I've always approached it from the opposite perspective. First rule of acoustics: every room is an equalizer. Having seen measurements of what rooms do to the sound of speakers (response looks like a rollercoaster), I've always thought of tone controls and room correction as what gets the sound back to flat. But if you don't like the results, then you don't like it (I won't try to convince you otherwise). Just pointing out that not using them (to tame peaks and dips) guarantees that the response will be anything but flat.

 

[sdurani]

Some don't even like to have tone controls in their pre-amp to maintain 'purity'.

That was my point: I don't see how undoing some of the room's influence (brightness, etc) is not maintaining purity.

One school recommends not using EQ above the Schroeder frequency

Yup, the room correction in my old Lexicon only works below 300Hz. Part of that choice was due to the limitations of the DSP resources they had a decade ago, but part of it was the belief that above Schroeder they would be doing more speaker correction than room correction.

Btw, tone controls won't flatten out the response.

Right, I should have clarified that I meant tone controls can help undo some of the room's tonal contributions while room correction (with it's finer PEQ) is for the rest.

 

[sarge_in]

That was my point: I don't see how undoing some of the room's influence (brightness, etc) is not maintaining purity.

But how do you know whether the brightness is due to room influence or the speaker itself? Unless of course you hear it in two different rooms and hear the differences in that respect.

 

[sdurani]

But how do you know whether the brightness is due to room influence or the speaker itself? Unless of course you hear it in two different rooms and hear the differences in that respect.

Aside from hearing the speakers in another room, you can also listen to them in the nearfield in your room (minimizing the room's influence). Moving them back to their original listening position will let you know whether ant brightness you may hear is due more to the room or the speakers themselves. Also, if you can measure (using REW or similar), you can do a sweep nearfield or outdoors or gated within a short time window to get an some idea of your speaker's real response.

 

[sarge_in]

Aside from hearing the speakers in another room, you can also listen to them in the nearfield in your room (minimizing the room's influence). Moving them back to their original listening position will let you know whether ant brightness you may hear is due more to the room or the speakers themselves. Also, if you can measure (using REW or similar), you can do a sweep nearfield or outdoors or gated within a short time window to get an some idea of your speaker's real response.

Yes, I know all that. It was a good learning exercise using REW with the SongTowers.

I should have clarified - I meant were you able to determine that NrT was not bright in such cases, and it was the room that made the NrT bright for you. What calls for tone contorls you recommended - the NrT itself or the room?

 

[sdurani]

What calls for tone contorls you recommended - the NrT itself or the room?

Before either of those would come my personal preferences: what I consider bright may be just right to others, hence my earlier comment "a little too bright for my tastes".

Having heard the Sierras w/NrT in three rooms so far, the more dampened the room, the less bright they appeared to me. So if I used lots of absorbtion at the side wall and ceiling first reflection points (which I don't like to do), then I probably wouldn't need to turn the treble down as much.

Still, compared to the tweeters used in other Ascend speakers, the NrTs are brighter. In fact, in a couple of situations where I could directly compare the Sierras to other Ascend speakers, I found the 340s to have the most pleasing tonal balance of their line.

So, to answer your question, my recommendation was based on three things. In order of importance: my tastes, the room, the speaker.

 

[sarge_in]

That is helpful and just the info I was looking for - thanks. Though I am inclined to think the order is tastes, speaker and room (based on other people's responses as well). The 340s should be interesting to hear.

 

[sdurani]

I am inclined to think the order is tastes, speaker and room (based on other people's responses as well).

Are you talking in general or specifically about using tone controls with the NrT tweeters? (which was the question I was replying to)