I currently have Buchardt S400s (not the update), and am wondering if any of the Ascend stand-mounts are more than a sideways move. I have the Buchardts in a 2.1 system with an SVS SB-1000 Pro and have Acourate for room correction (either full or partial). I sit about 2.5 meters away from them and listen mostly at moderate levels, though I do crank them up when I can. Ascend is about an hour's drive away from me, so I may plan a day trip up there.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Ascend Acoustics Sierra LX Review
- Thread starter Narek
- Start date
Haint
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2020
- Messages
- 347
- Likes
- 453
The similar shades of reds and oranges make the heat maps very difficult to read and compare, the beam width graph is a much better illustration of the same data. And it should be emphasized -6dB is HALF volume, -12dB is QUARTER volume, and -18dB is an EIGHTH the volume, so these are not subtle differences we're talking about here. These are broad differences across a large portion of the audible band.
I'm referring to the tweeter's dispersion characteristics, not the bass/midbass driver. Why do you keep referring to lower frequencies? You don't seem to understand that there's a difference. As I already mentioned, 2 ears and a brain interpret reflections differently than a microphone and computer, so while a sound power or PIR line may look similar, our perception of these 2 speakers is going to be quite different. I'm not just theory crafting nonsense and talking out of my ass here, pretty much anyone who has actually heard these speakers (likely including Dave himself) is going to corroborate the Ribbon gives a perception of more "clairity" or "detail", colloquially referred to as brighter. You're of course free to challenge that theory, and instead attribute it to transients or magical RAAL fairy dust, but for some unknown reason you keep referring to non-tweeter region dispersion to challenge tweeter region dispersion differences.
Last edited:
The other poster was comparing the Titan tweeter to the wider ribbon in the tower speakers. You've included the chart for the 2EX V2 bookshelf speaker which uses a narrower and thus wider-dispersion ribbon tweeter. Here is a comparison of the ELX ribbon tower and the Titan dome version. They are much closer.
Last edited:
Haint
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2020
- Messages
- 347
- Likes
- 453
The other poster was comparing the Titan tweeter to the wider ribbon in the tower speakers. You've included the chart for the 2EX V2 bookshelf speaker which uses a narrower and thus wider-dispersion ribbon tweeter. Here is a comparison of the ELX ribbon tower and the Titan dome version. They are much closer.
My mistake, being an LX thread I assumed he was trying to compare the EX Vs. LX, should have read it more carefully. I'm still unclear on what cleansound has been responding back and forth with though, as I don't believe this is the correction he's been trying to make.
Definitely try to plan a day trip and see if you can bring your speakers to compare. I don't think the LX or EX would be a massive upgrade to what you have,but you may find you like the characteristics of one over the other if you get a chance to do a demo at Ascend. They are quite different in design philosophies.
I got the Sierra LX in, the short summary is that they are as good as the measurements and as advertised by Ascend, just place your order and eagerly wait for it.
A more detailed assessment:
They were actually heavier than the Revel M16 they replaced, despite being marginally smaller. The speaker feels very luxurious. My only complain is that the grills could of been magnetic and the binding post could of been higher quality. But everything else is very high quality, the pictures of the crossovers does seem very good quality, solid cabinet (the bamboo material does appear to be rather robust, perhaps that's what give these speakers the heft?) and obviously the drivers aren't cheap stuff neither just by the types of materials used; titanium formers, magnesium frame, large magnet, etc.
They sound big for sure, perhaps that's due to the wide radiation pattern? If I close my eyes, it can easily be mistaken for a tower. Imaging is sharp, very sharp (not as sharp as my Neumann but very close) likely due to pair matching to 1dB?
And as anticipated, very neutral, absolutely no surprises there, the LX obviously doesn't use the RAAL ribbon tweeter, but the radiation pattern is similar in other models that gives you an option for the RAAL or the Titan dome; and no, there are no "reflected brightness" as some theorized. Again, incredibly neutral as the measurements indicates.
The bass. . .the bass, wtf, how is that even possible for a bookshelf?
From the manufacturer:
Of course if you want a full range sound, you will need a sub to dig down to 20Hz. . .but if you heard these speakers, I think most people can do without a sub. I don't see myself needing a sub for these speakers. My recommendation is if you get these speakers, do not buy a sub just yet, listen to them for some time and if you feel you need a sub, you can add them later.
They come with a print out of on-axis frequency response for each speaker, they do indeed seem to be within 1dB with the exception of between 17kHz/18kHz to 20kHz, it's off by 2 to 3dB, which I don't think it's a big deal and I would imagine it's extremely hard and expensive to pair match (passive) speakers to that level of tolerance for the entire frequency spectrum.
Because many of the the speakers that I have heard either in my own space, at showrooms or at shows over the years aren't memorable, it's hard to compare them with the LX. But because they aren't memorable, I'm pretty darn sure that they weren't special. I am confident that these LX will be very memorable and they are absolutely a top pair compared to the speakers that I have heard in recent memory.
EDIT: They do need a decent amount of power to drive them, again no surprises as the manufacturer were upfront with the spec on sensitivity. I am using a dual mono Hypex NC400 to push them, zero issues. Speaker sensitivity shouldn't be a limiting factor nowadays, it's a trade off that I personally no longer consider a trade off.
A more detailed assessment:
They were actually heavier than the Revel M16 they replaced, despite being marginally smaller. The speaker feels very luxurious. My only complain is that the grills could of been magnetic and the binding post could of been higher quality. But everything else is very high quality, the pictures of the crossovers does seem very good quality, solid cabinet (the bamboo material does appear to be rather robust, perhaps that's what give these speakers the heft?) and obviously the drivers aren't cheap stuff neither just by the types of materials used; titanium formers, magnesium frame, large magnet, etc.
They sound big for sure, perhaps that's due to the wide radiation pattern? If I close my eyes, it can easily be mistaken for a tower. Imaging is sharp, very sharp (not as sharp as my Neumann but very close) likely due to pair matching to 1dB?
And as anticipated, very neutral, absolutely no surprises there, the LX obviously doesn't use the RAAL ribbon tweeter, but the radiation pattern is similar in other models that gives you an option for the RAAL or the Titan dome; and no, there are no "reflected brightness" as some theorized. Again, incredibly neutral as the measurements indicates.
The bass. . .the bass, wtf, how is that even possible for a bookshelf?
From the manufacturer:
"Slam: the ability to physically feel the pressure waves produced. In more modern terminology – massive midbass punch.
Deep bass: no additional description needed."
I can confirm that the bass is as-advertised. The drawback to this is you may not want to keep it too close to the wall due to boundary reinforcement effect which can potentially make the bass a bit muddy. I have them by the corner of my room as that is just the unfortunate layout of where I can place them in my room. So to help mitigate that I have rockwool acoustic panels to help absorb some of the bass energy as I just don't have the luxury to pull the speakers out more. The sad reality is that, these speakers aren't operating at it's full potential due the limitation of my room, but it is what it is.Deep bass: no additional description needed."
Of course if you want a full range sound, you will need a sub to dig down to 20Hz. . .but if you heard these speakers, I think most people can do without a sub. I don't see myself needing a sub for these speakers. My recommendation is if you get these speakers, do not buy a sub just yet, listen to them for some time and if you feel you need a sub, you can add them later.
They come with a print out of on-axis frequency response for each speaker, they do indeed seem to be within 1dB with the exception of between 17kHz/18kHz to 20kHz, it's off by 2 to 3dB, which I don't think it's a big deal and I would imagine it's extremely hard and expensive to pair match (passive) speakers to that level of tolerance for the entire frequency spectrum.
Because many of the the speakers that I have heard either in my own space, at showrooms or at shows over the years aren't memorable, it's hard to compare them with the LX. But because they aren't memorable, I'm pretty darn sure that they weren't special. I am confident that these LX will be very memorable and they are absolutely a top pair compared to the speakers that I have heard in recent memory.
EDIT: They do need a decent amount of power to drive them, again no surprises as the manufacturer were upfront with the spec on sensitivity. I am using a dual mono Hypex NC400 to push them, zero issues. Speaker sensitivity shouldn't be a limiting factor nowadays, it's a trade off that I personally no longer consider a trade off.
Last edited:
At the risk of coming across as being over dramatic or exaggerating, I want to add that after more listening, not only these speakers makes my Revel M16 sound like low fidelity speakers, I dare to say that these speakers also sound better than my Revel F226Be based in my recollection as I sold the F226 last spring. Of course this is all subjective, though there are objective data to back this.
The three take away I would say that makes these speakers so special is aside from neutrality which we all can see from the measurements is (1) the sharp imaging in all three dimensions (2) the wide sound stage and (3) the bass.
Now I wonder how the Sierra ELX sounds like.
ExPerfectionist
Active Member
Glad you like the speakers! They're pretty fantastic, aren't they!
For the bass and close to wall/corner placement, you can try the O-rings and plugs to see if that helps tone down some of what you're experiencing.
Did you send an email to Dave requesting a special order of 3 instead of a pair (you mentioned you have a LCR set)? I know they are paired matched, so not sure if Dave sells it as a single.
Last edited:
I never compared the LXs directly to the F226Bes (which I no longer use) but I amassed many, many hours of listening to both in two rooms with virtually identical floorplans (one on top of the other). The LX clearly outputs deeper, "punchier" bass, but in strictly seat-of-the-pants feel, I preferred the mid-range of the Revels by a fair margin. There's something going on in the crossover region of the LXs that can sometimes contribute to a sense of constraint...not distortion or anything like that, but the spaciousness of the sound tends to constrict in a way that it didn't with the Revels. I think the small directivity mismatch (typical of even excellent passive 2-ways) along with a slight rise in off-axis energy in this region contributes to that. Without having ever listened to both side-by-side, I can't say I preferred one or the other in overall treble reproduction.
I now use the ribbon ELXs where the F226Bes used to be. Again, with putting all necessary seat-of-the-pants subjectivity disclaimers into place, the ELXs are largely a scaled up version of the LXs. They extend deeper, punch harder, get louder, and sound larger. They also resolve the small midrange deficiency that I occasionally hear in the LXs. They image just as well, and I prefer how they resolve treble in comparison to every other speaker I've heard to-date. The LXs are definitely better at holding strong in the higher frequencies when you are up and walking around, though, thanks to their broader vertical dispersion. This helps make them great living room speakers. Enjoy!!!
Last edited:
ExPerfectionist
Active Member
Yes I ordered all 3 at once and all that
Great writeup. I don't recall too much about the mid range on the F226, except that instruments and vocals are very well layered. But the imaging is quite a bit difference, the OP used the term "Holographic" which I associated with a 3D soundstage and he is right. I don't recall the Revel having that kind of 3D soundstage and it's a very addictive thing. But I also haven't listen to them side by side, so all of this is just going be recollection.
How would you rate the ELX with the F226 and other towers?
Here's a sighted shootout I completed and wrote about a while back, spoilered for size:
Nearly a year ago, I compared a pair of Revel 226Bes to my standard Ascend Sierra Ribbon towers over a variety of music tracks, primarily while engaging dual 15" subs and with the speakers crossed at 80Hz . Overall, the Revels won out and they became my primary speakers. Several months later, I was very fortunate to be given an opportunity by Dave at Ascend to upgrade my Sierra towers to a new design, which came to be known as the ELX (a new crossover with the addition of the EX midrange, and 2x LX woofers per tower). I jumped at the chance, and after I had completed the upgrade, I put another shootout into motion.
With regard to setup, in order to minimize potential unfair compromises and advantages relative to dispersion, soundstage, imaging, etc, I positioned the speakers in an AB AB fashion and moved into the center of each pair when listening. In doing this, I was positioned roughly 9 feet away from each active speaker, and each speaker was about 9 feet distant from its sibling. They were both setup with different levels of toe-in that I felt sounded best for each (Revels toed-in more towards the MLP than the Sierras).
As far as level-matching, I don’t possess the means nor expertise to accomplish this via a truly precise process. I used an inexpensive SPL meter along with sine waves / pink noise played on the two sets of speakers. Working in this way (including introducing room interaction and all of its issues) yielded a disparity of between 2 and 3dB measured at the MLP(s), with the higher SPL coming from the Revels. I compensated by increasing the Sierra towers by 2dB when listening to them, which might give a small advantage to the Revels, but the Revels were also slightly less optimally positioned relative to the room layout, so I opted to tip the scales towards them in this case. I could not audibly discern any obvious difference in pink noise, test tones, or music tracks when level matched in this manner. Of course, the basic process followed here will mean that any fine-detail comparisons could be fraught with issues, but I am confident that I dialed things in closely enough to lock into any obvious differences between the speakers.
While I nearly always listen with an 80Hz crossover and subs turned on, my first round of comparisons between the Sierra ELX RAAL towers and F226Bes was completed with all speakers running full range with Pure Direct mode engaged. In other words, there was no sub-involvement, low-pass filter, or room correction / EQ in effect. During my original comparison between the standard Sierra RAAL towers and the F226Bes, I did not spend much time with each speaker running full range since that’s simply not how I typically listen to music. Conversely, I ran a “complete” comparison in full range this time for two primary reasons:
I will be utilizing a comparative ratings scale to award a winner to each track. The ratings in order, starting from the largest possible win down to a tie, are as follows:
*Significant
*Decent
*Moderate
*Slight
*Very slight
*Tie
Keep in mind that while I named a winning speaker (or a tie) after each track, that doesn’t mean that everything about a given speaker's performance is necessarily better (or the same in the case of a tie). I may prefer a given speaker overall, but the non-winner may still present some specific qualities that I found to sound more pleasing.
Big Ass Disclaimer (B.A.D.™): This is a 100% sighted comparison of two sets of loudspeakers. My ability to perform a double-blind test at this time is virtually nil. What follows is entirely my subjective (and imperfect) impressions of a couple pairs of boxes making noises at me. As noted, I’ve taken some basic steps in an attempt to fairly level the playing field, as well as to mentally purge myself of expectation bias and preconceptions ahead of each listening session as much as possible. That said, I understand that some may find what I am doing here to be mostly, if not utterly, devoid of usefulness. If you fall into that category, I invite you to direct your attention elsewhere. I will take no offense. I also want to make something else abundantly clear: each set of these speakers is extraordinary. They both measure quite flat on-axis, have excellent directivity, boast PIR responses about as good as it gets, offer high levels of power handling and dynamics, and maintain low levels of distortion when driven to reasonably loud volumes. There is no true loser here.
For the comparison, I selected 8 music tracks with which I am highly familiar, and which should provide a reasonable variety of different material for each speaker to deal with. I listened at quite a high volume, but certainly not ear-bleeding (with one exception which will be noted), and at at least a few dBs below reference levels.
For convenience, here are links to measurements for both speakers:
Ascend Sierra ELX Ribbon Towers
Revel F226Bes (scroll down)
Now, let’s actually listen to some music:
Eagles – Hotel California (live from Hell Freezes Over)
Revels: Very well balanced, great live sound. Nicely crisp and textured. Maraca (or similar sounding instrument) sounds very nice and smooth.
Sierras: Much louder kick drum hit, while staying very clean and tight. This made for some nice impact. Acoustic guitars slightly crisper. Very similar in all other aspects. Mildly preferred the maraca (?) on the Revels.
Winner: Sierras – Slight
Eugene Ruffolo – Poor Lonesome Me
Sierras: The acoustic guitar sounds incredibly real, like it’s in the room. Very strong and very smooth bassline. Vocal is dead center, large sound stage considering the rather intimate performance. Vocal is *slightly* buzzy at times, but this is in the recording.
Revels: The acoustic guitar sounds very good, but in direct comparison it presents as a little boxy and less live. Sound stage seems slightly constrained. Vocal is centered, but less crisp. The occasional vocal buzziness is still audible if you listen for it, but less noticeable.
Winner: Sierras – Decent
Norah Jones – Seven Years
Revels: Guitar is nicely textured. Vocals are realistic, breathy, forward. Great imaging.
Sierras: Guitar is more present in the room. Vocals are more separated from the instruments and sound even more realistic. Equally great imaging.
Winner: Sierras – Moderate
Art Pepper – Jazz Me Blues
Sierras: Tom hits sound very real, you can feel them. Sax breathy and forward in the mix. Ride cymbal perfectly balanced. Snare drum has good texture.
Revels: Tom hits are more recessed. Sax less forward, but still sounds great. Ride cymbal has less stick definition, more wash. Overall sound is somewhat smoother than the Sierras, if less live sounding.
Winner: Sierras – Slight.
Tool – Pneuma
Just a couple comments before diving into this one… This is the first track during my initial comparison in which the Revels really pounded the standard Sierra towers into the dirt, which helped prompt me to move to the Revels as my main speakers to begin with (note, subs were in use for both sets of speakers at the time). Based on my conversations with Dave, I also believe that busy, loud, and dynamic music like this is precisely what he was targeting when working to bolster the Sierra towers’ low end and mid-to-upper-bass “slam”. It was a bit tougher to completely clear my head of expectations for this track, but here goes…
Sierras: Very full sound, the compact towers sound downright huge. Great balance of all instruments and vocals, nothing sounds too recessed or too forward. Kick drum punch is remarkable. Loads of dynamics. I don’t know how you get much better than this in a passive, two channel setup, particularly with speakers of this size. This might be the best that heavy rock / metal has sounded in any home environment I’ve been in, and without subs to boot.
Revels: Slightly constrained / less large of a presentation in comparison. More emphasis on high frequencies, likely because the lower frequencies were not as present as they were on the Sierras. Kick drum sounds good but not nearly as impactful.
Winner: Sierras – Significant
More comments before moving on to the next track…Again, this one was hard to fairly rate, as the turnaround from the first comparison to this one was huge. Suffice it to say that the Revels sounded excellent and well-suited to the track, but the Sierras were remarkable. On this track (and this one alone), after making my notes for each set of speakers, I cranked the volume up further and to the limit of my own tolerance. Both sets of speakers remained completely composed with no audible distortion or clipping. The Revels sounded great, but I was just having so much fun with the Sierras. I was certainly running on more adrenaline / emotion here, so feel free to read whatever bias / excess enthusiasm into this that you’d like.
John Williams – Dual of the Fates (Star Wars - The Phantom Menace original score)
Revels – Great balance, instruments are nicely separated while maintaining a smooth coherency with each other. Choral singers stretch across the entire sound stage. Extremely smooth.
Sierras – Sounds more live / airy while maintaining balance. Impressive low-end “cushion”. Strings a bit more forward. Choral singers present more from the sides rather than cover the entire sound stage.
Winner: Sierras – Slight
Laura Marling – Soothing
Revels: Powerful bass guitar hits. Vocal centered but slightly constrained. Great imaging.
Sierras: Huge sound, very open. Bass is smoother and even more impactful. Vocal crisper, it sounds like she is in the room right in front of you.
Winner: Sierras – Significant
Nils Lofgren – Keith Don’t Go (live)
Sierras: Guitar is super clean and sharp, you can *feel* the pluck of the strings. Very textured. Realistic live sound (audience cheering, etc). Has an effortless quality. Vocal is dead center.
Revels: Guitar sounds great, just not as present / tactile. Slightly more constrained / boxy, but only in comparison. Vocal is centered, but more recessed.
Winner: Sierras – Decent
Full-Range Comparison Summary:
Clearly, we have a very consistent winner. I’d have certainly preferred to conduct the testing blind, but I wonder how long it would have taken me to clearly identify each speaker. Run full range, I don’t think very long at all. There is much more bass extension and output on offer from the ELX towers. Also, being rear-ported, they are getting a boundary gain boost that the Revels aren’t (in my room, the rear ports are about 14” from the wall). The RAAL ribbons and their virtually seamless integration with the midrange are also readily identifiable on many acoustic / vocal tracks. They get a little more lost in the sauce on busier, hard rock / metal type recordings, but still perform superbly.
In some cases, even if the Revels didn’t take the overall win, on some tracks they sounded smoother, and in a pleasant way. I didn’t give much thought to this when I first noticed it, but as the phenomenon would occasionally pop up during other tracks, I looked at the spins for each speaker in search of possible clues. The Sierras have a minor rise across the midrange, that while fairly small in amplitude is rather broad. It’s tempered somewhat when looking at the listening window and PIR response. In comparison, the Revels have just a bit of a droop in the upper midrange / lower treble. I believe that this accounts for at least a good portion of what I was hearing. Some EQing of the Sierras over this range would probably resolve this in my room. I will say that this is not something I ever noticed when simply listening to the Sierras on their own. It was only obvious when immediately switching between them and the Revels, and only during certain tracks. So, just a small nit really, and likely one that could be EQ’d to taste without difficulty.
So, with that done, what changed when I rolled in the dual 15” subs and crossed both sets of speakers at 80Hz? Well, sadly, the detailed notes that I took in a work notepad got lost in a pile of other work notepads, and I haven’t been able to locate them yet. I can share the following from memory:
There was very little change in preference / scoring between the two speakers for the more vocal / acoustic-centered tracks. For the heavier / more complex / more bass-heavy material, the Revels absolutely shrunk the gap in many cases, but, with one exception, never by more than 2 “levels” of scoring, and only moved ahead of the Sierras (with a preference of “very slight”) on one track, which was the Star Wars orchestral piece.
Note that I conducted both of these comparisons back in late April / early May of this year. In the ensuing months, I’ve occasionally moved the Revels back into place and conducted further “mini” shootouts, just to see if my impressions might have changed at all. In each case, they remained consistent. At one point I even connected the Revels back up for a day in which I made no true comparisons with them to the Sierras, but just simply listened to and enjoyed them in their own right. They still came across wonderfully, and it was fun / interesting to go back to a bit of a different, but still very impressive sound. When I eventually moved the Ascends back into place, my preference for them remained intact.
I mentioned some possible advantages of the Revels in an earlier post, which I’ll repeat here with some modifications / additions:
With regard to setup, in order to minimize potential unfair compromises and advantages relative to dispersion, soundstage, imaging, etc, I positioned the speakers in an AB AB fashion and moved into the center of each pair when listening. In doing this, I was positioned roughly 9 feet away from each active speaker, and each speaker was about 9 feet distant from its sibling. They were both setup with different levels of toe-in that I felt sounded best for each (Revels toed-in more towards the MLP than the Sierras).
As far as level-matching, I don’t possess the means nor expertise to accomplish this via a truly precise process. I used an inexpensive SPL meter along with sine waves / pink noise played on the two sets of speakers. Working in this way (including introducing room interaction and all of its issues) yielded a disparity of between 2 and 3dB measured at the MLP(s), with the higher SPL coming from the Revels. I compensated by increasing the Sierra towers by 2dB when listening to them, which might give a small advantage to the Revels, but the Revels were also slightly less optimally positioned relative to the room layout, so I opted to tip the scales towards them in this case. I could not audibly discern any obvious difference in pink noise, test tones, or music tracks when level matched in this manner. Of course, the basic process followed here will mean that any fine-detail comparisons could be fraught with issues, but I am confident that I dialed things in closely enough to lock into any obvious differences between the speakers.
While I nearly always listen with an 80Hz crossover and subs turned on, my first round of comparisons between the Sierra ELX RAAL towers and F226Bes was completed with all speakers running full range with Pure Direct mode engaged. In other words, there was no sub-involvement, low-pass filter, or room correction / EQ in effect. During my original comparison between the standard Sierra RAAL towers and the F226Bes, I did not spend much time with each speaker running full range since that’s simply not how I typically listen to music. Conversely, I ran a “complete” comparison in full range this time for two primary reasons:
- Clearly, two of Ascend’s goals in redesigning the Sierra towers were to increase bass extension and boost output in the mid/upper-bass region. If this is to be a significant component of the increased performance of the RAAL towers, it’s certainly worth giving the speakers consideration with their full capabilities on display.
- Given the increased bass performance, I feel it’s important to determine how much of the resulting advantages would be mitigated or eliminated with the use of subwoofers, as many prefer the flexibility and other advantages offered by bass management / sub integration. Obviously, this cannot be done without also conducting full range tests.
I will be utilizing a comparative ratings scale to award a winner to each track. The ratings in order, starting from the largest possible win down to a tie, are as follows:
*Significant
*Decent
*Moderate
*Slight
*Very slight
*Tie
Keep in mind that while I named a winning speaker (or a tie) after each track, that doesn’t mean that everything about a given speaker's performance is necessarily better (or the same in the case of a tie). I may prefer a given speaker overall, but the non-winner may still present some specific qualities that I found to sound more pleasing.
Big Ass Disclaimer (B.A.D.™): This is a 100% sighted comparison of two sets of loudspeakers. My ability to perform a double-blind test at this time is virtually nil. What follows is entirely my subjective (and imperfect) impressions of a couple pairs of boxes making noises at me. As noted, I’ve taken some basic steps in an attempt to fairly level the playing field, as well as to mentally purge myself of expectation bias and preconceptions ahead of each listening session as much as possible. That said, I understand that some may find what I am doing here to be mostly, if not utterly, devoid of usefulness. If you fall into that category, I invite you to direct your attention elsewhere. I will take no offense. I also want to make something else abundantly clear: each set of these speakers is extraordinary. They both measure quite flat on-axis, have excellent directivity, boast PIR responses about as good as it gets, offer high levels of power handling and dynamics, and maintain low levels of distortion when driven to reasonably loud volumes. There is no true loser here.
For the comparison, I selected 8 music tracks with which I am highly familiar, and which should provide a reasonable variety of different material for each speaker to deal with. I listened at quite a high volume, but certainly not ear-bleeding (with one exception which will be noted), and at at least a few dBs below reference levels.
For convenience, here are links to measurements for both speakers:
Ascend Sierra ELX Ribbon Towers
Revel F226Bes (scroll down)
Now, let’s actually listen to some music:
Eagles – Hotel California (live from Hell Freezes Over)
Revels: Very well balanced, great live sound. Nicely crisp and textured. Maraca (or similar sounding instrument) sounds very nice and smooth.
Sierras: Much louder kick drum hit, while staying very clean and tight. This made for some nice impact. Acoustic guitars slightly crisper. Very similar in all other aspects. Mildly preferred the maraca (?) on the Revels.
Winner: Sierras – Slight
Eugene Ruffolo – Poor Lonesome Me
Sierras: The acoustic guitar sounds incredibly real, like it’s in the room. Very strong and very smooth bassline. Vocal is dead center, large sound stage considering the rather intimate performance. Vocal is *slightly* buzzy at times, but this is in the recording.
Revels: The acoustic guitar sounds very good, but in direct comparison it presents as a little boxy and less live. Sound stage seems slightly constrained. Vocal is centered, but less crisp. The occasional vocal buzziness is still audible if you listen for it, but less noticeable.
Winner: Sierras – Decent
Norah Jones – Seven Years
Revels: Guitar is nicely textured. Vocals are realistic, breathy, forward. Great imaging.
Sierras: Guitar is more present in the room. Vocals are more separated from the instruments and sound even more realistic. Equally great imaging.
Winner: Sierras – Moderate
Art Pepper – Jazz Me Blues
Sierras: Tom hits sound very real, you can feel them. Sax breathy and forward in the mix. Ride cymbal perfectly balanced. Snare drum has good texture.
Revels: Tom hits are more recessed. Sax less forward, but still sounds great. Ride cymbal has less stick definition, more wash. Overall sound is somewhat smoother than the Sierras, if less live sounding.
Winner: Sierras – Slight.
Tool – Pneuma
Just a couple comments before diving into this one… This is the first track during my initial comparison in which the Revels really pounded the standard Sierra towers into the dirt, which helped prompt me to move to the Revels as my main speakers to begin with (note, subs were in use for both sets of speakers at the time). Based on my conversations with Dave, I also believe that busy, loud, and dynamic music like this is precisely what he was targeting when working to bolster the Sierra towers’ low end and mid-to-upper-bass “slam”. It was a bit tougher to completely clear my head of expectations for this track, but here goes…
Sierras: Very full sound, the compact towers sound downright huge. Great balance of all instruments and vocals, nothing sounds too recessed or too forward. Kick drum punch is remarkable. Loads of dynamics. I don’t know how you get much better than this in a passive, two channel setup, particularly with speakers of this size. This might be the best that heavy rock / metal has sounded in any home environment I’ve been in, and without subs to boot.
Revels: Slightly constrained / less large of a presentation in comparison. More emphasis on high frequencies, likely because the lower frequencies were not as present as they were on the Sierras. Kick drum sounds good but not nearly as impactful.
Winner: Sierras – Significant
More comments before moving on to the next track…Again, this one was hard to fairly rate, as the turnaround from the first comparison to this one was huge. Suffice it to say that the Revels sounded excellent and well-suited to the track, but the Sierras were remarkable. On this track (and this one alone), after making my notes for each set of speakers, I cranked the volume up further and to the limit of my own tolerance. Both sets of speakers remained completely composed with no audible distortion or clipping. The Revels sounded great, but I was just having so much fun with the Sierras. I was certainly running on more adrenaline / emotion here, so feel free to read whatever bias / excess enthusiasm into this that you’d like.
John Williams – Dual of the Fates (Star Wars - The Phantom Menace original score)
Revels – Great balance, instruments are nicely separated while maintaining a smooth coherency with each other. Choral singers stretch across the entire sound stage. Extremely smooth.
Sierras – Sounds more live / airy while maintaining balance. Impressive low-end “cushion”. Strings a bit more forward. Choral singers present more from the sides rather than cover the entire sound stage.
Winner: Sierras – Slight
Laura Marling – Soothing
Revels: Powerful bass guitar hits. Vocal centered but slightly constrained. Great imaging.
Sierras: Huge sound, very open. Bass is smoother and even more impactful. Vocal crisper, it sounds like she is in the room right in front of you.
Winner: Sierras – Significant
Nils Lofgren – Keith Don’t Go (live)
Sierras: Guitar is super clean and sharp, you can *feel* the pluck of the strings. Very textured. Realistic live sound (audience cheering, etc). Has an effortless quality. Vocal is dead center.
Revels: Guitar sounds great, just not as present / tactile. Slightly more constrained / boxy, but only in comparison. Vocal is centered, but more recessed.
Winner: Sierras – Decent
Full-Range Comparison Summary:
Clearly, we have a very consistent winner. I’d have certainly preferred to conduct the testing blind, but I wonder how long it would have taken me to clearly identify each speaker. Run full range, I don’t think very long at all. There is much more bass extension and output on offer from the ELX towers. Also, being rear-ported, they are getting a boundary gain boost that the Revels aren’t (in my room, the rear ports are about 14” from the wall). The RAAL ribbons and their virtually seamless integration with the midrange are also readily identifiable on many acoustic / vocal tracks. They get a little more lost in the sauce on busier, hard rock / metal type recordings, but still perform superbly.
In some cases, even if the Revels didn’t take the overall win, on some tracks they sounded smoother, and in a pleasant way. I didn’t give much thought to this when I first noticed it, but as the phenomenon would occasionally pop up during other tracks, I looked at the spins for each speaker in search of possible clues. The Sierras have a minor rise across the midrange, that while fairly small in amplitude is rather broad. It’s tempered somewhat when looking at the listening window and PIR response. In comparison, the Revels have just a bit of a droop in the upper midrange / lower treble. I believe that this accounts for at least a good portion of what I was hearing. Some EQing of the Sierras over this range would probably resolve this in my room. I will say that this is not something I ever noticed when simply listening to the Sierras on their own. It was only obvious when immediately switching between them and the Revels, and only during certain tracks. So, just a small nit really, and likely one that could be EQ’d to taste without difficulty.
So, with that done, what changed when I rolled in the dual 15” subs and crossed both sets of speakers at 80Hz? Well, sadly, the detailed notes that I took in a work notepad got lost in a pile of other work notepads, and I haven’t been able to locate them yet. I can share the following from memory:
There was very little change in preference / scoring between the two speakers for the more vocal / acoustic-centered tracks. For the heavier / more complex / more bass-heavy material, the Revels absolutely shrunk the gap in many cases, but, with one exception, never by more than 2 “levels” of scoring, and only moved ahead of the Sierras (with a preference of “very slight”) on one track, which was the Star Wars orchestral piece.
Note that I conducted both of these comparisons back in late April / early May of this year. In the ensuing months, I’ve occasionally moved the Revels back into place and conducted further “mini” shootouts, just to see if my impressions might have changed at all. In each case, they remained consistent. At one point I even connected the Revels back up for a day in which I made no true comparisons with them to the Sierras, but just simply listened to and enjoyed them in their own right. They still came across wonderfully, and it was fun / interesting to go back to a bit of a different, but still very impressive sound. When I eventually moved the Ascends back into place, my preference for them remained intact.
I mentioned some possible advantages of the Revels in an earlier post, which I’ll repeat here with some modifications / additions:
- If you require a large amount of vertical dispersion, perhaps because you'll frequently be moving up and down out of the sweet spot, or if you are looking for more of a "party / recreation room" type of speaker. Even when outside of the vertical listening window, the Sierras do not sound bad at all, and they actually retain a very pleasant sound quality top to bottom, however, there is a noticeable treble drop off and some of the more impressive and visceral aspects of the treble fades away. The Revels maintain their higher frequency tonality much more solidly when I stand up.
- If you listen very loudly while having a large room to fill and / or are sitting at far distances from the speakers, the Revel’s *might* offer less distortion, particularly over the higher frequencies. But without detailed distortion data for each speaker measured in the same environment, it’s hard to be certain.
- If your sidewalls are very close and you don't have a need or desire for wide dispersion, the Revels might come across as somewhat better behaved.
- Visually, the Ascends have a nice, high-quality aesthetic that would likely blend well with virtually any décor, however, the fit/finish of the Revels certainly exude a much more stylish and luxurious vibe. Even though the white drivers won’t be to everyone’s tastes, the Revels definitely look like they should sound fantastic even when they’re not making any noises. I’m forced to admit that I do miss looking at them.
Your thoughts on the M16 vs the LXs mirror my own. There is no comparison, and I daresay that the gap is much larger than even the MSRPs may imply.
Very thorough comparison. I think after decades of ground breaking science, everyone else is catching up and many surpassing Revel. I look forward to the next big innovation from Revel, hopefully sooner rather than later.
The other poster was comparing the Titan tweeter to the wider ribbon in the tower speakers. You've included the chart for the 2EX V2 bookshelf speaker which uses a narrower and thus wider-dispersion ribbon tweeter. Here is a comparison of the ELX ribbon tower and the Titan dome version. They are much closer.
Thanks for posting this, it is important.
One of the key performance characteristics for us was to find a dome tweeter that closely matched the horizontal dispersion characteristics of the top-of-the-line RAAL (70-20xram). In years of research and logging data from hundreds of live demo's as well as customer feedback from countless customers, the 70-20xram is universally preferred over the more budget friendly RAAL (64-10x). The 64-10X does not narrow in its horizontal dispersion above 8kHz, and this translates to a flattening of the estimated in-room response rather than the more preferred gentle downward slope. I firmly believe that besides the lower distortion and far greater dynamic range of the 70-20xram, the slight narrowing above 8kHz compared to the small RAAL is one of the important factors why the 70-20xram is universally preferred.
I don't believe maintaining such wide (+/- 70 degs) dispersion above ~8kHz has any benefits, narrowing at these frequencies and above is definitely preferred.
Do you guys think the Sierra-LX is going to be a significant upgrade over the Polk R200? Currently the R200 is pairing with the good ol' SVS-PB-2000 sub so the low end is covered, based on the in-room response (Rew + Umik-1) the combo isn't too bad, but i could certainly appreciate a punchier mid bass and maybe wider soundstage, perhaps a bit more "refinement" in overall tonality from the LX?
Have you tried to run the LX with your NCx500? based on the specs from their website it seems like these LX beasts can soak up a lot of current! lol
Have you tried to run the LX with your NCx500? based on the specs from their website it seems like these LX beasts can soak up a lot of current! lol
Last edited:
I also have a dual mono Hypex NC400.
Fanless/silent mini PC -> Topping D90SE -> self assembled dual mono Hypex NC400 -> Ascend Acoustics Sierra LX. Heaven.
I've never heard the Polk, but I can't imagine any passive bookshelf can come remotely close to Ascend Sierra LX. Regardless of price point.
Similar threads
