Ascend Acoustics Announces New Klippel NFS-Optimized Sierra Towers and Horizon Center

[bkdc]

The Titan dome version will address the vertical dispersion issue. But I love acoustic music and nothing else replicates the finger pluck of an acoustic guitar like the RAAL ribbon.

 

[muad]

Seems to be an outstanding directivity and FR, my only concern it's the distortion between 300hz-20khz is not close (lets see only the 300hz-20khz range, because the 208 is using 8'' woofers. The guy from A.A was right btw, these woofer are pushing a lot of bass at low distortion) vs Revels like F208.



Also there is a peak of distortion at 300hz~



In my ignorance, i don't know if this were the best low distortion build or not, I saw there is a lot of versions.

40db below the fundamental is equivalent to 1%. So the ascend is just hitting 1% in a couple of areas (56db)

Also, I'm pretty sure that distortion measurements are not comparable unless performed in the same environment with the same equipment? But I could be wrong.

Personally, I would be curious to see how the titan version measures up

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

40db below the fundamental is equivalent to 1%. So the ascend is just hitting 1% in a couple of areas (56db)

Also, I'm pretty sure that distortion measurements are not comparable unless performed in the same environment with the same equipment? But I could be wrong.

Personally, I would be curious to see how the titan version measures up

You're wrong in this one, they both are Klippel measurements. But yes, the ascend is just hitting a little above 1% in a couple of areas at 96dB. Thing is, at 86 is also hitting 1% above 3.5Khz+

Another example, Kef LS50 meta, the tiny speaker. Distortion aren't bad but aren't good enough for say they are one of the best below '' 20k USD '', when much cheaper speakers have lower distortion.
*If i'm not wrong it's 3rd harmonic dominance.
86dB measurements distortion data:

Bonus, Revel M106:
This one have lower distortion than the tower even at 96dB.

 

[NegativeEntropy]

You're wrong in this one, they both are Klippel measurements. But yes, the ascend is just hitting a little above 1% in a couple of areas at 96dB. Thing is, at 86 is also hitting 1% above 3.5Khz+

Another example, Kef LS50 meta, the tiny speaker. Distortion aren't bad but aren't good enough for say they are one of the best below '' 20k USD '', when much cheaper speakers have lower distortion.
*If i'm not wrong it's 3rd harmonic dominance.
86dB measurements distortion data:

Bonus, Revel M106:
This one have lower distortion than the tower even at 96dB.

Thanks for pulling all of those together in one place.

When comparing, keep in mind some displays use % and some use dB.

Here's a conversion chart:

DB	%
-26	5
-28	4
-30	3
-34	2
-40	1
-46	0.5
-52	0.25
-60	0.1
-66	0.05

So on the charts that show the fundamental at (edit) 96 86dB, if the THD is at 56dB it's -40dB from the fundamental or 1%. And as the readers here will know, the harder a speaker is pushed, the higher the THD will be (i.e. any graph of data at both 86 and 96dB for the same speaker). I wish the data was always presented both ways, much easier to compare the THD % across speakers.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Thanks for pulling all of those together in one place.

When comparing, keep in mind some displays use % and some use dB.

Here's a conversion chart:

DB	%
-26	5
-28	4
-30	3
-34	2
-40	1
-46	0.5
-52	0.25
-60	0.1
-66	0.05

So on the charts that show the fundamental at 86dB, if the THD is at 56dB it's -40dB from the fundamental or 1%. And as the readers here will know, the harder a speaker is pushed, the higher the THD will be (i.e. any graph of data at both 86 and 96dB for the same speaker). I wish the data was always presented both ways, much easier to compare the THD % across speakers.

Thanks
If someone wanna learn more about that and his conversations, here is a good website (also a calculator):

THD to dB - convert percent % to decibels dB percentage voltage % vs per cent converter THD+N total harmonic distortions calculation signal distortion factor attenuation in dB to distortion factor k in percent decibel damping - sengpielaudio Sengpiel

Calculate THD and distortions decibels dB to percentage % per cent percent voltage % vs converter and dB signal distortion THD+N total harmonic distortions factor attenuation damping - Eberhard Sengpiel sengpielaudio

www.sengpielaudio.com

 

[AscendDF]

You're wrong in this one, they both are Klippel measurements.

Actually, other poster is correct and you are incorrect.

As awesome as the Klippel NFS is, it is really not much different than REW for THD measurements. In the case of THD, the NFS is measuring the speaker and the environment, especially when measured at 1 meter (Amir's procedure). As such, the room and the overall environment greatly influence the distortion results. Amir's THD measurements really shouldn't be compared with ours, I can say this with full confidence as our THD measurements of some of the same Revel speakers he measured are significantly higher. We have our NFS in my lab, which I believe is quite a bit smaller than the room Amir has his NFS in (garage?), thus more destructive room influence in our setup.

Ideally, THD measurements need to be taken using close mic techniques, to minimize the influence of the environment. Amir's THD measurements are ok for comparing one measurement he has taken with another he has taken, provided the environment and procedure has not changed.

This is one of the main reasons we do not publicly post distortion measurements, and few - if any, manufacturers do. The only way to get consistent and comparable results is to use an anechoic chamber for these measurements.

Klippel has released a few new add-on distortion modules, and combined with another add-on, are less influenced by the environment. The ISC module removes room reflections by essentially comparing the anechoic on-axis results of a full spin, to a simple on-axis measurement. This module combined with MTON module (multi-tone) does indeed produce more accurate and comparable distortion measurements. We have ISC and I use it regularly, but it does not function with the standard distortion feature of the NFS. If used with standard distortion function, it removes the room after the measurement has been made, thus has no influence on the actual distortion measurement.

In summary, one really can't compare NFS THD measurements from one system to another, at least not yet. If using MTON in combination with ISC, results from one NFS system to another will be more comparable, but not still not fully.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[BrokenEnglishGuy]

Actually, other poster is correct and you are incorrect.

As awesome as the Klippel NFS is, it is really not much different than REW for THD measurements. In the case of THD, the NFS is measuring the speaker and the environment, especially when measured at 1 meter (Amir's procedure). As such, the room and the overall environment greatly influence the distortion results. Amir's THD measurements really shouldn't be compared with ours, I can say this with full confidence as our THD measurements of some of the same Revel speakers he measured are significantly higher. We have our NFS in my lab, which I believe is quite a bit smaller than the room Amir has his NFS in (garage?), thus more destructive room influence in our setup.

Ideally, THD measurements need to be taken using close mic techniques, to minimize the influence of the environment. Amir's THD measurements are ok for comparing one measurement he has taken with another he has taken, provided the environment and procedure has not changed.

This is one of the main reasons we do not publicly post distortion measurements, and few - if any, manufacturers do. The only way to get consistent and comparable results is to use an anechoic chamber for these measurements.

Klippel has released a few new add-on distortion modules, and combined with another add-on, are less influenced by the environment. The ISC module removes room reflections by essentially comparing the anechoic on-axis results of a full spin, to a simple on-axis measurement. This module combined with MTON module (multi-tone) does indeed produce more accurate and comparable distortion measurements. We have ISC and I use it regularly, but it does not function with the standard distortion feature of the NFS. If used with standard distortion function, it removes the room after the measurement has been made, thus has no influence on the actual distortion measurement.

In summary, one really can't compare NFS THD measurements from one system to another, at least not yet. If using MTON in combination with ISC, results from one NFS system to another will be more comparable, but not still not fully.

Hope this makes sense.

Thank you for the information I appreciate it

 

[Ericglo]

It should be remembered that Amir had the issue with measuring a set of speakers a couple of years ago that differed from the manufacturer. It ended up being the environment was to cold.

 

[amirm]

As awesome as the Klippel NFS is, it is really not much different than REW for THD measurements. In the case of THD, the NFS is measuring the speaker and the environment, especially when measured at 1 meter (Amir's procedure). As such, the room and the overall environment greatly influence the distortion results. Amir's THD measurements really shouldn't be compared with ours, I can say this with full confidence as our THD measurements of some of the same Revel speakers he measured are significantly higher. We have our NFS in my lab, which I believe is quite a bit smaller than the room Amir has his NFS in (garage?), thus more destructive room influence in our setup.

You address this later but to be clear, I did at the start use the NFS feature to remove the room reflections. Here is an example of anechoic distortion I have published:

It is extra work and I later realized that given the large room I use, the modal impact is small. So I stopped using it.

 

[amirm]

Ideally, THD measurements need to be taken using close mic techniques, to minimize the influence of the environment. Amir's THD measurements are ok for comparing one measurement he has taken with another he has taken, provided the environment and procedure has not changed.

Clarifying this as well, I use 1/3 meter for my distortion measurements. But I report at 1 meter. This, and gating further helps to reduce impact of the room.

 

[Multicore]

We have the ribbon towers. Does anyone have an idea what the upgrade kit will cost?

Upgrade kit: Sierra Ribbon Tower pair to ELX Ribbon Tower pair = $1998, price increasing to $2198 in January.

That's for 6 drivers and two crossovers. About $250 for each of 8 components. Doesn't seems excessive. A DIY project for xmas perhaps including frightening the dogs with new REW sweeps.

 

[Multicore]

Subjective impressions are just that: impressions. They are not data. Data are numerical facts used in the calculation of mathematical problems.

We digitize subjective impressions and handle them as data all the time. For example, mean opinion scores have been around since long before I started studying telecommunications in the 80s. Other fields such as medicine and blending drinks rely on measurement of subjective reports too. Heterophenomenology in general involves the production of objective data about the subjective experiences of others.

The problem with @MarkS's reports of subjective experience is that no standard protocol was used, so the resulting data is pretty much incomparable with anything else.

 

[TimW]

Measurements of the new Ascend Horizon ELX are up now:

 

[mj30250]

Now that the spin is up, I'll share some of my experience with the Horizon RAAL ELX as compared to the Revel C426Be that I'd been using for a while.

When I first plugged up the Horizon, disabled the Revel's settings, and spun up some familiar material, I found things to be a bit of a mixed bag. Highs sounded great, largely the same for mids (female vocals / sound effects centered a bit higher up in frequency - all came across wonderfully). Male vocals, however, sounded somewhat narrow, boxy, and constrained, like they were obviously coming out of a smaller speaker. Thinking that there was perhaps a bit of visual trickery involved which might have been mucking up my perception of sonics (the Horizon is taller than the C426Be, but the Revel center is much wider, having two additional bass woofers on each side), I swapped them out a handful of times to confirm. This was neither fun nor easy to do alone. The Horizon is quite heavy but very manageable to move around. The C426Be isn't *that* much heavier, but it is far more awkward and cumbersome to handle; being very front-heavy, it constantly wants to pull itself down onto the floor (or onto your feet!).

The other issue in doing this is that hanging onto to an accurate acoustic memory while going through the motions of switching these beasts out is virtually impossible. However, that said, each time I'd go back and forth, I couldn't shake the sense that the Revel center just sounded fuller, bigger, less like a speaker in some of the lower frequency bands. The Horizon's dispersion is extremely wide, but there is a little bit of narrowing in the 300 - 600Hz region. I thought this might be playing a role. But even then, it's still hitting +/- 50 degrees of dispersion and I was sitting on-axis. At a loss, I ultimately considered the possibility that the Revel center is just that amazing (well, it is certainly amazing), and will not suffer any challenges to its dominance.

Eventually, I considered that in its default configuration, the Revel center tilts up somewhat. I had the Horizon pointed out straight ahead, which put the tweeter slightly below ear-height while I was seated on the couch. Based on the vertical dispersion plot, I figured that this should have been fine. As a test, I angled up the Horizon and listened again. Instantly, male voices filled out seemingly completely, and the "boxy" quality was gone. I went back and forth with the Horizon in both configurations multiple times, and each time this held true. Perhaps in doing this I was attenuating the highs a bit, bringing the lower frequencies into balance? Maybe, but I discerned no loss of higher frequency detail or presence. I'm left thinking that perhaps some sort of diffraction was occurring with the speaker pointed straight at me. I still haven't solved the mystery, but with the issue resolved, I don't much care at this point.

So now with that done, I feel that the Revel center may have sounded *just* a touch "bigger" than the Horizon on rare occasions and under specific circumstances. But having no means to conduct even a somewhat reasonable sighted comparison between the two centers (given the continual and cumbersome swap-outs involved), I can't be sure. Again, it sure does LOOK like it should sound bigger, and my brain may simply be confirming by bias for me. I am, however, quite confident that I am hearing more dynamic and textured sounds in comparison from the Horizon. As an example, I've seen the wonderfully violent one-on-one sword vs spear duel that concludes the Game of Thrones episode "The Mountain and the Viper" more times than any person should probably admit, often at quite high volumes. I truly don't believe that the clashing and clanking of steel-on-steel has ever sounded as impactful, lively, or visceral in my room. It sounded phenomenal coming out of the Revel center, but there's an extra degree of texture and bite with the Horizon ELX that just left me giddy and giggling like a goofball in a way that I hadn't experienced before. I imagine this is due in large part to the ELX's very wide dispersion that essentially holds throughout the entirety of the midrange and treble, in concert with the tonally accurate early reflections, which help give things a pleasant increase in pop and spaciousness.

Anyway, both of these centers are quite extraordinary, especially for horizontal speakers that - despite their large footprints - are essentially designed for compromised spaces. The fact that the C426Be held up extremely well being flanked by the ELX towers for several months (the Horizon arrived much later) is a testament to how well engineered it is. While I could certainly detect the differences in how the Revel center and ELX towers each rendered the higher frequencies during pans and multi-channel music listening, there was never any dramatic tonal / timbral mismatches to my hearing between them. I certainly appreciate having finally completed the Ascend set, though.

 

[TimW]

The Horizon's dispersion is extremely wide, but there is a little bit of narrowing in the 300 - 600Hz region.

I was thinking about this. From what I understand, it's caused by cancelation between the two woofers oriented horizontally. This is why it doesn't show up in the vertical directivity. This is the typical 'lobing' issue we see in MTM speakers. It can be avoided in a 3-way design by crossing over from the horizontally oriented woofers at a low frequency, such as Revel or KEF do in their 3-way center channel speakers. I have to wonder why Dave went with a somewhat high crossover point, especially since the EX woofer used as the midrange is perfectly capable of playing bass. It makes me wonder if it's a side effect of his unique crossover design, a cost saving compromise in the crossover, or just a compromise to avoid some other issue.

 

[mj30250]

I was thinking about this. From what I understand, it's caused by cancelation between the two woofers oriented horizontally. This is why it doesn't show up in the vertical directivity. This is the typical 'lobing' issue we see in MTM speakers. It can be avoided in a 3-way design by crossing over from the horizontally oriented woofers at a low frequency, such as Revel or KEF do in their 3-way center channel speakers. I have to wonder why Dave went with a somewhat high crossover point, especially since the EX woofer used as the midrange is perfectly capable of playing bass. It makes me wonder if it's a side effect of his unique crossover design, a cost saving compromise in the crossover, or just a compromise to avoid some other issue.

In reality, it's probably not that audible, if audible at all outside of very specific instances like, say, if you were specifically testing for it using sweeps / tones. It happens over a fairly narrow range, and even then you'd probably need to be well off-axis to really pick up on it. You're very likely correct and a lower crossover could have smoothed it out, but perhaps doing so would introduce some other, more impactful anomaly. Or perhaps the LX woofers simply "punch" harder in that region and Dave felt that it was worth trading out a small amount of dispersion for. Obviously, it's a question for him. Centers in particular are an exercise in compromises.

Overall, it's doubtless the best (horizontal) center speaker I've ever heard, and that's having come from a center speaker that's pretty challenging to improve upon in any meaningful way. Having an incredibly-cohesive front stage now is the icing on the cake.

 

[Haint]

I was thinking about this. From what I understand, it's caused by cancelation between the two woofers oriented horizontally. This is why it doesn't show up in the vertical directivity. This is the typical 'lobing' issue we see in MTM speakers. It can be avoided in a 3-way design by crossing over from the horizontally oriented woofers at a low frequency, such as Revel or KEF do in their 3-way center channel speakers. I have to wonder why Dave went with a somewhat high crossover point, especially since the EX woofer used as the midrange is perfectly capable of playing bass. It makes me wonder if it's a side effect of his unique crossover design, a cost saving compromise in the crossover, or just a compromise to avoid some other issue.

I can't imagine there's any cost savings concerns on an internet direct $2500 speaker. This is already double the price of its quasi-predecessor, which itself likely already had incredibly healthy margins being their (heretofore) premium high end model. This speaker's priced where it is to pay for the Klippel, not materials. They even abandoned the "Made In USA" commitment they used to use to justify their pricing (which I personally don't care about, just pointing it out).

 

[TimW]

I can't imagine there's any cost savings concerns on an internet direct $2500 speaker. This is already double the price of its quasi-predecessor, which itself likely already had incredibly healthy margins being their (heretofore) premium high end model. This speaker's priced where it is to pay for the Klippel, not materials. They even abandoned the "Made In USA" commitment they used to use to justify their pricing (which I personally don't care about, just pointing it out).

Maybe size of inductor was more of a concern than cost, I wouldn't know. I looked at the horizontal Klippel measurements of the Revel C208 and Kef R2C again after posting. It seems like they have the same narrowing of directivity in the lower mids due to the horizontally opposed woofers. Maybe it is just a very difficult to avoid issue.

 

[RMW_NJ]

I can't imagine there's any cost savings concerns on an internet direct $2500 speaker. This is already double the price of its quasi-predecessor, which itself likely already had incredibly healthy margins being their (heretofore) premium high end model. This speaker's priced where it is to pay for the Klippel, not materials. They even abandoned the "Made In USA" commitment they used to use to justify their pricing (which I personally don't care about, just pointing it out).

They didn’t abandon the Made in the USA commitment by choice, the company they sourced the bamboo cabinets from folded.

 

[amira]

I can't imagine there's any cost savings concerns on an internet direct $2500 speaker. This is already double the price of its quasi-predecessor, which itself likely already had incredibly healthy margins being their (heretofore) premium high end model. This speaker's priced where it is to pay for the Klippel, not materials....

It's really strange to see a company taking into account things like research and developmental costs when pricing it's products. I don't understand why more companies don't just try to barely break even, or maybe even lose a little money. They could just cut salaries and have less money to invest in the future of the business. No big deal, I'm sure you'd agree to something like that at your job.