Can you post a picture of your current set up? Curious about the toe in you used with the ELXs**Alright, here is my very LONG writeup which details my comparison of the Ascend Sierra ELX Ribbon Towers and the Revel F226Bes.**
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:
Should you be unfamiliar with any of the tracks in these comparisons, I would encourage you to listen to them in order to gain context before considering my subjective impressions. Given the current abundance of music streaming services and the fact that most – if not all – of these selections are available to listen to for free on YouTube, I don’t feel that this is unreasonable. And hey, some of these songs are pretty good in their own right!
- 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.
Ok, I'll stop now.
-
Welcome to ASR. 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 Announces New Klippel NFS-Optimized Sierra Towers and Horizon Center
- Thread starter mj30250
- Start date
Can you post a picture of your current set up? Curious about the toe in you used with the ELXs
- Thread Starter
- #103
Does it? If you compare the Early reflections directivity index it is pretty clear to my eyes...the sound power DI shows the same thing but has been shown to be less important than the early reflections, the ultra wide angles may be close, it's hard to compare but the early reflections are most important and pretty clear, especially when looking at floor and ceiling reflections.
Aren't floor and ceiling reflections the least important of them all?
As you note, higher frequencies are gated measurements so there is no issue there. For bass, the waveforms are long enough that when measuring at 1/3 of meter as I do, the same modal response exists for both speaker and bass. The near-field measurement also sharply reduces the amplitude of reflections -- at least in my larger space -- so the error is not significant. However, if you do apply ISC, you see a reduction of relative THD due to what modal response exists. As I explained though, the correction is not big enough to be worth it in my case.
Ultimately no measurement is prefect as even anechoic chambers are not anechoic in very low frequencies.
Also, note that a lot of issues pop up in higher frequencies so even if bass measurements are not vary accurate, those are. You can easily corroborate them with other measurements show resonances and such.
As I explained in email to you, this is easily done by fudging the mic sensitivity in the control panel for distortion tests. This way, the software is fooled into showing the correct response without messing with the graphs manually. I guess it would be nice if Klippel had a measurement distance compensation property but the solution I came up with works as well.
Note that distortion tests have nothing to with NFS. They are separate tests using base Klippel functionality.
- Thread Starter
- #109
You seem to be including vertical dispersion, I'm not. I'm simply comparing horizontal. I've mentioned several times that the vertical dispersion of the RAAL ribbons is quite limited. I also wonder if the limited vertical combined with wide horizontal is why the mid-high treble of the Sierras sounds quite different than essentially every dome tweeter system I've heard.
And why would be ignore vertical dispersion?
- Thread Starter
- #111
I'm not ignoring it, quite the opposite. I'm positing as a theory that perhaps the wide horizontal dispersion combined with the limited vertical is precisely (or at least a large component of) the reason why the treble sounds clearly different on the Ascend ribbon towers than it does on any dome speaker I've heard. And again, the Revels are not as wide ("wide" is typically used as a description of width, not height. I don't encourage my kids to eat their veggies so they'll grow up wider than me.
).I always thought the sound difference between the RAALs and dome tweeters is caused by how low the moving mass is and the ultra fast transients.
I’ve thought that was defined by the frequency response but would be interested in learning more.
I'm not ignoring it, quite the opposite. I'm positing as a theory that perhaps the wide horizontal dispersion combined with the limited vertical is precisely (or at least a large component of) the reason why the treble sounds clearly different on the Ascend ribbon towers than it does on any dome speaker I've heard. And again, the Revels are not as wide ("wide" is typically used as a description of width, not height. I don't encourage my kids to eat their veggies so they'll grow up wider than me.
I agree with that for sure, the limited vertical dispersion is probably why they sound different but as I mentioned earlier, based on the directivity indices, the Revels are slightly wider in dispersion too.
Don’t forget the slightly raised 2nd & 3rd HD. It’s like a little tube warmth for just the upper registers. Not a surprise that things like female vocals and violins sound exceptionally amazing on them (to use a technical term).
Also explains why the new AAs can both have a louder bass response, but also sound more noticeable in the treble.
- Thread Starter
- #116
Steve Dallas
Major Contributor
If you place a sub between each speaker and the stand, it is no longer comically undersized!
One of many factors. People on ASR tend to underestimate this or ignore it outright. And why I love my Ascend towers.
I want my speakers to sound as realistic as possible. This is not just frequency response. When I listen to acoustic music, I want to perceive that the performer is sitting in my room and that I am at the venue where the sound was recorded. Tiny little details usually more noticeable in well-mastered acoustic music with details in how an instrument sounds, the singer's voice, the pluck of a banjo or guitar string, the sound of a cymbal are more important to me than my chest feeling the thump of bass. Dispersion, frequency response, and distortion do not explain these differences.
I still think you can judge a DAC or solid state amplifier on measurements alone but that speakers cannot be judged only on measurements..
Last edited:
I’d take your last statement a nudge further. I’d bet we can measure most of what we like about audio equipment. I just don’t think (warning: opinion) we have a comprehensive set of measures to explain why we enjoy the sound of certain pieces of equipment yet.
It seems intuitive to me that the "speed" of a driver is defined by its frequency response. Either it can reproduce 20K or it cannot.
If not dispersion, FR, and distortion, what do you think defines the sonic differences? The waterfall plot? I would be very interested in knowing more about how all of these factors coorelate with the perceived sound of high-frequency drivers.
