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

[cavedriver]

Long time reader, first time poster. I have had the SIERRA-LX for about two weeks now as well as many other standmounts in the past:
PMC TB2
Wharfedale Diamond 9.1
Merlin TSM- MMI
Fritz Carbon 7
Dynaudio Focus 110
Dynaudio Focus 160
Acsend Audio Sierra 1
Acsend Audio Sierra 1 Nrt
Harbeth P3ESR
Jeff bagby continuum
Jeff bagby Picolo
The Carrera Speaker Kit – by Paul Carmody
FRITZ CARRERA (With Transducer Labs Tweeter)
Dynaudio Special 40's
FRITZ CARBON 7 SE Mk 2
KEF R3
Genelec 8010A
Revel performa3 m106
Genelec 8040b
Adam speakers a5x
and now the
Genelec 8020D (and sub)
SIERRA-LX.

I hope to post a long write up in the next two weeks. Currently I am in sink with Amir's thought process on Dacs and most amps and I am very happy to save money in that category. As far as the Revel Perfroma 3 M106 goes I could not ship them back to crutchfield fast enough after having them side by side with the Sierra-LX.

To date my fabvorite speakers are:
Merlin TSM- MMI
FRITZ CARRERA (With Transducer Labs Tweeter)
SIERRA-LX

For Music all types:
FRITZ CARRERA (With Transducer Labs Tweeter)
SIERRA-LX

Vocals Realistic Tontality:
Merlin TSM- MMI
FRITZ CARRERA (With Transducer Labs Tweeter)

Home theatre:
Merlin TSM- MMI (The speed of this speaker is really impressive)
Genelec 8040b (Tonality is similar to Merlins but transient response is much slower)
SIERRA-LX

Magical:
Fritz Carbon 7

I am putting together a long write up and hope to post more soon as I know i will get rosted for this.
Currently I am really enjoying the Sierra-LX, I would say it has the best metal tweeter I have heard (Outside of berylium) and the best Bass from a small standmoint. Midrange is really enjoyable for music.

It would seem your favorite speakers are Fritz speakers, a speaker not reviewed or measured here or measured elsewhere on the web that I could find. Do you have links to any reviews of these speakers that do include measurements?

 

[ROOSKIE]

@Dennis Murphy I have the originals. Just recently bought the Metas to compare with EQ and they sounded identical after EQ so I sent them back.

Very interesting. I actually preferred the originals if there's no EQ in play. The new ones have a dip in the lower highs that takes the life out of orchestral music.

I have been starting to explore the LS50 meta's.
Just a few sessions worth so far and these are my favorite KEF speakers - so far the only ones I would keep.
I also bought a set of Q150's for $200 for the express purpose of seeing how close I can get to the Metas with eq and other help. (this is my second round with the Q150's)
After this I would love to try eqing the OG LS50 if I can get a pair to try without much expense.

Anyway so far my listening to both has been with no PEQ & no room adaptation and a LR4 HP @ 55hrz and no subwoofers in play.
One session was extremely loud, surely at the speakers limits when asked to handle frequencies below 100hrz.
The LS50meta is so composed and sounds much bigger than the Q150. There are the expected tonal differences but the LS50meta is far less 'pinpoint' and much more spacious sounding in direct comparison(or again larger sounding, as large and spacious are similar in some ways). It will be interesting to see what happens as I PEQ the Q150.
There is also this sense of 'lack of turbulence' in the LS50meta that is just captivating to me. I don't know how else to describe it, but they also don't leave me with any listening fatigue even with a lot of bass removed via that HP.
So far these are $1000 speakers that I bought to simply test/try and then re-sell but I think I might be keeping them long term.

I am becoming a JBL 530 broken record but one session I played them after the Q150 & LS50meta and it was just my choice. Again no PEQ, NO room adaptation but the 530's used a 45hrz LR4 HP as in my testing they can handle deeper bass better than the KEF sets. While the bass was occasionally 'better', reality is my impression is that these are simply better overall speakers. At moderate SPL and definitely at high SPL where the 530 sounds absolutely unstrained as long as it is high passed. It shocks me that these are controversial but I guess what speakers are not.

I will bring some more speakers out as I go.

Dave and I agree on a lot of things, but not this. I've found the BMR's to have a more spacious sound than any other 2-way or 3-way I've heard, mainly because of the extremely broad dispersion of the BMR midrange. I think this was born out in the Phoenix Speaker Fest last August, where the BMR's outscored all of the competing 15 entries from its primary competition by a very wide margin. Still, I would very much like to hear the new Ascends. They certainly look good on paper.

I also want to try that Ascend speaker.
The BMR(curved cabinet version) is the widest I have personally used out of many.
It was weird at first. My brain was a little confused. The 1st session was just okay and I even thought how am I going to tell you I want to return them.
At some point in the 2nd session something can into focus like an Autostereogram, and boom I could just understand the spacious soundstage and just take in what was happening with these. After that is was just impossible to stop listening - they are so good. Just stunning, stunning, stunning speakers. The only real downfall is the lowish power handling with bass but subs and a high pass solve that(80hrz is great, lower is not going to help SPL) if such SPL is needed. The extension is great and the bass sounds wonderful to my ear even when getting close to the limits.
Anyway I love them and will not part - they are one of my 3 favorites which is saying a lot as I love all my favorites(BMR-curved, 4309, M126be). Muchos Gracias Maestro!

 

[ROOSKIE]

Agreed. With proper equipment and expertise I'm confident that level matching could have been done more accurately. I'm not confident that this would have made any differences of significance.

I am of the opinion that you can never really truly SPL match speakers, especially in room, as there are just many variables that allow for differences to develop that make it very hard. Some issues were mentioned already. I can see flaws in every method I have encountered including of course mine.
That said this is my fairly easy method which is likely similar to some others.
I also have a slightly harder method which is maybe more accurate but if you are new to REW this solution below is reasonably easy *(there is an even easier method as well similar to the below but using the REW SPL meter instead of the RTA to just match the average SPL.)

If you can afford $100-120 get a UMIK and REW
Extra special calibrated version https://cross-spectrum.com/measurement/calibrated_umik.html

Play pink noise in the REW generator that is devoid of the bass and highs.
REW has a 500-2000hrz setting pre configured but I use 'Custom' and 350hrz-3000hrz as my setting as want to add in a little more lower treble and lower midrange for my matching.

Leaving the noise playing turn on the RTA set to forever averaging and record the sound at the listening window.
If this is farfield, move the mic slowly around in a window 18"-2feet tall and 2-3feet wide. Do this for about 1minute until the averages build to a fairly fixed response.
Capture the measurement for both speakers and smooth them to 1/3 or even 1/2 octave.
Look at them in the 'All SPL' window and repeat the measuring a few times to work on getting them to overlay each other as closely as possible over the bulk of the 350hrz-3000hrz area you used. This is a judgement call and looking at doing this without using smoothing is not helpful - smooth it. You just want the general energy levels to match.

*(there is an even easier method as well similar to the below but using the REW SPL meter instead of the RTA to just match the average SPL.)
Doing this you just turn on the REW 'SPL meter' while the 350hrz-3000hrz pink noise is playing. Here it makes sense to have the mic on a stand in the center of the sweet spot as unlike the RTA this is not a 'forever' averaging capable meter and reacts much to quickly to assess it while moving the mic around. Just adjust the volume until they match in the meter.

One major flaw in both methods above is if a speaker has a huge dip in the mids like the Klipsch RP-600m, you will end up playing that speaker at a much higher over-all level than a more accurate speaker. So note that.
Overall I think this is much better in more cases vs a handheld weighted meter or matching a particular frequency like some folks do which is just way to easy to have speakers far off from each other to my thinking.

 

[spamilton]

**Alright, here is my very LONG writeup which details my comparison of the Ascend Sierra ELX Ribbon Towers and the Revel F226Bes.**

Thank you for your thoughts. I enjoy reading reviews like this. I currently have the original RAAL towers, and I am considering both of these speakers as well. I almost bought the 226 multiple times, but the price kept making me cringe a bit. Now, this upgrade kit has me very tempted at only $2k. I still have a gut feeling that I may like the Revels better as I am currently using the M126Be as an upright center and it sounds great. I went through many other centers and kept going back to stereo until I got the 126. I don't have room for the Horizon nor the big Revel.

So, I feel like I should jump on this kit deal and save a lot of cash, though I can't quite shake the feeling that the Revel may be a more cohesive package to my ear. I think maybe the vertical dispersion could be helping with that impression. I'm more curious about the SEAS tweeter.

 

[mj30250]

Thank you for your thoughts. I enjoy reading reviews like this. I currently have the original RAAL towers, and I am considering both of these speakers as well. I almost bought the 226 multiple times, but the price kept making me cringe a bit. Now, this upgrade kit has me very tempted at only $2k. I still have a gut feeling that I may like the Revels better as I am currently using the M126Be as an upright center and it sounds great. I went through many other centers and kept going back to stereo until I got the 126. I don't have room for the Horizon nor the big Revel.

So, I feel like I should jump on this kit deal and save a lot of cash, though I can't quite shake the feeling that the Revel may be a more cohesive package to my ear. I think maybe the vertical dispersion could be helping with that impression. I'm more curious about the SEAS tweeter.

I'm glad that you enjoyed the review.

I remain unconvinced of the importance of a large amount of vertical dispersion unless, of course, your ears are often outside of the tweeters' listening window. I use Sierra LXs (with the SEAS Titan tweeters) in my upstairs, open-concept living room in large part because my family and I spend a lot of time moving around in there and the increased vertical dispersion is quite helpful in such an environment. Tonality remains rock solid regardless of whether you are sitting down or standing up. In a more dedicated listening space, I've personally not found a larger amount of vertical radiation to offer many clear advantages, unlike wide horizontal dispersion, which I easily prefer in my room(s). A very recent post by Dr. Toole seems to agree with my impressions:

Our ears are in the horizontal plane, so our hearing is very different vertically and horizontally. Horizontal absolutely dominates the "spatial " domain.

Anyway, it sounds like you will ultimately need to listen to both sets of speakers to have peace of mind. Otherwise, you will likely always be wondering if you are missing out on...something. For me, there is no contest in terms of bass. Even if you crossed both the F226Bes and ELX towers at ~80Hz and used capable subs below that, the ELXs still simply out-hit, out-slam, and flatly out-perform the 226s all the way up to the midrange. For the Revels to even have a fighting chance in this area, you'd need to step up to the 228s, or possibly even the 328s. The "little" 6" LX woofers are truly impressive.

In terms of treble, this will be a bit more dependent on individual tastes / preferences. To my ears, when listening to pristine program material, the F226Bes' treble sounds like its coming from incredibly well-engineered...speakers. The ELXs' treble sounds like it's coming from live instruments / vocalists in the room. Even though the RAAL ribbon itself is unchanged from the V1 towers to the ELXs, the treble in the ELXs is audibly improved, owing to the new crossover in combination with a seamless integration with the EX midrange driver.

In my opinion, where these two speakers truly do battle is in the midrange. The ELX midrange is extremely clear / clean / present. It never sounds harsh (unless the source material itself is harsh) and rarely - if ever - sounds out of balance with the rest of the frequency range. The Revel midrange is not quite the same. It's extremely smooth and - with apologies for devolving into straight-up audiophile mush - very luxurious sounding. It can be quite pleasant with certain music. I don't think it sounds quite as "real", though. Others may disagree, and there is certainly room for different preferences and subjective conclusions here.

Overall, both are extremely cohesive packages in my opinion. The ELX ribbon tower is the most well balanced speaker I've personally ever heard. It just seems to do everything extremely well, provided you are well positioned vertically.

 

[spamilton]

Overall, both are extremely cohesive packages in my opinion. The ELX ribbon tower is the most well balanced speaker I've personally ever heard. It just seems to do everything extremely well, provided you are well positioned vertically.

Thanks again. I think it's going to be between the ELX Titans and the 226 for me. I'm just not getting the full potential of the RAAL in my family room, and I'm like 80% HT use. Ascend is of course the king of value, and I enjoy supporting passionate people like Dave and Dina. I've purchase from them multiple times. Maybe I'll utilize the Crutchfield return policy as much as I try to avoid that, but I feel better about doing it with Crutchfield.

 

[spamilton]

The Revel midrange is not quite the same. It's extremely smooth and - with apologies for devolving into straight-up audiophile mush - very luxurious sounding. It can be quite pleasant with certain music. I don't think it sounds quite as "real", though. Others may disagree, and there is certainly room for different preferences and subjective conclusions here.

Well, I have both speakers (original Sierra Towers and the 226) side by side. I see what you mean. The 226 has a softer, more pleasing sound, whereas every sound from the Sierra has a bit more weight/edge to it. The 226 does sound overall more present. The small details are brought forward for sure, and voices sound very good. Though, as you said, the ELX seems to have improved upon this. The bass of course isn't close (I think the Sierra Tower is unmatched with bass from a cabinet this size), but that's okay. It's enough for me, and it's nice at times to not be disturbing others in my household.

Considering I'm already using the M126Be as a center, I think it makes more sense to hold on to the Revels. I don't want to waste Dave's money making me a pair of ELX that I may not keep. Anyway, good listening to you.

 

[mj30250]

Well, I have both speakers (original Sierra Towers and the 226) side by side. I see what you mean. The 226 has a softer, more pleasing sound, whereas every sound from the Sierra has a bit more weight/edge to it. The 226 does sound overall more present. The small details are brought forward for sure, and voices sound very good. Though, as you said, the ELX seems to have improved upon this. The bass of course isn't close (I think the Sierra Tower is unmatched with bass from a cabinet this size), but that's okay. It's enough for me, and it's nice at times to not be disturbing others in my household.

Considering I'm already using the M126Be as a center, I think it makes more sense to hold on to the Revels. I don't want to waste Dave's money making me a pair of ELX that I may not keep. Anyway, good listening to you.

Congrats! It sounds like you're fully satisfied. I also preferred the F226Bes to the original Sierra towers. Paired with good subs I imagine they could easily be end game speakers for many. Enjoy.

 

[Chromatischism]

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 .

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.

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”.

Thanks for the write-up. A lot of effort goes into these sorts of comparisons. We have similar preferences for both music and how we listen to it with subs. Tool is very revealing of speaker capability and is what led me to owning Buchardt speakers.

Nils Lofgren – Keith Don’t Go (live)

I knew as soon as I saw this which speaker was going to "win". I also use this track as my premier live, acoustic song. This one really cemented my thoughts on the rest of your comparisons, that the Sierras are slightly exaggerating (relative to the Revels) certain aspects of the mids and highs. It is these qualities however which can lead to a fatiguing experience with music from some artists, so I can see Revel's philosophy here in trying to walk that tightrope.

In my small space and given my preferences I would probably still lean towards the more controlled dispersion and easier listen of the cone and dome Revel F-series, but it sounds like the Sierras have made some big strides and would likely suit a large room better than the F226be.

 

[Chromatischism]

While designing this speaker with the NFS, Dave found high correlation between how spacious a speaker sounds with how linear its DI is, combined with wide horizontal dispersion, but not too wide - see his comments below.

Think about how that is achieved – crossover tweaks. Smoothing out the handoffs between drivers results in bringing up low areas and bringing down peaks. This could easily lead to a flawed hypothesis that it is more than just frequency response.

 

[aarons915]

Very interesting. I actually preferred the originals if there's no EQ in play. The new ones have a dip in the lower highs that takes the life out of orchestral music.

Thought I responded to this but I guess not. I know what you mean, I feel like both LS50 play tricks with the frequency response. The originals have some extra energy in the 2-5k range that sound very detailed initially but wear on me after awhile while the Meta are more neutral but that dip around 2500Hz takes a bit of "detail" out of the lower treble but then the slightly elevated response after that dip makes them sound weirdly clear and detailed in the highs.

Thanks for the write-up. A lot of effort goes into these sorts of comparisons. We have similar preferences for both music and how we listen to it with subs. Tool is very revealing of speaker capability and is what led me to owning Buchardt speakers.


I knew as soon as I saw this which speaker was going to "win". I also use this track as my premier live, acoustic song. This one really cemented my thoughts on the rest of your comparisons, that the Sierras are slightly exaggerating (relative to the Revels) certain aspects of the mids and highs. It is these qualities however which can lead to a fatiguing experience with music from some artists, so I can see Revel's philosophy here in trying to walk that tightrope.

In my small space and given my preferences I would probably still lean towards the more controlled dispersion and easier listen of the cone and dome Revel F-series, but it sounds like the Sierras have made some big strides and would likely suit a large room better than the F226be.

Agreed, this is one area where short comparisons are going to favor a brighter speaker because of course most people are going to choose the more "detailed" speaker, unless it's just ridiculously bright. I can see in all of Revel's measurements that they have no real peaks, especially in the early reflections. I think that is key because any speaker that has fatigued me generally has some sort of resonance peak in the 2-4k region.

 

[aarons915]

I have been starting to explore the LS50 meta's.
Just a few sessions worth so far and these are my favorite KEF speakers - so far the only ones I would keep.
I also bought a set of Q150's for $200 for the express purpose of seeing how close I can get to the Metas with eq and other help. (this is my second round with the Q150's)
After this I would love to try eqing the OG LS50 if I can get a pair to try without much expense.

Anyway so far my listening to both has been with no PEQ & no room adaptation and a LR4 HP @ 55hrz and no subwoofers in play.
One session was extremely loud, surely at the speakers limits when asked to handle frequencies below 100hrz.
The LS50meta is so composed and sounds much bigger than the Q150. There are the expected tonal differences but the LS50meta is far less 'pinpoint' and much more spacious sounding in direct comparison(or again larger sounding, as large and spacious are similar in some ways). It will be interesting to see what happens as I PEQ the Q150.
There is also this sense of 'lack of turbulence' in the LS50meta that is just captivating to me. I don't know how else to describe it, but they also don't leave me with any listening fatigue even with a lot of bass removed via that HP.
So far these are $1000 speakers that I bought to simply test/try and then re-sell but I think I might be keeping them long term.

I am becoming a JBL 530 broken record but one session I played them after the Q150 & LS50meta and it was just my choice. Again no PEQ, NO room adaptation but the 530's used a 45hrz LR4 HP as in my testing they can handle deeper bass better than the KEF sets. While the bass was occasionally 'better', reality is my impression is that these are simply better overall speakers. At moderate SPL and definitely at high SPL where the 530 sounds absolutely unstrained as long as it is high passed. It shocks me that these are controversial but I guess what speakers are not.

I will bring some more speakers out as I go.

I also want to try that Ascend speaker.
The BMR(curved cabinet version) is the widest I have personally used out of many.
It was weird at first. My brain was a little confused. The 1st session was just okay and I even thought how am I going to tell you I want to return them.
At some point in the 2nd session something can into focus like an Autostereogram, and boom I could just understand the spacious soundstage and just take in what was happening with these. After that is was just impossible to stop listening - they are so good. Just stunning, stunning, stunning speakers. The only real downfall is the lowish power handling with bass but subs and a high pass solve that(80hrz is great, lower is not going to help SPL) if such SPL is needed. The extension is great and the bass sounds wonderful to my ear even when getting close to the limits.
Anyway I love them and will not part - they are one of my 3 favorites which is saying a lot as I love all my favorites(BMR-curved, 4309, M126be). Muchos Gracias Maestro!

Not sure if you saw my comparison of the original LS50 to the Meta here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/ls50-meta-vs-ls50-with-eq.26217/

Basically after some different EQ comparisons I couldn't tell them apart, I was specifically wondering if the smoother directivity of the Meta around 4k would be audible but I didn't notice a difference so I kept the originals. One word of advice on the originals is to use the Soundstage measurements to EQ because the ASR measurements are a bit different and don't really show the 2k resonance that most measurements show. If you already have the Meta I'm not sure it's worth it to buy the originals though, I kept them because I already owned 3 and I prefer the black edition.

 

[database]

I knew as soon as I saw this which speaker was going to "win". I also use this track as my premier live, acoustic song. This one really cemented my thoughts on the rest of your comparisons, that the Sierras are slightly exaggerating (relative to the Revels) certain aspects of the mids and highs. It is these qualities however which can lead to a fatiguing experience with music from some artists, so I can see Revel's philosophy here in trying to walk that tightrope.

Which graph is appropriate to check that mids and highs are exaggerated between one speaker and another? Based on PIR it looks to me that the Revel's highs are exaggerated vs the ELX from 3 kHz to 9 kHz and the ELX's mids are exaggerated vs the Revels from 500 Hz to 1000 Hz.

 

[mj30250]

I've had the ELX towers set up for over 8 months and have have easily racked up a few hundred hours of listening in that time, some of it "critical" and some of it background while I was focused on other things. I've also owned my share of speakers over the years that run bright. I've yet to find the ELXs remotely fatiguing. To my ears, their treble reproduction offers an uncommon and quite pleasurable (to me) combination of clean detail, "liveness", and spaciousness, while simultaneously sounding somewhat relaxed or perhaps even laid back. As I've theorized before, this could be an aggregate effect of the ribbons' wide horizontal and limited vertical dispersion, combined with their lack of backwave radiation and a smooth integration with the midrange driver. My room is also wide, and while it's largely untreated, it's fully carpeted with acoustic ceiling tiles and has lots of soft furniture to help keep it from being extremely reflective.

If I were to say that any aspect of the ELX's response is even slightly shelved up to my hearing, it would be the midrange. There's a low amplitude but broad rise here that is audible when compared to something flatter like the 226Be. I can't say that I have a clear preference between the two in this area. Both are absolutely excellent and it largely depends on the particular program material I'm listening to. As I've said in earlier posts, I'd subjectively describe the ELX's midrange as very clean, clear, and detailed, and the Revel's as extremely smooth and luxurious.

 

[database]

Which graph is appropriate to check that mids and highs are exaggerated between one speaker and another? Based on PIR it looks to me that the Revel's highs are exaggerated vs the ELX from 3 kHz to 9 kHz and the ELX's mids are exaggerated vs the Revels from 500 Hz to 1000 Hz.

Here's a rough overlay of PIR between the two speakers, stretched to the same scale and then shifted to match SPL as best as I could. ELX is the bold line.

Agreed, this is one area where short comparisons are going to favor a brighter speaker because of course most people are going to choose the more "detailed" speaker, unless it's just ridiculously bright. I can see in all of Revel's measurements that they have no real peaks, especially in the early reflections. I think that is key because any speaker that has fatigued me generally has some sort of resonance peak in the 2-4k region.

The Revels look brighter to me in the PIR comparison above. Which graph suggests the ELX is brighter to you?

 

[aarons915]

Here's a rough overlay of PIR between the two speakers, stretched to the same scale and then shifted to match SPL as best as I could. ELX is the bold line. View attachment 257192

The Revels look brighter to me in the PIR comparison above. Which graph suggests the ELX is brighter to you?

You know I was actually just responding the general idea and didn't really compare each spin but now that I did I agree with you. They're both generally neutral speakers but the F226 have slightly wider dispersion so should sound just a bit more detailed and spacious and the Sierra ELX have just a bit of lift in the 600-1200Hz range which may make vocals sound just a bit "shouty", at least that's how I perceive my LS50's to sound before EQ'ing out a similar peak.

 

[AscendDF]

You know I was actually just responding the general idea and didn't really compare each spin but now that I did I agree with you. They're both generally neutral speakers but the F226 have slightly wider dispersion so should sound just a bit more detailed and spacious and the Sierra ELX have just a bit of lift in the 600-1200Hz range which may make vocals sound just a bit "shouty", at least that's how I perceive my LS50's to sound before EQ'ing out a similar peak.

Incorrect, if you actually take the time to properly compare the measurements - ELX has wider horizontal dispersion (by a decent amount as well). F226 does have wider vertical dispersion though (but there is no science that confirms if wider vertical dispersion has any advantages).

I also do not see any "lift" in the PIR that you claim may make the ELX have shouty vocals, a claim you are making based on never having heard the speaker - and which completely contradicts comments from the many people who now own these speakers or who have heard them.

Please show me this 600-1200Hz "lift" in the PIR.

 

[Chromatischism]

Frequency response is all relative. You can see there's more relative output from 500-1000 compared to 1500-3000, and another elevation from about 7000-20000.

But there's no reason to get defensive. Nearly every good speaker tested here shows a similar trend, so it's not a knock on the speaker.

Some may even prefer those small undulations in the right areas.

 

[HooStat]

When speakers get to be this good, minor variations among them become even less important. Particularly in a situation when DSP and a sub (or two) are also being used.

 

[aarons915]

Incorrect, if you actually take the time to properly compare the measurements - ELX has wider horizontal dispersion (by a decent amount as well). F226 does have wider vertical dispersion though (but there is no science that confirms if wider vertical dispersion has any advantages).

I also do not see any "lift" in the PIR that you claim may make the ELX have shouty vocals, a claim you are making based on never having heard the speaker - and which completely contradicts comments from the many people who now own these speakers or who have heard them.

Please show me this 600-1200Hz "lift" in the PIR.

Well Dave I didn't say the lift was in the PIR because that is not how our audible system processes sounds...it's nice extra info is about all. The direct sound is the most important sound followed by the early reflections which have been shown to be responsible for spaciousness and is what I use to gauge wide dispersion. I'm sure you're going to talk about the contour plot but the scale is so different it's hard to compare them and late arrivals haven't been shown to matter anyway.

So checking the Spin you can see a clear boost from 600-1200Hz in the listening window, you can try to draw an intellectually dishonest line again but I think most people can clearly see it. Someone who does own them literally just made the comment that:

"If I were to say that any aspect of the ELX's response is even slightly shelved up to my hearing, it would be the midrange. There's a low amplitude but broad rise here that is audible when compared to something flatter like the 226Be." So don't shoot the messenger dude, they're just speakers and I said they are very neutral overall, most passive speakers have at least 1 flaw that would benefit from EQ so it's not really a knock on them.

The ERDI also is pretty clear that the F226 is smoother except for that dip at 2500Hz and everywhere else is only about 3db weaker than the direct sound where the Sierra ELX has an abrupt shift around 600Hz and stays around 3-4 db weaker than the listening window so I would expect the early reflections to be slightly weaker.

The research on vertical reflections is very limited but the few studies I've seen does show a spatial advantage, just not quite as strong as horizontal, I summarized and named the studies in this thread: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/research-on-reflections.27532/