Ascend Sierra 2 Speaker Review

[Chromatischism]

ascend looks like a newer better version of revel...sorry revel fans...

Why do you say that? Why does one have to be a "newer better version" of something?

Anyway, I would argue that Revel still has a design advantage.

 

[muad]

Why do you say that? Why does one have to be a "newer better version" of something?

Anyway, I would argue that Revel still has a design advantage.

I've had the sierra LX and the revel F206. They're not the same. The LX had the best bass I have ever heard from a speaker. It's ridiculous. The treble is also smoother than the f206, reminded me very much of the BMR.

The f206 is more cohesive and balanced top to bottom, and the imaging is more solid. The LX to me sounded recessed in the lower mid, with emphasis in the upper mid/ low treble. Not something immediately obvious in the measurements. I didn't like the tonality. If I could get the F206 balance with the LXs qualities... That would have been my end game speaker.

 

[Chromatischism]

I've had the sierra LX and the revel F206. They're not the same. The LX had the best bass I have ever heard from a speaker. It's ridiculous. The treble is also smoother than the f206, reminded me very much of the BMR.

The f206 is more cohesive and balanced top to bottom, and the imaging is more solid. The LX to me sounded recessed in the lower mid, with emphasis in the upper mid/ low treble. Not something immediately obvious in the measurements. I didn't like the tonality. If I could get the F206 balance with the LXs qualities... That would have been my end game speaker.

That's easy to fix with EQ since the Revel has good hardware.

 

[muad]

That's easy to fix with EQ since the Revel has good hardware.

I think I was trying to say the LX needed the eq.

 

[Chromatischism]

I think I was trying to say the LX needed the eq.

I thought the LX had more bass? So some extra bass from the Revel and it should be better. I don't think they tune their speakers to be really bassy, but to have slightly higher sensitivity.

 

[mj30250]

I've had the sierra LX and the revel F206. They're not the same. The LX had the best bass I have ever heard from a speaker. It's ridiculous. The treble is also smoother than the f206, reminded me very much of the BMR.

The f206 is more cohesive and balanced top to bottom, and the imaging is more solid. The LX to me sounded recessed in the lower mid, with emphasis in the upper mid/ low treble. Not something immediately obvious in the measurements. I didn't like the tonality.

I think the LX is about as good as it gets in a passive 2-way speaker of its size and particularly at its price. I would expect a similarly well-designed 3-way to sound better, though. Revel towers tend to provide an exceptionally smooth midrange in my experience.

If I could get the F206 balance with the LXs qualities... That would have been my end game speaker.

The upcoming revision of the Sierra Tower should be announced soon.

 

[tw 2022]

Why do you say that? Why does one have to be a "newer better version" of something?

Anyway, I would argue that Revel still has a design advantage.

the simple explanation is :better drivers(arguably with the woofer ) at a lower price... sound about right to you? and fwiw , there's a lot of pro revel bias on this site..no room for another thought...??

 

[tw 2022]

I think the LX is about as good as it gets in a passive 2-way speaker of its size and particularly at its price. I would expect a similarly well-designed 3-way to sound better, thoug

exactly my thought.. the 2 ex v2 as well... but a 3 way should sound cleaner across a wide range of the mid's

 

[RMW_NJ]

The design goals are also different, I think. Dave is going for the widest horizontal dispersion and most bass extension possible from a small box. Revel seems more moderate in those areas, allowing more reasonable sensitivity.

I own the LX and EX v1. In my main listening area, the LP is 15 ft+ from the speakers. I don’t think the LX really excelled here. The low sensitivity was a bit of a problem, and I found the bass sounding unnatural at times…there was also audible port noise on some tracks. I moved them to my home theater and put BMRs in my main listening area, which IMHO are slightly better overall. I do plan on upgrading my EX v1 to the v2, as I’m curious to compare.

 

[Chromatischism]

the simple explanation is :better drivers(arguably with the woofer ) at a lower price... sound about right to you? and fwiw , there's a lot of pro revel bias on this site..no room for another thought...??

While they are important, a speaker is much more than its drivers. And, there are high quality drivers that are not expensive. I'm sure both sound great, but Revel's designs are better due to the waveguide.

 

[RMW_NJ]

I'm sure both sound great, but Revel's designs are better due to the waveguide.

I don’t think that can be stated as absolute fact. There are people, like me, that prefer the widest dispersion possible, which the Revels do not match.

 

[Chromatischism]

I don’t think that can be stated as absolute fact. There are people, like me, that prefer the widest dispersion possible, which the Revels do not match.

I'm curious, are you listening in a seat or off to a side? Are you moving around? Is the room wide or narrow?

 

[tw 2022]

While they are important, a speaker is much more than its drivers. And, there are high quality drivers that are not expensive. I'm sure both sound great, but Revel's designs are better due to the waveguide.

That's their story, and they're sticking to it..Dennis & Dave may be singing a different tune.. As a matter of fact i know Dennis isn't buying the whole "waiveguides are better" thought..we've discussed it..he will say that revel/ harman do very good research though...btw , I'm not talking about $$ alone as the measure of better.. That's your assumption of my thoughts.. The RAAL is better than any other tweeter at the price that they're offered at in the bmr and sierra's..that's my story , and I'm sticking to it...

 

[Chromatischism]

I know Dennis is not on board with waveguides however he makes larger three-way speakers that have less of a need (but not no need) for them. The benefits of directivity control and getting even dispersion of all frequencies in rooms are well understood at this point.

Speaker design is mostly about priorities and compromises, however for my needs having all of the sound coming from two drivers with one (lower) crossover and directivity control is better than having three drivers with higher output spread out on a flat baffle. Others might have different priorities, and that's fine.

I am not on board with the RAAL being a better tweeter than cheaper options, to include waveguided dome tweeters.

 

[mj30250]

I directly compared Sierra RAAL towers to F226Bes side-by-side many, many times across several musical genres and tracks in my primary room. While the Revels high-end is impressive, smooth, and detailed, the high-end on the Sierra towers is at worst just as good and at best significantly better. For well-recorded acoustic guitar, higher-frequency vocals, and the like, there's really no contest to my ears. The only time the Revel tweeters sounded better to me than the RAALs is when standing up or lying down outside of the vertical sweet spot of the ribbons. The Revels are great if you're in an environment where you're standing / walking around a lot while listening, like say in a game room. Due to their more limited vertical dispersion, the RAALs start dropping off quickly once you leave the sweet spot up or down; not so with the Be tweeters.

The LX tweeter I find is very close in tonality and overall sound signature to the Revel Be tweeter. While I've never compared the LXs and Revels side-by-side (they're in different rooms), I've never heard anything in the treble range of either one that made me think there would be any great distinction between them were I to do so. Both are excellent. Both take a back seat to the RAAL towers in this area.

On the other hand, the F226Bes offer a noticeably fuller and smoother midrange compared to the Sierra towers, as well as more slam and presence in mid-upper bass. This makes them a better and more versatile choice for harder rock / metal, large and powerful orchestral pieces, and similarly dynamic / complex material. The upcoming Klippel-revised versions of the Sierra towers will surely close this gap.

 

[Chromatischism]

I directly compared Sierra RAAL towers to F226Bes side-by-side many, many times across several musical genres and tracks in my primary room. While the Revels high-end is impressive, smooth, and detailed, the high-end on the Sierra towers is at worst just as good and at best significantly better. For well-recorded acoustic guitar, higher-frequency vocals, and the like, there's really no contest to my ears. The only time the Revel tweeters sounded better to me than the RAALs is when standing up or lying down outside of the vertical sweet spot of the ribbons. The Revels are great if you're in an environment where you're standing / walking around a lot while listening, like say in a game room. Due to their more limited vertical dispersion, the RAALs start dropping off quickly once you leave the sweet spot up or down; not so with the Be tweeters.

The LX tweeter I find is very close in tonality and overall sound signature to the Revel Be tweeter. While I've never compared the LXs and Revels side-by-side (they're in different rooms), I've never heard anything in the treble range of either one that made me think there would be any great distinction between them were I to do so. Both are excellent. Both take a back seat to the RAAL towers in this area.

On the other hand, the F226Bes offer a noticeably fuller and smoother midrange compared to the Sierra towers, as well as more slam and presence in mid-upper bass. This makes them a better and more versatile choice for harder rock / metal, large and powerful orchestral pieces, and similarly dynamic / complex material. The upcoming Klippel-revised versions of the Sierra towers will surely close this gap.

Thanks for sharing your impressions.

I've known for many years that the Sierra speakers are good speakers. But, the RAAL marketing and pseudoscientific beliefs that developed around them among some community members turned me off after a while. I don't think there's any magic in them - it's just that the dispersion characteristics will give them a different sound in your room.

I mostly don't like the higher distortion that they carry in the sensitive upper mid-range, or the higher crossover needed (more of an issue with a 2-way, not a 3-way tower), but there's also the problem of really wide dispersion in a really small room like I have. Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.

 

[Beave]

Thanks for sharing your impressions.

I've known for many years that the Sierra speakers are good speakers. But, the RAAL marketing and pseudoscientific beliefs that developed around them among some community members turned me off after a while. I don't think there's any magic in them - it's just that the dispersion characteristics will give them a different sound in your room.

I mostly don't like the higher distortion that they carry in the sensitive upper mid-range, or the higher crossover needed (more of an issue with a 2-way, not a 3-way tower), but there's also the problem of really wide dispersion in a really small room like I have. Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.

The larger (wider) RAAL used in the Sierra towers doesn't require the higher crossover that the 64-10 RAAL (used in Phil BMRs, Ascend Sierra-2EX) does. It also has lower distortion. And finally, its dispersion isn't quite so "really wide" as the dispersion of the 64-10.

 

[jhaider]

I asked for spinoramas of the RAAL tower which David posted here:

The Tower Discussion Thread! - Page 263

With our first set of towers being delivered today, I thought it was time to dedicate a thread to our exciting new loudspeaker. I will do my best to post as much information as possible and answer as many questions as I am able. But first a few pictures (sorry for the bad quality on this...

forum.ascendacoustics.com

Bass is not very extended but the DI is very smooth. Great speakers for a modern set up.

Not necessarily Ascend's fault, but I really don't the scaling on the polar map. The crossover region (IMO the most important part of a polar map) is so compressed in horizontal space that you really can't see anything.

 

[jhaider]

That's their story, and they're sticking to it..Dennis & Dave may be singing a different tune.. As a matter of fact i know Dennis isn't buying the whole "waiveguides are better" thought..we've discussed it..

Some people seem to have weird mental hangups about more intentional waveguide geometries for whatever reason, and that's fine. But unless we're talking naked drivers hung on springs all speakers incorporate waveguides of some fashion.

Ascend speakers use "waveguides."

Philharmonic speakers use "waveguides."

Any "baffle" is a waveguide.

A waveguide can be a the most simplistic style - a flat plane, which can terminate abruptly into a corner, or more gracefully into a facet or rounded edge.

A waveguide can start with a contour towards or away from the plane of the driver mounting flange.

A waveguide can have parallel sides (most speakers) or non-parallel sides (e.g. Philharmonic 3, Linkwitz LX 521)

A waveguide can be swept backwards in whole or part with rounded edges (e.g. NHT XdS/Classic Three or the Waveform or Munro eggs, or KEF LS50 as to the midrange), or facets (e.g. NHT C-3 or Joseph Audio).

It can even be "all of the above" - start with an outwards-flaring geometry and transition into a backwards sweep (e..g Revel Studio2/Salon2 or KEF Blade models and LS50 as to the tweeter).

The bottom line is any of these structures affect the on and off axis radiation of the drive units mounted on them, or "guide" the "waves," over some bandwidth.

 

[mj30250]

Thanks for sharing your impressions.

I've known for many years that the Sierra speakers are good speakers. But, the RAAL marketing and pseudoscientific beliefs that developed around them among some community members turned me off after a while. I don't think there's any magic in them - it's just that the dispersion characteristics will give them a different sound in your room.

I mostly don't like the higher distortion that they carry in the sensitive upper mid-range, or the higher crossover needed (more of an issue with a 2-way, not a 3-way tower), but there's also the problem of really wide dispersion in a really small room like I have. Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.

For a very small room, I definitely agree that you want narrow, well-controlled dispersion. One room's end game speaker can be another room's mess.

I also agree that the RAAL's "signature" sound is largely a result of their dispersion characteristics. A component of it could be that the compressed vertical dispersion is actually an advantage when combined with the wide horizontal. But, there's no need to wade back into that ocean of debate here. Subjectively, they do sound more natural and realistic with certain material. I've sat down in front of both sets of speakers with my acoustic guitar while playing along with some pristine recordings, and while the F226Be's are excellent, they still sound ever so slightly like...speakers. The Sierras sound like there's another guitar live in the room with me.

And as someone else mentioned, the larger ribbons in the towers offer fairly low distortion. Here are Amir's measurements of the Horizon, which uses the same tweeter:

I don't imagine this would ever be a problem for 99% of listeners, even at very high volumes, unless you are sitting at quite a distance from the speakers.