I kind of agree, I was always led to believe that the 64-10 has a much wider directivity than pretty much any dome but it seems to roll off in the highs just like a dome. In fact, the Genelec 8341 that uses a 3/4" tweeter has wider directivity and is generally much smoother, I'm sure there is nothing special about that tweeter in terms of cost either.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Ascend Sierra 2 Speaker Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
I kind of agree, I was always led to believe that the 64-10 has a much wider directivity than pretty much any dome but it seems to roll off in the highs just like a dome. In fact, the Genelec 8341 that uses a 3/4" tweeter has wider directivity and is generally much smoother, I'm sure there is nothing special about that tweeter in terms of cost either.
Please send in the Horizon/RAAL if at all possible. It will give us a great idea of what the top of the Ascend line looks like!
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
The "future" of woofer cone materials, woven polypropylene...
mmm. 30+ years ago it was done, extremely successfully, but not by SEAS. Maybe they've just "discovered" it?
So apart from that rather nasty resonance, which would rule them out for many, they appear to be a solid buy, albeit not cheap, but not over the top either.
mmm. 30+ years ago it was done, extremely successfully, but not by SEAS. Maybe they've just "discovered" it?
So apart from that rather nasty resonance, which would rule them out for many, they appear to be a solid buy, albeit not cheap, but not over the top either.
DI curves are great but pretty odd how different the manufacturer curves are from the measured ones, one doesn't usually see that much disparity, so that's pretty disappointing. Luckily these errors are largely EQable.
Nah, I think the directivity still looks significantly wider than a typical dome. A dome will tend to have a steeper rising DI curve in the top octave or two. Moreover, look at how low the early reflections DI curve is overall. Under 2-3 dB for the vamost of the curve, and quite flat all the way to 20kHz. It's important to note most domes have a directivity rolloff in the top octave, whereas the ascend's rolloff is consistent on and off axis.
Also visible in how wide the contour map is.
Nah, I think the directivity still looks significantly wider than a typical dome. A dome will tend to have a steeper rising DI curve in the top octave or two. Moreover, look at how low the early reflections DI curve is overall. Under 2-3 dB for the vamost of the curve, and quite flat all the way to 20kHz. It's important to note most domes have a directivity rolloff in the top octave, whereas the ascend's rolloff is consistent on and off axis.
Also visible in how wide the contour map is.
Last edited:
Hugo9000
Addicted to Fun and Learning
Wishful thinking on their 'specs' lol:
http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/SRM2/srm2specs.html
http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/SRM2/srm2specs.html
astr0b0y
Active Member
I'd be very appreciative of you sending in your Horizon for testing.
I don't think they're all that different when you look closely at Ascend's measurements, they just somehow look a lot better with the program Dave uses, it might be because it's a small picture and it masks fine details, the scale seems about right so I'm not sure.
Looking closer you're right the RAAL does have slightly better directivity than the 8341 tweeter, but mostly just in the 3-6k range, I was expecting the narrow ribbon to be more extended in the highs. The 8341 is flat on axis and doesn't roll off as much off-axis in the last octave. Even though the directivity of the 64-10 is flat in the last octave, that's only because it's rolling off on-axis as well as off. Also note that the 3-6k range is technically a resonance, there is excess energy on and off-axis in that range. I've long theorized that this is responsible for the signature sound people claim the 64-10 to have.
Stump909
Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2018
- Messages
- 80
- Likes
- 53
Keep in mind the massive price gap.
Also keep in mind that's not really what the data shows. The RAAL has better off axis horizontal dispersion than the 8341. This is pretty clear from the horizontal directivity graph and the horizontal polar being +-20° wider. The vertical directivity is another story though.
Last edited:
"Better" is pushing it, imo. It's definitely wider, but less controlled especially in the transition from mids to lows. And the argument between controlled/wide/narrow directivity is too controversial to just declare a winner based on that.
If widest horizontal directivity automatically won then everybody would be using ribbon tweeters.
ROOSKIE
Major Contributor
Interesting, a lot of people drop these speakers into any conversation involving extreme value in the 1-2k range. I mean it sure seems many people really love this company. I'd love to actually hear them, that said these are not measuring as anything all that unexpected for the price.
Of the overall speakers yes but the RAAL 64-10 is probably at least 10x the cost of the tweeter used in the 8341.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #34
I didn't have them side by side but the BS22 has nowhere near the power capabilities of these. So not a substitute in far field.
Since we already know Amir likes to listen loud (from the Genelec review), I’d wager he’d like the Ascend as it gets louder (~4dB louder if we believe the manufacturer specs for both).
EDIT: Ha, predicted it.
Your point about "better" is fair. But, explain to me why having wider dispersion would be a negative. I'm genuinely curious about what the rationale behind that idea is.
It's kind of hard to say that when the response isn't very neutral on the Sierra 2, the directivity indices are very good which makes them excellent speakers to EQ but there is a clear resonance in the 3-6k range and they rolloff in the final octave. They would make an awesome active speaker though, with the same DSP treatment that the Genelecs received, the Sierra 2 could be just as good. Most of the problems are in the woofer's range though so I wonder how much better the EX version is with the W16 midwoofer.
In Dr. Toole's research, wide dispersion is preferred by the majority so I wouldn't say it's a negative but you have to look at everything, not just the directivity index. The 8341 has a much more neutral response both on and off-axis with a very gently rising DI, the Sierra 2 has a 1db advantage in the early reflections DI, it's a minor difference when you consider the difference in frequency response.
I don't want to turn this into a directivity-width-discussion as we have a problem on this forum with threads splintering off into tangents for pages and pages. I'll just refer to this thread with a reference about how some people seem to have a clear preference for one over the other, even if the general "average" seems to be "wide". I responded in more detail there.
I've seen you make this broad claim about "resonance" in RAAL tweeters before on other forums so I will quote the explanation that was provided to you by the speaker designer the last time so that others here may gain a better understanding of what the spinorama may be showing in that frequency range (note that this quote is in reference to the S-2EX, however the explanation is related to the phenomena in the S2 as they are both 2-way speakers using the same tweeter):
Ascend;58525034 said:Per Toole “Differences in on and off axis frequency responses, in or out of the crossover regions, are not resonances...
Aaron,
Previously, you labeled what appears to your eyes as a rise in the off-axis response of the RAAL between 4-9kHz as "excess" energy, now you are calling it resonance. You completely and conveniently avoided responding to my comments about your post in that other thread, so now you are posting similar here.
I'll mention it again to you since you religiously follow Dr. Toole's science: “Differences in on and off axis frequency responses, in or out of the crossover regions, are not resonances, although such differences can be heard in normally reflective rooms.”
Please explain to me how what you labelled as "textbook resonance" in our Sierra-2EX does not manifest itself whatsoever in the on-axis response or even the listening window response, yet is visible in the soundpower response.
Are you able to do that?
I already gave you a rather clear explanation in that other thread, but you conveniently ignored it. There is actually more to it than my previous explanation so I will provide a bit more detail. The reality is such that the bump you think you see isn't actually a bump, it simply looks that way due to the slight dip that start at ~8.7kHz and the slight dip that start at 3kHz.
The slight low Q dip at 3kHz is due to the woofer crossing over to the tweeter. The 8.7kHz dip that extends onward is due to the faceplate design of the tweeter. This dip becomes stronger as the tweeter faceplate becomes more coplanar to the microphone, with the greatest "dip" occurring at 90 degs off-axis, while none when the faceplate is perpendicular to the mic (on-axis).
This is clearly evidenced in the polar response of this speaker as published on our website, with the largest dip at 8.7kHz occurring at 90degs OA (where the faceplate is now coplanar with the mic (inline).
10mm wide slot opening of the tweeter faceplate = .39 inches.
1/4 wavelength of 8.7kHz = .39 inches.
Further evidence of the actual polar response also clearly reveals the slight off-axis dip at crossover but more importantly, it clearly reveals the remarkably wide horiz off-axis response from ~4kHz on up. There is no rise in the response from ~4kHz on up, instead this bandwidth remains nearly at the same amplitude as at 0 degrees, aside from the dip that starts to become evident at 8.7kHz as I described above. An easier way to see this in the polar response, the 4kHz - ~9kHz range remains nearly at the same amplitude as the 600Hz response from the woofer, from 0 degs to even 90 degs off.
This is also clearly evidenced in the DI, which you ignored. Notice how the DI at 600Hz = +3 and the 4kHz-8kHz range is at ~+3 - +4 and extremely linear up to that ~9kHz range I mentioned. The DI matches up well with the polar response, even though the DI also includes the vertical response.
If you truly understood how the spinorama measurements are calculated and the weighted averaging used in the soundpower response, you would understand precisely what you are seeing
In summary, no - this is not resonance; you are seeing extremely wide horizontal dispersion in the soundpower response combined with a slight off-axis dip at crossover (common with just about every speaker) and slight dip at 8.7kHz at extreme off-axis angles due to the tweeter’s faceplate design.
I find it disturbing that you continue to harp on what you call an "issue" with our speaker, first calling it "excess" energy, now calling it "resonance" - when in fact, it is just wider dispersion than you are used to seeing with other spins so it doesn't display the more extreme downward angle. You keep stating that the speaker will sound "bright" - yet you yourself felt the RAAL you heard in Dennis's speaker was the opposite of bright, and the many thousands of our RAAL based speaker owners consider the speakers extremely detailed and spacious but yet relaxed and natural, never bright. When actual owners chime in, you dismiss it as some type of cult like behavior or fanboyism, while you fully admit you have never once heard our speakers.
You once stated that you wished more and more manufacturers would publish spins, and you asked to see the spins of ours, and I delivered. Your continual misinterpretation of our spin measurements is precisely the reason why manufacturers who do use them for design purposes, avoid publishing them.
I think you are simply incapable of admitting you are wrong, or perhaps, as others have warned me but I refuse to accept, you actually do have ulterior motives - either way, it is time for you to start using a different speaker example to try and back up your claims with (odd that you seem to never pick a Harman model).
One last comment, rather than trying to draw lines through the soundpower response, let's just examine the soundpower response when remove the off-axis crossover dip, and the high frequency off-axis dip caused by the faceplate.
I trust by now you understand the published spin measurements? Do you still see "excess energy" or "resonance" (note, you can clearly see the only parts I edited)
No, our Sierra-2EX is not perfect, it has flaws - just as every speaker has flaws - but your interpretation of its measurements have been and continue to be wrong, unless you wish to redefine resonance to include wide dispersion.
Now you could argue that Dave from Ascend may be wrong that there is not a bump in the on-axis/listening window because Amir's measurements seem to indicate that there is one. I am curious how this will play out if Dave decides to respond on ASR. Regardless, I believe having the manufacturers explanation adds value to the discussion.
Last edited:
Similar threads
