Do you think you need a subwoofer?

Raul I simply cannot let your assumption of audio theory trump a "fact",which greatly affects the listening experience,and "minimizes a designers expertise,and great effort"...of course you may take the comments as my being defensive about your thoughts,and it may be correct,to an extent...BUT you are absolutely clueless about your impression that more parts in the Ascent Mk-II crossover "means" loss of signal transmission or loss of musical information,or just some kind of weakness....I definitely believe your exposure to the speaker was from some demos given by your friend,who was the distributor,and your claims are baseless to me,and owner of the design,and someone who was at it's inception into the audio community.From it's introduction onwards.

Distributors want to "distribute/sell" equipment.They "generally" are not privvy to the minutiae of design,and I don't blame them.

Your claim about the Ascent crossover being a weakness "absolutely" tells me you have no knowledge what-so-ever,as to what has gone into this design.

What we want from a speaker,aside from great sound,is the ability to drive it with a wide variety of amplifiers.Hence,keeping the load/impedence relatively easy for whatever amp one wants to use.

We want a constant impedence,and a sensitive design with good efficiency.The vast majority of "popular" speakers today are poor representations of this.ALL of the newer Avalon Designs are now ported(Re-read my previous posting about the .5 Q factor and transient behavior,as they are FACT,not assumption)and have loads that go down to 3.2 ohms,which are hard on an amp(distortion?).
They also have internal crossovers,which are absolutely not the best place for sensitive parts,but lower production costs.
The AVATAR was the last design Charles Hansen designed for the "original "Avalon!It was designed to a price point(unlike the "cost no object" Ascent MK-II)and was a far cheaper product than the Ascent.Still a very good speaker,but totally outclassed by it's big brother!.

The Ascent MK-II was a clean slate speaker design that was designed with no limit on costs,hence the "two" external crossovers(total of 110 lbs,and 350 lbs for the speakers themselves)and the ABILITY to keep a CONSTANT impedence of 6 ohms across the ENTIRE freq range.It NEVER drops below 5.5 ohms.The crossover's complexity is another reason why "each seperate driver" see's it's own dedicated amplifier,from one amp ONLY,AND the sophisticated damping circuits employeed allow for this HUGE advantage!Far less IMD(a term you like alot).

Your lack of "true knowledge" about this design(having heard it is no substitute for actually knowing every aspect of it design benefits),and the incorrect/negative comments made about the crossover,takes away from the original designer's extreme efforts that went into "that" speaker!!

AND the design efforts were thorough,and EXTREME!!One reason I know this is I had followed the design development(from afar,but greatly interested) and personally knew the original reviewer,who gave credibility and exposure to such a "landmark "product.
It is a "textbook" speaker,for those "understanding" the significant advantages of "constant impedence","easy load","extraordinary transient response","open sound with stunninmg clarity/definition/harmonic truth",and almost non-existant stored energy,not to mention a "still" unequalled ability to soundstage properly!..

Of course you are free to draw any conclusions you want,but as of the here and now,you have exposed yourself as being human,like the rest of us...That is you make assumptions without "all" the facts,let theory affect your thoughts,and are as influenced by industry trends as all of us!

Not a bad thing,really.Just human!

Best.

Dear Mark: What is all " these " about?. You return ( by any topic ) again and again.

I never say that the Ascents were a bad design or a bad sounding speaker. I only say that IMHO its crossover is one of its disadvantages, because you can't tell me that that speaker is " perfect " with out any disadvantages.

266 parts where the signal must pass on ( see it. ) could be an advantage ( from your point of view ) or could not be an advantage ( from my point of view ).

CH made its own speaker trade-offs design where you or any one else can or can't agree/like ( I'm not saying nothing like an in deep criticism on the design. ), it is just audio opinion democracy.

Please read what a Ascent owner ( that change to the Eidolon ) say about:

++++ The Ascents are not particularly efficient, meaning that they like amplifiers that deliver lots of clean power. I have been running them with VAC 140 monoblocks, which is a great match, but they also sound great with good solid state amps. These particular speakers are the Mark II model. This means that the drivers and crossovers were upgraded from the original release. Eventually, Avalon used its experience in developing their massive and extremely pricey Osiris model to create the Eidolon, which has replaced the Ascents in their lineup of products. The Eidolon does all of the same things that the Ascents do, only better. +++++

other than what we can read, you say: +++ and a sensitive design with good efficiency. " ++++

well this owner thinks: ++++ The Ascents are not particularly efficient.... " +++++

You know another opinion: just democracy!.

And there are extreme opinions about, take a look:

++++I'll get straight to the point. The Vandersteen 1 B loudspeaker is, at $695 the pair, something of an embarrassment for its pricier transducing brethren in the High End. Not because it is better than the $7000 ProAc Response Three, $9200 Stax F41, or $15,000 Avalon Ascent Mk II , outstanding speakers with which I am personally familiar), but because it is so good at $695.00 that one must wonder why we would spend 10 times as much or more for an incremental improvement that is certainly not commensurate. " +++++

Returning to the " constant impedance " on the Ascents I can't find a real measure about but I find from the Eclipse and Avatar: where their impedance specs you can read: nominal 6 Ohms and no below 5.5 Ohms ( similar of what you posted on the Ascents. ) that in the Stereophile Eclipse review its REAL electrival impedance is far far from be " constant impedance ", not only that but has trouble about depending which amp you are using to handle. The speaker efficiency is too in the low side ( 86db ) like the Avatar and Ascent: not like you say: ++ with good efficiency ++++

Could you show me that Ascent " constant impedance " graph that you are speaking? and ( between other things ) that is one of its crossover design advantage?.

Maybe you misunderstood the Ascent " crossover advantages " or think that your opinion is the " good " one and maybe it is for you: no problem about, is fine with me: only permit to " speak/talk " my self opinion about ( that I'm not saying in any way that is the " universal true " and nothing but the true. ), Mark it is only other opinion: not big deal on...!!

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Raul,I am glad you state it is only your "opinion".Now we are getting somewhere!

... Also,you did a nice web-search regarding your "latest" post info on the Ascents....

That does not replace my extensive exposure to the product....BTW,I completely disagree about the Eidolon's superiority,as I specifically auditioned them,and compared.I have also spoken with numerous folks who felt the Ascent was the superior design,and they owned both!Information "not" gotten by doing a web-search,but in actual conversation.
Also,one can "easily" make a case for your own speakers having poor time domain issues(among other things),as they are used by you(just an example).You have a front firing tweeter,a back firing tweeter(without much room behind it)and an add on super-tweeter,which will be a disadvantage(technically)if not extremely close to the front tweeter.Of course,I have not heard it,but according to "your own" way of viewing the "technical" issues,it may not be very good.Just my "assumption"!-:)
I am being sarcastic,to make my point,in case you do not follow me.

The ONLY reason why I seem to be making it "a big deal",is because you are totally in the dark regarding actual negative comments,which do NOT stem from actual long term exposure,and knowledge of the design.You are very knowledgeable on many matters.This is NOT one of them,and both you and I know it!!

Actually,and in truth,if you go back about a week or two ago(on this thread)it is YOU who came out of left field and attacked my input regarding a comment made by me two years ago,regarding the "sub" issue!A surprise to me,at the time,especially coming from you.

Believe me,I am simply giving you some "heat",but have absolutely kind feelings towards you,as always....

You are simply going to have to be prepared for some folks to challenge your input when it is "wrong",and accept it.

BTW,I have the "ruler flat" read-outs on the speakers,but am not about to photo/scan it just to prove my point.You can use this to gain some silly advantage,if you want.

I look forward to suporting you on future threads,like I usually have in the past.Just post accurate information.

Best to you Raul,
Mark

Dear Mark: Like I already say it: just an opinion, pure democracy and no big deal about!!!

" Constant impedance ", eh?: is this a fact or an " assumption " ?. I already take advantage: jaja-ja!

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Hi Raul, since you did not want to play in my thread "In room response", I am back. First off I have nothing against you. Just the bull--it you keep expounding. You are contradictory, not just with me and others who post here, but with yourself (perhaps the biggest sin. Next to lying to yourself?), in almost all of your posts and I find it offensive. Especially when you are unable to verify or answer the most simple, albeit hard, questions. This thread "do you need a subwoofer",by itself, is full of it.

You say, "My audio/sound reproduction priorities are: neutral and natural tonal balance/pitch, Accuracy ( low distortion, low noise, no colorations, no cliping, grain free, liniarity, no compression, etc...), timbre, dynamic, focus and soundstage . My whole audio system target is to be nearest to the recording!!!"

"My audio/electronics priority is: accuracy/synergy/confidence/constant/."

Tell me Raul, How do you have any of those priorities when your in room freq response is +- 20db? Accuracy, how is that accurate? Natural tonal balance and pitch, how does one have accurate pitch and a natural tonal balance when related freq are +- 20db? No cororation, isn't a plus 15db or minus 20 db freq response a coloration?
Dynamics, you can't have maximum dynamics when you have dropouts of -5 to -20 db across the sound spectrum and +50 to +20db peaks limiting your volume levels.

Raul, you know for a fact that a resonably good, or better yet, a great freq response is one of the most important properties for audio reproduction. One of the basic tenets of audio reproduction is a response of 20-20,000hz. Thats why you do it in your preamp, thats why you want full range speakers or subs and super tweeters, because it does not matter where the error takes place the result is the same. One of the reasons why, if I were to buy your $12,800 preamp, I would pay for a +-001% freq response. Where there are changes in freq response you do one of two things. In a dip you loose detail, decay, dynamics, and the ability to get pitch and a "natural sound" amongst other things.
Where there are peaks you obscure detail by overpowering other freq and it makes the music sound "too loud" amongs other things.
Combine these two problems and and you can hear why it is so important and it does not matter where the comes from! The effect is still the same.

Another problem, of modal ringing, needs to be addressed. And there is only one way to obtain this, and it aint frilly curtains and doilies. You have to stop the low freq reverb that obscures music and imaging.

.
An in room response of 20-20,000hz response is preferable, within reason +-2.5db (and thats debatable) along with a subjective in room response that is pleasurable to the ear. And please please don't hang me with a numbers game.

Also the importance of modal ringing is not to be underestemated. This must be obtained at a certain volume level if it is to approach anything like a real "audiophile" level of dynamics and realism. Those are two goals that are hardly unreasonable.

So, how do you have all of these important priorities?
The answer is you don't. You cannot have those priorities in a room with pretty curtains, doilies and a pure wool virgin rug. It ain't happening and untill people like yourself stop fostering this false info and admit the truth, you and others will not be even close to any accurate reproduction. You said, "thanks God I have a good room" "I am really lucky about", well you better be thanking God or some virgin saint of acoustics. And luck? I am pretty sure that as a scientist you really don't believe that luck has something to do with room acoustics, and its effect on audio reproduction, because the acoustics for your room are no different than any other room. Now you can continue to foster this bull that you have a great room and an accurate system to others but I for one don't believe anything you say. An untreated room is a disaster pure and simple! And yours is untreated.. so guess what? It is a disaster. Now you may treat the room up to a point that is good for you, with frilly curtains and sofas in front of your speakers but untill you admit the reality you will never progress.

Why is this such a "hard" subject? I don't know, but my guess is that you really dont want to see the Emperor Wears No Clothes. It will force you to admit certain truths that you find disturbing and against your belief system and dogmas. And it will reveal the hard cold fact that any system in an untreated room is a mess, which will be enable you to continue to foster overpriced equipment to an unsuspecting public.

What do I find all of this so disturbing? It is that your desires (in you stated goals) are exactly the same as mine! Why do we find it so hard to come to a meeting point?

In this thread you veered off course to save face, make contradictions and false claims even when others are agreeing with you. I am sure IMD is a problem, but please show me the problem and then reveal to me the answer, how do I lower IMD? How low do I need to go? How do I measure this? Or do I need your calibrated golden ears?

Raul, why do you find it so hard to answer my questions? Are they not relevent? Do they reveal too much that you are uncomfortable with? You are a manufacturer of very expensive equipment, do you not want me to believe that you have nothing but the best? Do you not want me to believe that when you test certain equipment, worlds best tonearm and 25 phono cartridges etc.. that you system is so inaccurate that it is useless. Would it not let the cat out of the bag to reveal that you system can not sound even anything like accurate when you have frequency deviations of plus/minus30db?

I say to you, lets start over with some meaningful dialog. And while we can continue to agree to disagree we can also be truthful with ourselves and others, in that way we can progress toward our quest.
I am sorry if you really did not know any of this, and really are ignorant of room acoustics and their effects. If that is the case you really need to do some searching.

Bob