If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It

Thanks to everyone who weighed in. Lots of different views and I wanted to try to summarize.

Several people questioned ASR’s general methodology or credibility (@wsrrsw, @audioman58, @xmbw4). I understand that skepticism — ASR has a strong measurements-first ideology that rubs some people the wrong way. But I’d ask those folks to notice that the video isn’t making ASR’s usual ’measurements are everything’ argument. It’s making a narrower, more specific claim: that the measurements Danny used to justify this particular mod were methodologically insufficient for the precision work he claimed to be doing, and that the resulting changes are demonstrably worse by almost any metric you care to use.

@mapman and others took a sensible both-sides view — ASR useful, GR useful, let’s not fight. I understand that position. But I’d push back gently: the both-sides framing treats this as a dispute about values (measurements vs. listening) when it’s actually a dispute about the quality of specific measurements used to justify specific claims. Those are different arguments.

@dz13 made a fair point that Danny responds to owners who are already dissatisfied. True, and worth noting. But the consent of the owner doesn’t validate the technical methodology or the public claims made about the speaker and its designer.

@nlitworld raised the most technically substantive challenge from the GR-sympathetic side, noting that gated measurements have been standard practice for decades. This is correct — and actually the video addresses it directly. Amir’s point isn’t that gated measurements are useless, but that they’re unsuitable for the degree of precision Danny’s modifications required. Using a coarse tool for fine work and then claiming improvement is the problem. If the defects are gross and obvious (as in the Klipsch RP600M case, which Amir concedes Danny handled reasonably), gated measurements are adequate. If the speaker is already extremely well-optimized — as the Ascend Sierra 2EX demonstrably is — they aren’t.

@prof made a useful contribution by pushing back on xmbw4’s sweeping dismissal of ASR’s scientific credentials. Amir’s background, his use of the Klippel NFS, and Floyd Toole’s endorsement of his methodology are not nothing. Toole is probably the most important researcher in the scientific study of loudspeaker perception, and his approval matters. I’d add to prof’s point: the Klippel Near Field Scanner that Amir uses — and that Dave at Ascend also purchased after early critical reviews motivated him to upgrade his measurement capabilities — costs $150,000. Dave invested in that equipment, improved his designs based on what it told him, and built a better speaker. That’s the right response to criticism.

@decooney, @simonmoon, and @boomerbillone all offered personal experience with GR upgrades. Interestingly, these accounts aren’t uniform. Simonmoon and boomerbillone report genuine improvements on the speakers they worked with, and I don’t doubt that. But decooney’s account is worth looking at — his friend’s upgraded speaker measured flat, but sounded like "some of the life was taken out of it," and the owner’s verdict was that it sounds "okay." That’s a telling result: technically flatter, but not obviously better to listen to. In any case, Amir himself credits Danny with a legitimate fix on the Klipsch RP600M, so the question was never whether GR upgrades can ever be worthwhile. It’s whether this upgrade, on this speaker, was justified — and the evidence says no.

The core point I keep wanting to return to is that Dave at Ascend built the Sierra 2EX using state-of-the-art measurement tools, years of careful listening and iteration, and a deep understanding of how drivers, crossovers, and room acoustics interact. When Amir gave an early Ascend speaker a poor review, Dave didn’t argue or dismiss it — he studied the methodology, bought the same measurement equipment, and improved his designs.

What the video documents is that Danny, using inadequate measurements, made confident public claims that this carefully optimized speaker needed fixing, sold a $500 kit that introduced measurable distortion, degraded the tweeter’s performance, and worsened the off-axis response — and then doubled down when challenged. That should matter to anyone in this hobby who cares about accountability.

hilde45 says "It’s whether this upgrade, on this speaker, was justified — and the evidence says no."

I must disagree.

Based on lots of experience (mine and others) Danny’s mod has the potential to improve the sound of the speakers. Note that Amir was testing an original version of the mod, and Danny subsequently adjusted it to meet some of his objections. Danny did not “double down when challenged;” he addressed Amir's concerns with a modified design, then offered that design to Dave for free.

Neither Danny nor Amir seem to have listened to the differences (although Amir had a pair, with one modified and one original). In any case you would need a modified pair to hear how sound stage and imaging are affected. The question of which version sounds better, and whether Danny’s version is an improvement, remains open.

@trumpetman48  — Fair points, worth addressing. 

You're right that Amir tested version one, and that Danny produced a revised version two. I'd concede "doubled down" was too strong — he did make some adjustments. But the video actually shows Danny's v2 measurements alongside v1, and Amir's response is essentially: these are nearly identical, so what exactly was fixed? The revision doesn't clearly address the core problems identified.

On listening: you say neither Danny nor Amir listened to the differences, and that listening is what ultimately matters. But that's precisely what Amir asked Danny to provide — a controlled listening comparison. That request is sitting unanswered. The irony is that this objection lands harder on Danny than on Amir.

And one factual correction: Amir did have a modified pair — one stock Sierra, one with Danny's crossover, tested side by side. That's the entire setup of the review.

"The question of which sounds better remains open" is doing a lot of work in your comment. It concedes all the measurement evidence and then retreats to uncertainty about listening. That's not a small concession. The measurements are not ambiguous about distortion levels, off-axis degradation, and frequency response changes. If Danny wants to overcome that evidence, the path is clear: produce a listening test.

@hilde48 — To me, measurements are a big part of the story, but only in service of “which sounds better.”  Fancy measuring systems can only take you so far. Sound preferences vary, and listening tests have their problems. But that is another discussion! 

I’m sure you are aware of Ron Bernay and his sound shed, designed and equipped for controlled listening comparisons. If the parties involved were willing to provide Ron with 2 sets of speakers, original and modified, we could get a better take on the sonic comparison. However, they would need to commit considerable time and resources, and I don’t know how high a priority this would have.

Amir’s distortion and off-axis measurements were on version 1. Danny showed distortion in his second video, and it was far lower than what Amir showed. Danny’s final off-axis measurements were virtually identical to the original. Amir, at least twice, said the measurements were “off the charts.” He could have done what Danny did and adjusted the range on his charts. 

I admit to a bias, but I would expect Danny’s modifications — crossover, tube connectors, and no-res damping, would result in noticeably better sound stage and imaging. Whether they would be more pleasing and engaging is another question.