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


Exhibit A for: If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It

Object Lesson: If It Ain't Broke, Don't Say It's Broke and Damage the Good Reputation of A Well Regarded Company So You Can Make Money on Gullible Viewers

This is a critical review by Audio Science Review regarding a speaker crossover upgrade kit sold by GR Research for the Ascend Sierra-2EX V2 speakers. The video features a neutral A/B comparison and argues, with evidence, that the measurement methodology was flawed, that the performance was made worse, that false concerns about impedance are asserted, and overall there is no objective evidence of improvement and that the Ascend Sierra-2EX V2 is already a well-engineered speaker that does not require aftermarket modifications. 

https://youtu.be/BhTnK0UiGgA?si=WMFcvHliLGh9xxNk

hilde45

@nlitworld  The "good enough for the price point" insinuation runs directly against the documented evidence. The Sierra-2EX woofer is a purely custom SEAS Excel build developed with SEAS's CTO — originally a cost-no-object driver from an $8,000/pair speaker — and the V2 crossover took 1.5 years of development using the Klippel NFS. Dave even offers buyers a full CEA-2034 measurement suite of their individual pair. More pointedly: Dave publicly documented why he set the tweeter crossover where he did — specifically to ease the ribbon's workload, lower distortion, and improve power handling. That's the exact parameter Danny altered, resulting in 6% tweeter distortion. It wasn't a compromise. It was an engineered decision, explained in writing, before Danny touched it.

Measurements: https://www.ascendacoustics.com/products/sierra-2ex-v2-pair?variant=40428361777206

Other descriptions: https://forum.ascendacoustics.com/home/forum/ascend-acoustics-discussions/loudspeakers-subwoofers-accessories-electronics/6347-introducing-the-sierra-2ex?7401-Introducing-the-Sierra-2EX!!!=

 

But again, we just ignore the time and phase issue built when using those components? It's OK to say it was an engineering decision to insist on using that tweeter and to trade lower distortion and better power handling by giving up phase interference. Really it sounds like Dave and Danny probably just favor different design ideologies when building speakers. Both sides are guilty of throwing shade at the other's design and both bring valid points to the table on how their design has merit. Both sides use measurement systems that work well for the design parameters they want to hit, and are willing to make engineering sacrifices for the parameters they deem less important.

 

I think Danny's v2 mod was a great compromise between the two design ideologies addressing all those issues, and was still done on the "old-school" clio system.

@nlitworld 

Thank you for your advocacy for audio justice. This is not about "designers" or "YouTubers". There is no right answer - folks just do the best that they can.

 

The phase concern keeps coming up, but it's still an assertion rather than a demonstrated finding. Dave spent 1.5 years optimizing the Sierra-2EX with a Klippel NFS — if there's a genuine phase problem, the evidence for it needs to come from somewhere more reliable than measurements Danny made with a system that lacks the resolution to detect the fine detail this speaker was optimized around.

The "both sides, different ideologies" framing is more sophisticated than earlier versions of this argument, but it still sidesteps the key asymmetry. This isn't a case of two equally valid design philosophies producing different tradeoffs. Danny's v1 mod produced 6% tweeter distortion in the frequency range where our hearing is most sensitive — a finding Dave predicted in advance and documented exactly why he had avoided it. That's not a design ideology difference. That's a measurable, documented harm.

"Old-school Clio" is a generous framing for a system that demonstrably lacks the resolution needed for the precision work Danny claimed to be doing. The issue isn't that it's old — it's that gated measurements smoothed to 1/3 octave can't see what the Klippel NFS sees, and Danny was making claims that required seeing it. Calling it old-school doesn't change that mismatch.

If Danny's v2 is genuinely a great compromise, that case still needs to be made with evidence — measurements of sufficient resolution, or a controlled listening comparison. Neither has appeared.

I dont know the SR dude who improve speakers.

 

Here his answer to Amir ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fWD6VcWJjc&t=876s

I discussed with Amir in the past and he demonstrated his ignorance of acoustics ...

It is well explained by Prof Milind Kunchur ...

it is one page to read at the end of this adress page and called "pseudoscience" in audio...

Try to contradict Kunchur  description of Amir... smiley

Also there is an interesting long article about hearing and sound by Kunchur... Read it before answering to understand why Amir sell a site (marketing) not science ...

https://sites.google.com/view/kunchur/audio-acoustics