How and which to choose: Phil 3 or Ascend RAAL Towers?

[yugnat]

I'm putting together a new listening area in a dedicated space in my large office / bonus space above my garage. This will be for music only, I listen mainly to blues (electric), r&b, some jazz, plenty of live albums (my favorite), some current rock stuff (but not much). I have no immediate plans to include a subwoofer(s) but I would consider adding it farther down the road if necessary. Right now I want to nail down which towers to set my sights on. Unfortunately due to the WAF I can't bring in speakers for demo, this will be a 'one and done' type of acquisition. I would like to stay at or below $3K for the pair but I've been particularly drawn to the Phil 3's at $3,500 so would be willing to stretch it. Having said that I can't ignore the Ascend Tower w/ RAAL coming in much lower at $2,800 which would be much easier on the budget. I understand the differences in driver configuration, and that the Phil's dig lower negating the future purchase of a sub, but if I want to buy the better tower for my purposes how do I go about deciding? For the sake of discussion, which would you choose and why? Funny thing, throughout all my reading I've seen a lot of comparisons between Phil's, Ascends, Salks, etc in general but not really anything in depth comparing the Phil 3 and Ascend Tower RAAL.

Disclaimer, I have hard wood floors in the room and some wall/ceiling angles non-conducive to music playback (vaulted due to the walls meeting the roof line) - however room treatments will definitely be addressed so no need to get into those recommendations.

Thanks!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

How about the Philharmonic slim tower for $2,000 (35Hz-20kHz +/-2dB, F3 = 33Hz), which also has RAAL tweeter?

The Slims Tower

 

[slipperybidness]

Flip a coin.....seriously.

The ONLY way to know for sure is to listen to each over an extended demo in your listening room.

If that isn't an option, then it is literally a coin-toss. Both sets of speakers on your short list are excellent choices, and they will probably sound more alike than different (as good speakers should). Also, both companies have a track record for some really high performing speakers at reasonable prices, and both have a reputation for good customer service both pre-sale and post-sale.

I'm sure that where 1 speaker really excels, the other will be at a disadvantage, and vice-versa. And I doubt that you would be disappointed in either choice. That being said, the cheaper option may be the better option.

There was a thread on another forum where a guy got the Sierra2 and the Philharmonitors in for a side-by-side. Guess what? He kept BOTH! He decided that the Sierra 2 was indeed a "better" speaker, but it is also almost double the price! I do have a pair of the Philharmonitors and can certainly attest that they are fine speakers!

 

[yugnat]

How about the Philharmonic slim tower for $2K (35Hz-20kHz +/-2dB, F3 = 33Hz), which also has RAAL tweeter?

The Slims Tower

That would give you $1K for subwoofer.

I did consider that, and it does allow me to break up the overall amount spent into two separate purchases which is nice. But then I think for $500 more I could have the Phil 3's, in which Dennis obviously does a superior job integrating the drivers for full range vs. me trying to add a sub to the Slim's. But you do bring up a viable 3rd option... Thanks for making it more complicated

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I did consider that, and it does allow me to break up the overall amount spent into two separate purchases which is nice. But then I think for $500 more I could have the Phil 3's, in which Dennis obviously does a superior job integrating the drivers for full range vs. me trying to add a sub to the Slim's. But you do bring up a viable 3rd option... Thanks for making it more complicated

$500 more?

The slim tower is $2,000 and the Phil3 is $3,500? That's $1,500 more?

The Phil3 can go down to ~ 25Hz, but unlike subwoofers and some towers, you can't adjust the bass level on the Phil3 like you could with subwoofers.

If you are going to buy a subwoofer anyway, $1,500 could buy a nice subwoofer.

If you are not going to buy subwoofers (like me), then it may be a good idea to buy towers that would allow you to adjust the bass like you would adjust the bass on a subwoofer.

 

[yugnat]

Sorry I didn't clarify, I meant the $3,500 Phil 3's are $500 more than the Slims plus the $1,000 you mentioned for the subwoofer. I really didn't think I would add a sub to the Phil 3's if I went with them. Is there a pair of tower's with adjustable bass in this price range?

So I've got Slims with a $1,000 - $1,500 subwoofer, Phil 3's, or Ascend Tower RAAL's. Good thing about the Slims / sub combo is I can split the purchase up, and the ability to adjust the bass level.

 

[JonnyFive23517]

I'd recommend the slims and a nice sealed subwoofer like the SVS SB13. I don't think you could go wrong. I think the slims at $2k are an incredible value.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Sorry I didn't clarify, I meant the $3,500 Phil 3's are $500 more than the Slims plus the $1,000 you mentioned for the subwoofer. I really didn't think I would add a sub to the Phil 3's if I went with them. Is there a pair of tower's with adjustable bass in this price range?

So I've got Slims with a $1,000 - $1,500 subwoofer, Phil 3's, or Ascend Tower RAAL's. Good thing about the Slims / sub combo is I can split the purchase up, and the ability to adjust the bass level.

What is your room dimensions?

I think more than anything else, the bass requires the most adjustments. It could be secondary to your personal preference, room size, speaker placement, or other reasons. If you've owned a subwoofer in the past, you know about the adjustments. It is NOT one-size-fit-all bass.

 

[yugnat]

The room is an 'L' shape, not the friendliest (the floor, walls, and ceiling are urethane foam insulated though). Instead of giving you all 6 wall lengths I can tell you the volume is about 4,300 cu ft, the ceiling is only 9' and the walls have 45 degree vaulted sections due to the roof line (this is on the second floor). I can set up the listening area at either the end of the long or short length of the 'L' shape. I have a Rythmik FV15HP downstairs in a tough room so I do understand what you're saying about bass adjustments.

 

[Saturn94]

I'd recommend the slims and a nice sealed subwoofer like the SVS SB13. I don't think you could go wrong. I think the slims at $2k are an incredible value.

+1


Unless you are only considering models with a RAAL tweeter, another option for excellent speakers with adjustable bass are from Soundfield Audio.


(Ugh....can't post links yet; not enough posts.....you can do a search for Soundfield Audio..... )


I own a pair of the original Monitor 1 (now discontinued) and enjoy them very much. At the time I first heard these I owned a pair of Salk HT2-TL, so really wasn't in the market for speakers. Long story short, I ended up buying the Soundfields anyway!

 

[HexOmega]

The Golden Ear Triton 2&3 would also satisfy the need for a ribbon tweeter and adjustable bass.

 

[Alex2507]

I've heard a regular Ascend Tower and an Ascend center with the RAAL very briefly. I'd pick the Phil3s seeing as how you have the room. It's more money but better speakers usually are. They also have the advantage of adjustable stuffing for different placement options in relation to boundaries if I understand that right. It's a lot of speaker for the money.

 

[walter duque]

I would go with the Phil'3. I have listened to them a few times and they are a fantastic sounding speaker. I haven't listened to any speakers of that caliber that could even come close to the Phil's in that price range. When it comes to speakers I am very critical and skeptic, but the Phil's would definitely be on my list. Best bang for the buck, that's for sure. I have also listened to the Salk Center which is also one great sounding speaker.

 

[lsiberian]

If I were to buy speakers my first choice would be the Phil3s. I love the design and TLs do amazing things to the bass response.

 

[GranteedEV]

I would get the Phil 3s. But I'm far from impartial, given i'm a Phil owner. The Neo8 midrange is just amazing and I honestly don't expect the Ascend mid to compete.

 

[billy p]

I've heard a regular Ascend Tower and an Ascend center with the RAAL very briefly. I'd pick the Phil3s seeing as how you have the room. It's more money but better speakers usually are. They also have the advantage of adjustable stuffing for different placement options in relation to boundaries if I understand that right. It's a lot of speaker for the money.

Indeed...but I'd hardly call my room a well dampened & acoustically treated room...IMO...it not that great, barely adequate...most would say. But given the circumstances, its what I have to work with. I'd love to hear some ST or Phils in here with all my reflection points...I'd bet it would be pretty close in the final analysis?

 

[Alex2507]

Indeed...but I'd hardly call my room and well dampened & acoustically treated room...IMO...it not that great, barely adequate...most would say. But given the circumstances, its what I have to work with. I'd love to hear some ST or Phils in here with all my reflection points...I'd bet it would be pretty close in the final analysis?

Price points are significantly different as is the amount of real estate taken up. If you can't afford either, the Phil3s are out.

You and I both benefit from slimmer towers and my towers cost me a grand. But if I had the space and ching, there really is no question.

 

[billy p]

Price points are significantly different as is the amount of real estate taken up. If you can't afford either, the Phil3s are out.

You and I both benefit from slimmer towers and my towers cost me a grand. But if I had the space and ching, there really is no question.

Given the OP talking points...I would have to agree with you! On a personal level, given the space or ching not withstanding, I'm not to crazy about the look of the Phil 2 or 3. The Salk OTOH....I do feel differently about and they do come into the play at those price points....except the SoundScapes...lol.

 

[Alex2507]

I'm not to crazy about the look of the Phil 2 or 3. The Salk OTOH....I do feel differently about and they do come into the play at those price points....except the SoundScapes...lol.

There has been a slight angle added to the cabinet which is subtle but it looks more refined than the previous 90 degree stuff but overall I'm not a big fan of the huge bottom section either. To me the only way around that is a really killer veneer that you absolutely love. You're certainly never going to successfully hide that cabinet so you need to make it stand out and call attention to itself. I did that with DIY subs and had the pleasure of TLS calling the look 'audacious'. KEW pulled it off with his design choice to have his veneer lay horizontal instead of vertical. Then there's also the wild @$$ look of crotch/burl/Bubinga or what ever it's called that I've seen on a set of Phils at Dennis' a couple of years ago. Point being that there are ways to make that cabinet an object of desire.

In your case the Phil's size isn't required due to having a spectacular sub ($2,000) which combined with the cost of your towers ($2,000) puts you at similar price points and removes the advantage of the Phil's bottom end. There's a lot of ways to skin this cat. The MBOW1 3-ways I just picked up from Dennis sounded best with with a cross at 60 Hz to a cheesy sub but that's a compromise I can deal with for the savings.

 

[billy p]

Yup those fancy veneers are worth considering and there may come a time when I can accommodate a set of speakers like the 3"s but in my current suituation with my overly active household...I'm afraid not. Pondering upcoming changes at the moment involves an addional sub or upgrading to the RAAL unit for both my mains and these speakers will do me for a long time.

Pretty sure given the advice in this thread....the OP will chose wisely and elect to go with the 3s...with his open floor space and cathedral like ceilings...they might be the right choice.