This is my first post, and support helping people make good decisions about expensive audio equipment.
I am sorry to hear about your woes with the Ascend Towers: I had almost bought them, having had high hopes for that SEAS midrange driver that appears to be much like their much vaunted Excel W15 series (the "mag" one you tend to see in speakers that sell for $4000 and more). The RAAL ribbon tweeter they use when you choose that as an (expensive) option, probably outperforms the AMT that ML uses. I had wondered if the Ascend's smaller 5 1/4 inch woofer system could produce satisfying output with classic rock or electronic music.
I had the Wharfedale EVO 4.4s for about a week, and had returned them, after having read WhatHiFi's glowing five star review. I hadn't agreed. Those were the most laid back speakers I've ever had. Female vocals had sounded good, but rock music, didn't have the dynamics and slam that my previous Monitor Audio Silver 6's had.
You may want to re-examine the Martin Logan 35XTi or 60XTi. I had bought the 60XT's at a discount, after the newer one came out, which is a refresh only, and not one that I had wanted to pay full price for. Frequency response, is flatter with the 35, down to its natural size related roll-off frequency. The 60XTs have a bass peak that the 35XT lacks; and so this may have made you feel like there was detail missing in the midrange of the 60XT, due to their tipped up frequency response at some point below 200 Hz. One thing I like about the 60XT tweeter, is they cross it over well at below 3kHz, allowing you to hear more of the advantages of the technology (most ribbons can't go that low).
Brent Butterworth's 2015 of the 60XT, I feel is excellent, because he got into things that other reviewers hadn't brought up (Phil Beaudette's review being my second favorite): primary driver resonances, and room effects. You are avoiding the 80 Hz resonance by crossing the 60XT over higher than that, or augmenting the 35XT's natural lack of bass below a certain frequency. He himself, had said that he would have looked at the 35XT and a sub if he was buying them himself; not wanting to EQ the 60XT like I have. Admittedly, the 60XT is now the old model, but I doubt that ML had designed a totally new woofer system, without the 80 Hz resonance. Ideally, that would be moved lower (perhaps the product would have a lower efficiency then and act more like a sealed model). Wish somebody would publish FR curve for the 60XTi, so I can see if they had taken steps to flatten it out any.
One of the most important things I had ever done with my system was getting a MiniDSP UMIK-1 microphone ($70), and REW (Room Equalization Wizard) software (free). It's intimidating at first to use, and there's a steep learning curve compared to other room correction systems, but implementing it correctly will allow you to do three things:
1. Set your sub level correctly (there's a room simulation mode so you can enter the dimensions of your room and see what the gain is supposed to be, helping you to interpret the FR plots correctly).
2. Set your crossover level correctly (I use a power amp and an external Ashly crossover).
3. Spot and equalize out room nodes (to a point, you can't get rid of nulls by boosting the response, better idea to lower the peaks around it).
4. Spot and equalize out frequency response problems related to your speakers (most of use can't emulate an anechoic chamber, and it's some work to figure out what's going on with the graphs).
5. Place your speakers correctly (I found out in my measured response, why ML had chosen the value they had for how far away from the rear wall).
I can't read distortion and phase correctly with REW.
My Rythmik sub doesn't have room correction, but it has a number of other useful features.
Let me know what you had decided upon, and how that went.
- Various Kefs- very similar to the ELACs but worse imo- very metallic and unengaging
- Various B&W- Metallic, boring, no dynamics
- Warfedale Evo 4.4- nice highs! Absolutely sloppy bass (for my room at least) and terribly muddy mids
- Tannoy Revolution 6XTE- Similar to above. Very, very dark speakers.
- Martin Logan 35XTI bookshelves- Eureka! These are much more organic and clear. Guitars actually sound like guitars instead of a bad digital rendering of them. Theres energy in what I listen to. This is what I was missing in the others... things sound like theyre supposed to! Only issue is they arent as full-bodied as towers. They just cant play very loud and I wish they had more bass to be better full range speakers. Somewhat more minor issue is that they sound slightly grainy. Though thats not a total dealbreaker.
- Martin Logan 60XTI Towers- I had high hopes for these.... but where did the magic for the 35s go ML? These are very "meh". The highs and satisfying acoustic resonances are gone.
- Focal Aria 906 bookshelves- holy clarity batman! It sounds very organic, but it sounds almost too clinical to the point that theyre not engaging.
- Focal Aria 948 Towers- Holy clarity and body batman! These sound almost perfect- but they dont quite come alive until higher volumes (and I have a small space), and there's still something missing... a certain *zing* in the acoustic guitar resonances.
- Def Tech 9060- Hard to describe. Sometimes they sounded good, sometimes they sounded imprecise and like the drivers were way too small. Bass gets bloaty in my room. Theyre also ugly as hell.
- Ascend Sierra Tower with RAAL- After all the others, I had only tthe ML 35XTIs and the focal 948s remaining. I was hoping, based on my extensive reading of forums, that the ascend towers could give the best of both worlds- the clarity/full body of the focals with the acoustic resonance/energy/zing of the MLs. Unfortunately I was once again disappointed. They seem unbalanced to my ears. Like, they have very punchy bass but they color the sound to be sweet and there seems to be something missing in the middle of the sound.... some body that just isnt there. The highs are very sweet and engaging, but almost a little artificially so. Where the MLs sound like an actual acoustic guitar being played in front of me, the Sierras make it sound unnaturally sweet or high. Theres unnaturally sweet zzzing out of string instruments that I dont think actually sound that way.... Im bummed because I really wanted to like these speakers. That said, they are very engaging, and these are the first speakers where Ive truly understood "holographic imaging" !
I've heard that SALKS have a more full midrange and bass than the ascend towers? But theyre very expensive and the waiting time makes them seem inpractical to demo before I have to return the focals and the MLs.
Sonus Faber? Ive heard they have great woody resonances but also that theyre not very engaging.
Did I skip over soft domes, where I should have explored more?
Thanks all. I appreciate you taking the time to read all this.Ive also attached a pic of the space.