Internet-only vs. retail speakers (1 Viewer)

[Chris Quinn]

I have both 170s and 340s. They are both great for the money and would still be great at a higher price too. While the 170 gets everything correct(IMO) the 340 conveys the energy of the music better. The 340 voices and mids are a tad more natural(IMO) than the 170s. If you have a large room the 340s have a bigger soundstage. Ascends are very neutral in sound and will not color what is being sent to them. Ascend supposely has one of the lowest profit margins of the consumer directs.

The 170s replaced Paradigm Mini-Monitors in my home. I'd feel comfortable putting the 340s with a Hsu STF sub up against Paradigm Studio 100s in a listening session. Or the 170 with the Studio 20 if you discount bottom end extension.

The 170 is five years on the market now. The 340 main has been out less than a year(?). I know of no "professional" review of the 340.

 

[eddieZEN]

John,

Those GR Research speakers do look very nice, but as I understand it they cost a bit more than the Ascends, so I would tend to expect better sound from them.

Did you build yours? It looks like you have to actually make the cabinet yourself rather than just assemble it, the kit seems to include mainly the drivers. I'm sure I'd make a mess of it!

 

[eddieZEN]

Chris,

Wow, you're in Houston too? Is there any way I could come over and listen to your speakers? I live in the Heights.

BTW, which speaker are you using for your center?

 

[Chris Quinn]

Eddie where do you live? See if we can't find someone that can let you listen.

 

[Chris Quinn]

I'm in Pearland 288 at 518. My HT is the 340CC, 170 l/r, and 200 surround. My 2 channel is 340s.

I'll PM you my contact info.

 

[eddieZEN]

OK, great! I also PM'ed you.

 

[Chris Quinn]

I emailed you since the PM seems to be not working.

 

[John Garcia]

I'm not saying they are better than the Ascends, just another option, of course they cost more too. The A/V-1 in kit form is relatively inexpensive, but isn't a real steal unless you can make the cabinets yourself. I did not build mine, I bought them built (you can order any of them fully assembled), but I got a great deal on them. I did rework the x-overs with the sonicap upgrade though, which means I basically had to disassemble and reassemble the entire speaker. Not the first speakers I've built though.

IMO, for the Ascends, unless you are trying to save $$, I'd get 340s for the 3 mains and 170s for surrounds and be done with it.

 

[Bryan P]

From personal experience, I know that Ascend Acoustics make some fine speakers for the money. However, I can't recommend mixing the CMT-340 and CBM-170 speakers in the same home theater system. According to Ascend Acoustics' own specifications and frequency response measurements, the CMT-340 uses a different and less accurate tweeter than the one used in the CBM-170. The CMT-340 has a rising frequency response in the high end that can sound "too bright" on axis. The CMT-340 also exhibits a dip in the midrange that gets worse off axis.

For optimum timbre matching, it is best that all home theater channels use the same drivers or at least the same tweeters. I recommend that you get CBM-170s for all channels.

 

[Chris Quinn]

Have you actually heard the 340 or are you going by the graphs alone?

340 response graph-



170 response graph-

 

[Eddie Horton]

Keep in mind that those measurements are quasi-anechoic and will sound different in your particular room just like any speaker will sound different in your particular room. I love my 340 mains and center. I also use the 170's for surrounds and they give me great results with HT or M/C music. My subwoofer is an HSU VTF3-MkII. I will completely agree with what John Garcia said about my ID speakers. After spending many hours shopping around every single store....mass market or specialty.... in my city, there were a couple of pairs of speakers that really jumped out at me and made me want to take them home. The only problem is that they cost at least twice as much per pair as my Ascend 340's did. It does sound cliche' but it's just the facts. I don't know if my Ascends are better than speakers costing twice as much, or if the speakers that cost twice as much are just way overpriced, but either way, dollar for dollar I've yet to find anything that can touch them. I'm not an Ascend fan boy, either. If I could find a set of speakers for my HT that sounded better for slightly more money, you'd see my current rig on Audiogon or Flea-Bay in a second. Just hasn't happened yet. Just buy the damn 340's and be done with it. You know you want to.

 

[David Bikeman]

I'm sure Bryan means well but a simple email to Dave Fabricant @ Ascend will clear up the tweeter issue. He has addressed this issue before. CES is coming up so it could take longer than normal for a response.

David

 

[Bryan P]

The previously shown frequency response curves were the ones published by Ascend Acoustics for the CMT-340c. I had in mind the ones they published for the CMT-340m. Since I am new to this particular forum, I can't insert a link to this page. Perhaps someone else would be kind enough to do so.

I have personal experience with the CBM-170. I am basing my opinion of the CMT-340 on the published data and on reports by people who have heard this speaker. However, as an engineer and former loudspeaker designer, I do have some experience at relating frequency response curves to perceived sound.

 

[David Bikeman]

Bryan,
You would enjoy speaking to Dave Fabricant. He's usually very accesible except, like everyone else in the business, not this week. The 340C was specifically designed to match the 170's. The 340M's came later.

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages.../spkrlist.html

David

 

[David Fabrikant]

Hi Bryan,

I thought I would chime in here and address the issues you bring up.

First off, and I want to make this perfectly clear, the CMT-340 center was designed specifically to match the in-room response of the CBM-170 when used as a left/right. I believe I should know this, as I designed the speaker



Actually, this is absolutely not true. The tweeter we used in the CMT-340 is a better performing tweeter (not that the tweeter in the 170 is any slouch ). The 340 tweeter uses the exact some diaphragm as the tweeter used in the 170 (thus optimizing tonal/timbre balance between the two) with a few optimizations. The optimizations worth noting are:

1.A much more powerful and larger motor assembly (ferrite magnet vs. small neo). The stronger magnetic field allows greater high frequency extension while it also allows higher power handling due to much better heat dissipation (think less compression at louder levels). Extremely important for a center channel where the demands on the speaker are far greater than any other speaker in the system.

2.This tweeter uses a metal alloy faceplate which almost completely eliminates resonance (lowering distortion, think clear and articulate, natural sounding vocals).

3.The 340 tweeter uses what is sometimes referred to as a “dispersion lens”. This “lens”, which you can physically see on the tweeter, is used to help disperse the smaller wavelengths, which tend to beam straight out like a laser. These are broken up and dispersed thus offering wider dispersion (perfect for center channel usage). Try this; in a quiet room gently rub your fingers together on one hand directly in front of your face. Listen carefully… now move your hand to the side of your head and do the same and listen carefully. Hear the difference in high frequencies? The differences are because the smaller wavelengths (higher frequencies) beam straight forward. Using the dispersion lens on this tweeter helps keep the tweeter response linear both on- and off-axis.

This tweeter has lower distortion, higher power handling, extended frequency response and wider dispersion and you are calling it “less accurate”?

The very slight rise you see in the response of the 340 center is not due to the tweeter at all, it is by my design, and is carefully controlled by a circuit in the crossover known as a Zobel Network (an impedance compensation network). If you were to place the on-axis graph of the 340 on top of the 170, you would see 1 dB more output at approximately 14 kHz and 3dB more output at 18 Khz. Most adults can not even hear past 14 kHz.

In hundreds of hours of measuring, I found that this very slight rise in the response helps compensate for all the various high frequency reflections that a center channel is subjected too (sound bouncing off your TV, your entertainment center etc.) that a left/right speaker is generally not subjected too. Again, that slight rise you see is there by design.

The most critical of loudspeaker measurements is known as the sound power response. It is an extremely complicated measurement and can take a few hours to accomplish (also requiring the right equipment). It is computed by measuring the speaker’s response at 144 different horizontal and vertical angles (5 degree increments). These measurements are then combined using a complex weighted average formula, thus resulting in the “sound power” response. These measurements take into account 1st, 2nd, and 3rd order reflections and are considered to be an accurate representation of how a loudspeaker actually sounds in a room. The sound power response of our CMT-340 center (when used as a center) very (and I mean VERY) closely matches the sound power response of a CBM-170 when used as a left/right… Even closer in response then when a CBM-170 is used as center (on top of a TV)!

This is what the 340 center was designed for….. And we took designing and optimizing this center to far greater levels than simply “using the same drivers”. That would have been easy and we could have released it perhaps a year or two earlier, not to mention the cost savings involved by this far more common method, which I like to call the easy way out...

Since you claim to be have experience in loudspeaker design, you would know that 2-3dB more output on-axis in a very limited (and often unheard) frequency band is more than just acceptable, it is quite remarkable considering the completely different cabinet shape, different driver configuration and different placement.

Take ANY loudspeaker, measure it as a left/right speaker than place it on top of a TV and you will see a MUCH greater difference in frequency response than 2-3dB. In fact, I have measured loudspeakers from many “high-end” manufacturers whereby one speaker in the pair will measure 2-3dB off (and even greater) from the other.

This is one of the problems of posting response measurements as we do (and why most manufacturers don’t even bother to post them) They are seldom understood and most average consumers do not know how to interpret the information. We are proud of our loudspeakers’ measurements; these are some of the most linear measurements you will ever see for a loudspeaker AT ANY PRICE POINT.

-or-

We could simply not post measurements and just say “this is the timbre matched matching center”, but then we would be like everyone else….. And as many of you know, we are not

Thanks for your time!

PS. Bryan, please feel free to contact me privately if you wish to further discuss loudspeaker design.. as many have suggested, it is my passion and I take it very seriously.

 

[Max F]

Sorry off topic:

That last post was a perfect example of when a manufacturer or sponsor should chime in on a thread. Very nice! I'll have to study it more later

 

[eddieZEN]

DF,

Wow. That was one hell of a post. I stand in awe!

Unless I misunderstood your post, you seem to be saying that the 340 center is not the same speaker as the 340 mains? I had always assumed that they were the same based on the identical dimensions and weight.

Just one more question, though: If the CMT-340 is such a big improvement over the CMB-170, how come it's had so few press reviews compared to the 170s? If you had to guess, would you say that the 170s garner such an impressive plethora of rave reviews from the audio press due to:

1. Its having been on the market a whole lot longer than the 340s?

2. A more aggressive promotion campaign, since I would guess that the 170s were Ascend's original bread-and-butter breakthrough speaker?

3. The price-to-quality ratio of the 170s is still much higher and more remarkable than that of the 340s relative to other similar offerings on the market in its price range?

It's not that I doubt anything you're saying, I'm just an inquisitive little bugger, bear with me...

 

[Jeremy_R]

David, thanks for all of the great info it was very informative.

I would like to explain to you what I'm planning to do and see what your recommendations are.

I'm setting up a 2 channel system in my office (12' x 14' x 8' with full carpeting). I just bought and received my new receiver a Panasonic SA-XR10 (Panasonic's flagship digital amplifier/receiver from 2002).

I'm looking for a pair of speakers to place on both sides of my desk for near-field listening. The speakers will be about 5-6 feet apart, about 6-12 inches from the wall, and I'll be sitting about 2-4 feet from the speakers.

My main goal is detailed speakers that will have a nice sound-stage and will work well for near-field listening.

What would you recommend?

 

[Jimmy Harmon]

In my very limited time listening to the 340m's and 170's, I found the 340m's to be a significant improvement. I think Chris Quinn's post described what I heard pretty well. IMHO, if you can swing the price of 340m's, they are a no-brainer upgrade for your front mains. 170's will be more than adequate for your surrounds.

Oh yeah, contrary to the graph, my impression was that the 170's were a brighter speaker than the 340m's. The 340m's just seemed like a fuller sounding speaker.

 

[Chris Quinn]

Jeremy- Here a link to a thread regarding 170s as nearfield monitors. http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...33#post2227233

Eddie- It is difficult to get your product reviewed when you don't buy any advertising. The first Ascend Acoustics ads I've ever seen were when PlasmaDocs started selling Ascend 2-3 months ago.