PDA

View Full Version : 340s with/without subwoofer



mv1612
06-07-2005, 12:52 PM
Hi,

I have a question regarding the 340s. Let’s say you have three setups. First, you have them connected as “Large” to a receiver, with a subwoofer. Second, same as above but the monitors set as “Small” with a crossover suitably chosen. Third, have them connected to a stereo amplifier with no subwoofer.

I know that the first setup is obviously wrong. To quote David, “running the 340s full range will distress the entire bandwidth of the woofer section, up until about 3Khz”, and “for optimum (always recommended) performance, the speakers MUST be run with a minimum of a 65hz high pass filter (“small”)”. But then what about listening them without a subwoofer, the third option? Should I understand that their performance without a sub is to a certain point degraded because they’re trying to reproduce the full range? To what extent?

Virgil

Lou-the-dog
06-07-2005, 04:37 PM
I run my 340's both ways... with a sub and without. Sometimes I have them hooked up to a Denon 3803 and run the sub with this configuration. Sometimes I have them hooked up to an integrated tube amp which I run sans sub. My tin ear can't pick up any degradation. I suspect a sophisticated measuring rig would be needed to reveal the difference. I do prefer the extra bass the sub provides however so I'll be looking for a way to integrate the sub with the tube amp.

Randy

Quinn
06-07-2005, 06:55 PM
I have 340s in a two channel music only rig without a sub and they sound great. There is a post somewhere from davef that he runs his 340s w/o a sub at times.

EDIT- I found the link. This post. http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showpost.php?p=6191&postcount=13

In this thread- http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?t=708&page=1&pp=10

davef
06-07-2005, 07:29 PM
Hi mv1612,

Welcome to our forum!

Running the 340 mains full range is not necessarily wrong. It all depends on how large your room is and how much output you demand. The more bass below 50Hz that the speaker is being asked to reproduce (dependant upon output level), the greater the chance of hurting the performance of the delicate midrange frequencies. In a large room and at loud volumes, full range is not recommended if you want the best performance of the mids... However, in a smaller room or at moderate volumes, full range will not be a problem.

What are your room dimensions?

mv1612
06-07-2005, 08:46 PM
Thanks to Dave and all of you for the replies. I'm relieved, it seems that the efect, if any, is kind of "subtle", not at all obvious. My room dimensions are 16/14/9, so not a big room.

mv1612
06-07-2005, 08:49 PM
And Quinn, thanks for the link!

NewBuyer
06-08-2005, 11:26 PM
...The more bass below 50Hz that the speaker is being asked to reproduce (dependant upon output level), the greater the chance of hurting the performance of the delicate midrange frequencies...

So when you said earlier that "running the 340s full range will distress the entire bandwidth of the woofer section, up until about 3Khz", you meant only at louder volumes, yes?

mv1612
06-09-2005, 05:22 AM
I think I should say where I took those quotings from. They're part of Dave's observations toward an unfortunate reviewer from hometheaterforum, who took a blind test between the 340s with subwoofer and the Rocket 550 but chose to let the 340s as "Large". From what I understand, in this situation you not only stress them to reproduce the whole spectrum, but you end up with a bunch of interferences with the sub, having two sources reproducing the same frequencies. Maybe Dave wants to share something about this moment, maybe not... these are not very pleasant memories, thinking at the controversy that followed.

So anyway, I'm sure that when there's no sub, there isn't anything bad to be noticed.

Virgil.

davef
06-09-2005, 09:01 AM
Hi Virgil,

The review you were referring to wasn't so much as a review, but more so an A/B comparison between a bookshelf speaker used with a subwoofer (CMT-340 + STF1) and a well regarded full range floor standing speaker.

Many, many things were questionable about that comparison, including the fact that the 340 mains were set to large thereby receiving a full bandwidth signal, even though they were being used with a subwoofer...

For ANY woofer being used in a ported enclosure, the woofer will exhibit extreme excursion below the tuning point of the enclosure. The lower the frequency and the higher the output, the more excursion. This excess non-controlled movement will have an adverse effect on the delicate midrange frequencies that it is trying to reproduce at the same time. This is one of the reasons that quality speakers have specialized drivers for specific frequency ranges.

The CMT-340s having a tuning point of 55Hz. In the comparison you referred to, they were played at very high levels, with full range signals, in what I believe was at least an 8000 cubic foot room. I was quite impressed that the speaker even handled the deep bass output demands in a room this large. If the speaker was set to small (as it should have been for this type of usage) thereby rolling off the low frequencies and allowing the sub to properly integrate with the speaker, maximum output levels would have increased, distortion would have dramatically decreased and the detail and clarity of the midrange would have been much improved. Would the difference have been audible? Very much so…

Also of important note, a woofer that is capable of deep bass must have increased mass, be extremely stiff and will usually exhibit poor damping. This is almost the exact opposite of a woofer that is designed for accurate mids and fast transients. This type of woofer must have very low mass and superb damping. Generally speaking, the lower the mass of the cone, the more accurate the transient response is (faster) and the better ability for the cone to resolve detail. Here is a good way to imagine this.. Picture a rock dropped in a pool of water.. how quickly do the waves travel and then disappear? How many waves are produced? Now drop the rock in a liquid of much heavier density, (something like honey or molasses comes to my mind)….. Visualizing the difference between the two is easy… and this visualization can be thought of as “detail”.. Now, take a bucket full of each and splash it at someone.. which one is going to have more impact? This visualization could be thought of as bass capability…

The woofers used in our CBM-170 and CMT-340 are very low mass, with excellent damping. They are specifically designed for fast transients, low distortion and impressive levels of details. They are simply not designed for deep bass.

In your room size (about 2000 cubic feet), you can certainly run the 340 mains full range and they will deliver tight bass into the 50Hz region. However, if your intentions are to avoid a subwoofer, have exquisite mids, deep bass, and be able to maintain this performance at very loud levels, I would recommend a much larger loudspeaker (more cabinet volume) with a woofer dedicated to bass, a dedicated midrange driver and of course an excellent tweeter...

Or... you could simply and affordably, high pass the 340 mains and add a subwoofer :)

hope this helps!

mv1612
06-09-2005, 12:57 PM
Great post Dave! Thanks, this certainly clearifies things. I'll almost surely buy a pair of 340s, just that I still have to wait. I'm a "fresh" canadian, coming from Romania, and I can't afford them, not yet. If all goes well, I'll be able, maybe in a year, to order a B-stock pair... hopefully.

Cheers, Virgil.

NewBuyer
06-09-2005, 04:44 PM
I think that it is really nice of Dave to post in this thread!

Dave I am wondering, since the 340's are not designed for the full bass range, will running them full-range cause any damage whatsoever to the drivers over time?

Also, have you ever considered adding a "powered tower" version of the 340's to your line, i.e. a floorstander with an integrated powered subwoofer, for instance like the 533-PT units (http://www.aperionaudio.com/products/product-detail.aspx?id=14&catId=5&catName=Aperion+Speakers) offered by Aperion Audio? If you did have something like this, we could enjoy the benefits of your driver/crossover design along with the space-savings of having no separate subwoofer unit, and use the "pure-direct" mode of our pre/pro units to full advantage. I would purchase this immediately from you, so if you will consider such an item, I will be waiting eagerly to buy them! Please advise?

bikeman
06-09-2005, 06:18 PM
I think that it is really nice of Dave to post in this thread!

Dave I am wondering, since the 340's are not designed for the full bass range, will running them full-range cause any damage whatsoever to the drivers over time?

Also, have you ever considered adding a "powered tower" version of the 340's to your line, i.e. a floorstander with an integrated powered subwoofer, for instance like the 533-PT units (http://www.aperionaudio.com/products/product-detail.aspx?id=14&catId=5&catName=Aperion+Speakers) offered by Aperion Audio? If you did have something like this, we could enjoy the benefits of your driver/crossover design along with the space-savings of having no separate subwoofer unit, and use the "pure-direct" mode of our pre/pro units to full advantage. I would purchase this immediately from you, so if you will consider such an item, I will be waiting eagerly to buy them! Please advise?

We will not hear a peep out of Dave F. when it comes to new product. All he will tell us is that he is always working on something. Several of us have expressed an interest similar to yours and we'll get our answer if and when it's done. I respect his way of introducing a product when it's ready to go. Too many things can and do go wrong with pre-mature announcements.
In answer to your first question, you will not damage these drivers over time. I run my 20 year old Mission bookshelf speakers full range almost every day. They're not quite as nice as the 340's but damage isn't a concern with these either.

David

craigsub
06-10-2005, 06:44 PM
Hi Virgil,

The review you were referring to wasn't so much as a review, but more so an A/B comparison between a bookshelf speaker used with a subwoofer (CMT-340 + STF1) and a well regarded full range floor standing speaker.

Many, many things were questionable about that comparison, including the fact that the 340 mains were set to large thereby receiving a full bandwidth signal, even though they were being used with a subwoofer...

For ANY woofer being used in a ported enclosure, the woofer will exhibit extreme excursion below the tuning point of the enclosure. The lower the frequency and the higher the output, the more excursion. This excess non-controlled movement will have an adverse effect on the delicate midrange frequencies that it is trying to reproduce at the same time. This is one of the reasons that quality speakers have specialized drivers for specific frequency ranges.

The CMT-340s having a tuning point of 55Hz. In the comparison you referred to, they were played at very high levels, with full range signals, in what I believe was at least an 8000 cubic foot room. I was quite impressed that the speaker even handled the deep bass output demands in a room this large. If the speaker was set to small (as it should have been for this type of usage) thereby rolling off the low frequencies and allowing the sub to properly integrate with the speaker, maximum output levels would have increased, distortion would have dramatically decreased and the detail and clarity of the midrange would have been much improved. Would the difference have been audible? Very much so…

Also of important note, a woofer that is capable of deep bass must have increased mass, be extremely stiff and will usually exhibit poor damping. This is almost the exact opposite of a woofer that is designed for accurate mids and fast transients. This type of woofer must have very low mass and superb damping. Generally speaking, the lower the mass of the cone, the more accurate the transient response is (faster) and the better ability for the cone to resolve detail. Here is a good way to imagine this.. Picture a rock dropped in a pool of water.. how quickly do the waves travel and then disappear? How many waves are produced? Now drop the rock in a liquid of much heavier density, (something like honey or molasses comes to my mind)….. Visualizing the difference between the two is easy… and this visualization can be thought of as “detail”.. Now, take a bucket full of each and splash it at someone.. which one is going to have more impact? This visualization could be thought of as bass capability…

The woofers used in our CBM-170 and CMT-340 are very low mass, with excellent damping. They are specifically designed for fast transients, low distortion and impressive levels of details. They are simply not designed for deep bass.

In your room size (about 2000 cubic feet), you can certainly run the 340 mains full range and they will deliver tight bass into the 50Hz region. However, if your intentions are to avoid a subwoofer, have exquisite mids, deep bass, and be able to maintain this performance at very loud levels, I would recommend a much larger loudspeaker (more cabinet volume) with a woofer dedicated to bass, a dedicated midrange driver and of course an excellent tweeter...

Or... you could simply and affordably, high pass the 340 mains and add a subwoofer :)

hope this helps!

For the record, I am the individual who did the comparison. It was done at the request of quite a few people, and was done so entirely at my expense. This means I purchased both the Ascends and the "other" speakers.

The room in which the comparison was done is 4200 cubic feet, and is in our basement. The listening levels were approximately 70 to 80 dB, with occasional peaks higher than that. At no time was this ever a "high level" test. The listening position is approximately 10 feet from the speakers.

As for the performance of the 340's, they are a terrific speaker. For example, when combined with a UFW-10, they, IMO, sound superior to the Paradigm Studio 100 V.3's.

Here is a pic of the room ... As you look at the room, Keep in mind this is the same place we had earlier done a blind test with 170's and another, more expensive speaker pair, which the 170's won.

Lou-the-dog
06-10-2005, 07:52 PM
For the record, I am the individual who did the comparison. It was done at the request of quite a few people, and was done so entirely at my expense. This means I purchased both the Ascends and the "other" speakers.

The room in which the comparison was done is 4200 cubic feet, and is in our basement. The listening levels were approximately 70 to 80 dB, with occasional peaks higher than that. At no time was this ever a "high level" test. The listening position is approximately 10 feet from the speakers.

As for the performance of the 340's, they are a terrific speaker. For example, when combined with a UFW-10, they, IMO, sound superior to the Paradigm Studio 100 V.3's.

Here is a pic of the room ... As you look at the room, Keep in mind this is the same place we had earlier done a blind test with 170's and another, more expensive speaker pair, which the 170's won.


In that personal comparison why did you choose to run the 340's "large" with the sub? Did you feel that you preferred the sound with the reciever set this way or just inexperience on your part (at least at the time... but I'm sure you are much wiser today after that elementary fumble)?

Randy

craigsub
06-10-2005, 08:14 PM
In that personal comparison why did you choose to run the 340's "large" with the sub? Did you feel that you preferred the sound with the reciever set this way or just inexperience on your part (at least at the time... but I'm sure you are much wiser today after that elementary fumble)?

Randy

Randy, I used a Stereophile Class "A" McIntosh MA-6900 integrated amplifier, a modified Denon 2900 Universal player, and Better Cable Interconnects and speaker wires.

The Amp and Universal player alone will set you back about $7000.

The Amp has no subwoofer output - it is a high end, two channel unit.

The equipment and testing methodology was identical to those used in the test between the 170's and ELT-Cse's two months earlier. It is ironic, the methodology was fine for the 170's, but not the 340's. This methodology, including the fact that all speakers were being run full range, was posted PUBLICALLY in the pre-review discussion on Home Theater Spot.

My refererence speakers at the time of the test were Klipschorns, Infinity IRS Sigmas, and Onix Ref 3's. Those three speakers total more than $20,000.

I have also done hundreds of blind tests with loudspeakers and subwoofers dating back to the 70's.

To call the review method flawed or unfair would also be to say that the Ascend 340's cannot handle a full range signal at the 70 to 80 dB levels we typically listen to.

Somehow, I don't think the 340's have that problem.

Is there anything else you care to know about my "inexperience" ?

curtis
06-10-2005, 08:29 PM
The equipment and testing methodology was identical to those used in the test between the 170's and ELT-Cse's two months earlier. It is ironic, the methodology was fine for the 170's, but not the 340's. This methodology, including the fact that all speakers were being run full range, was posted PUBLICALLY in the pre-review discussion on Home Theater Spot.

One big difference, it that test, both sets of speakers were configured the same way. So if there was a flaw in hook-up, both sets of speakers were subject to it. The test with the 340, the speaker set-ups were configured differently.


To call the review method flawed or unfair would also be to say that the Ascend 340's cannot handle a full range signal at the 70 to 80 dB levels we typically listen to.

Somehow, I don't think the 340's have that problem.
I do not think they have that problem either, but I would say the test was flawed because the speakers were not setup optimally.

I will say that the test did raise my curiosity about the other speakers, and I did finally get to hear them side by side the CMT-340m's.

Lou-the-dog
06-10-2005, 08:45 PM
I think it would be best on your part to accept that you made a very elementary error while running this (and others, now, apparently) personal comparison AND quit being defensive. If you are going to choose to broadcast results of such comparisons (and claim expertise as you apparently are in this thread) then it is YOUR responsibility to make sure the systems are optimized. If you choose to forego the basics then be ready to ACCEPT being discredited...so yeah, I really really STILL believe you are way too inexperienced to take on the task you set out to do. Throwing money at a hobby for many many years does not automatically buy you the title of "experienced".

Randy

craigsub
06-10-2005, 08:56 PM
One big difference, it that test, both sets of speakers were configured the same way. So if there was a flaw in hook-up, both sets of speakers were subject to it. The test with the 340, the speaker set-ups were configured differently.


I do not think they have that problem either, but I would say the test was flawed because the speakers were not setup optimally.

I will say that the test did raise my curiosity about the other speakers, and I did finally get to hear them side by side the CMT-340m's.

Curtis, you know better than to post such drivel. I responded here to direct BS that my room was 8000 cubic feet and that I was listening to speakers at high volume levels. Neither was true, but you guys don't mind yet another CLEAR mistatement about the review process.

You also had EVERY opportunity to chime in before the testing was started last year. You said nothing.

By the way, you may want to read what David F. said about the 340's doing rather well to 48 Hz, and how he likes the bass they put out.

For you to believe nonsense such as "the speakers were not set up optimally" is to state the 340's just cannot tolerate putting out a 70 to 80 dB SPL at a distance of 10 feet.

The 340's have an in room sensitivity of 92 dB with one watt @ one meter. I was ten - eleven feet away, which means one speaker would be a bit over 80 dB ... and two a bit over 83 dB at the listening position.

We never exceeded 90 dB at any time, and, as mentioned before, were typically in the 70 to 80 dB range.

This means we never ran above about 5 watts PEAK into the 340's.

It is your position the 340's cannot handle 5 watts peak, with less than one watt at typical listening levels ?

craigsub
06-10-2005, 09:02 PM
I think it would be best on your part to accept that you made a very elementary error while running this (and others, now, apparently) personal comparison AND quit being defensive. If you are going to choose to broadcast results of such comparisons (and claim expertise as you apparently are in this thread) then it is YOUR responsibility to make sure the systems are optimized. If you choose to forego the basics then be ready to ACCEPT being discredited...so yeah, I really really STILL believe you are way too inexperienced to take on the task you set out to do. Throwing money at a hobby for many many years does not automatically buy you the title of "experienced".

Randy

Randy - Some of you people amaze me. The facts are:

1. I used the identical methodology in the test of the 170's as I did with the 340's. I have also used this method in several other tests. The Ascend "fans" praised this method when the 170's "won".

2. I posted publically what the methodology was before each test.

3. Noone had a complaint about the test method (level matched, blind testing) until AFTER the results.

Are you following this ? The methodology was posted BEFORE the test began. Curtis has even admitted this in the past.

I know facts can be painful ... and, for the record, I STILL own and like the Ascends, despite this mudslinging by a certain few people.

curtis
06-10-2005, 09:09 PM
no...my position is that the 340's were not set up optimally with a sub, no matter what the listening level, and the 340's sound great without a sub.

As far as chiming in before the test was done, if you can show me the post where you stated that no crossover was going to be used, then I will admit, that I, and every other experienced person should have chimed in, and it was our fault for not correcting you.

We have gone over this before. Sorry you do not like my position/opinion, but it has never changed. It just seems that when the subject comes up, differing opinions get ugly, and there is no need for that.

Lets just agree to disagree.

craigsub
06-10-2005, 09:14 PM
no...my position is that the 340's were not set up optimally with a sub, no matter what the listening level, and the 340's sound great without a sub.

As far as chiming in before the test was done, if you can show me the post where you stated that no crossover was going to be used, then I will admit, that I, and every other experienced person should have chimed in, and it was our fault for not correcting you.

We have gone over this before. Sorry you do not like my position/opinion, but it has never changed. It just seems that when the subject comes up, differing opinions get ugly, and there is no need for that.

Lets just agree to disagree.

Curtis - Home Theater Spot purged the thread with the 170 test, the methodology, and the thread about the 340's months ago.

As for you and other "experienced" people, I can point to countless posts about how great the 340's are sans subwoofer. And they really are. It is too bad you don't think so.

As for our disagreeing, I guess we will have to.

Too bad statements such as I had the speakers in an "8000 cubic foot room" and "listened at high volumes" are ok with you guys, though.

Because that is not opinion, period. That was a statement presented as a fact, and was completely untrue.

curtis
06-10-2005, 09:16 PM
Randy - Some of you people amaze me. The facts are:

1. I used the identical methodology in the test of the 170's as I did with the 340's. I have also used this method in several other tests. The Ascend "fans" praised this method when the 170's "won".

2. I posted publically what the methodology was before each test.

3. Noone had a complaint about the test method (level matched, blind testing) until AFTER the results.

Are you following this ? The methodology was posted BEFORE the test began. Curtis has even admitted this in the past.

I know facts can be painful ... and, for the record, I STILL own and like the Ascends, despite this mudslinging by a certain few people.

1. Ascend "fans" showed no praise for methodology. Please show me a post in regards to that.

2. Please post where you stated that no crossover was going to be used.....in the 170 comparison or 340 comparison.

3. In which test? In the 170 test......both speakers were subject to the same exact setup, not so in the 340 test.

What did I admit to? I did not ever admit to knowing that a crossover was not going to be used.

curtis
06-10-2005, 09:19 PM
Too bad statements such as I had the speakers in an "8000 cubic foot room" and "listened at high volumes" are ok with you guys, though.

Because that is not opinion, period. That was a statement presented as a fact, and was completely untrue.
Fine...OK...DaveF got that wrong.

craigsub
06-10-2005, 09:19 PM
1. Ascend "fans" showed no praise for methodology. Please show me a post in regards to that.

2. Please post where you stated that no crossover was going to be used.....in the 170 comparison or 340 comparison.

3. In which test? In the 170 test......both speakers were subject to the same exact setup, not so in the 340 test.

What did I admit to? I did not ever admit to knowing that a crossover was not going to be used.

Curtis - In the 170/ELT-Cse test, we ran the speakers full range, and sometimes added the VTF-3 Mark II into the mix.

And you were quite pleased with how that test went.

Again, the thread has been purged from the SPot ... so no, I cannot show you the post.

Hey, This is cool though, Now my room is 8000 cubic feet and I play at high levels, too.

Quinn
06-10-2005, 09:23 PM
I have asked for the link to the post where it is stated that the 340 test would be set up in that manner nearly each time Craig has made this assertion. No one has provided it yet.

Lou-the-dog
06-10-2005, 09:30 PM
Craig,

I did not EVER see anything posted about how the systems were going to be configured crossover-wise nor did I follow your previous comparison including the 170's. You may have provided this info somewhere BUT you must remember that results of these threads spread beyond the original site and may or may not include the original config info. Also folks enter these threads at different phases of the game so they may not be privy to settup info. Once again, this is why it is YOUR responsibility to configure properly and be ready to accept the criticism when you choose not to. A big OOOPS on your part, at the proper time, would have bought you alot of mileage back then.

Randy

craigsub
06-10-2005, 09:32 PM
I have asked for the link to the post where it is stated that the 340 test would be set up in that manner nearly each time Craig has made this assertion. No one has provided it yet.

"Gentlemen" ... I would not even be posting about this, except for I was taken to task with yet another misreprentation of the review.

Ironically, If anyone actually has the courage to go look, at one point during the review I was asked if I worked for Ascend. See post 111.

craigsub
06-10-2005, 09:38 PM
Craig,

I did not EVER see anything posted about how the systems were going to be configured crossover-wise nor did I follow your previous comparison including the 170's. You may have provided this info somewhere BUT you must remember that results of these threads spread beyond the original site and may or may not include the original config info. Also folks enter these threads at different phases of the game so they may not be privy to settup info. Once again, this is why it is YOUR responsibility to configure properly and be ready to accept the criticism when you choose not to. A big OOOPS on your part, at the proper time, would have bought you alot of mileage back then.

Randy


Randy, There was no OOOPS here. There WAS sour grapes. Period. Again, unless you guys think running less than 5 watts into a 340 is somehow taxing the speaker.

By the way, I also freely discussed the methodology AFTER the review was done. I also offered to run another test of the 250 Mark II's and the 340's with a Denon Receiver in a more traditional home theater setting.

The offer was denied.

As for mileage from anyone here, it is not necessary.

All I ask is you guys stick to facts, and not mis-truths.

Lou-the-dog
06-10-2005, 09:46 PM
Randy, There was no OOOPS here. There WAS sour grapes.

No...definitely OOOPS. MAYBE unintentional and can be chalked up to inexperience but definitely OOOPS.

Randy

curtis
06-10-2005, 09:48 PM
All I ask is you guys stick to facts, and not mis-truths.
I think we are asking the same thing, no?

Craig, what do you think is the best way to configure a pair of CMT-340's , CBM-170's, or ELT Cse's with a subwoofer?

craigsub
06-10-2005, 09:59 PM
I think we are asking the same thing, no?

Craig, what do you think is the best way to configure a pair of CMT-340's , CBM-170's, or ELT Cse's with a subwoofer?

Are we talking two channel and music ? Or For home theater ?

In the review, I never did any home theater killer effects. I used discs like Alannis Morrisette, Dire Straits, Tony Bennet Unplugged, and Roger Waters ...

The best method for integration for this would be running the bookshelves full range. Otherwise, you are running wires from the amp into the subwoofer, using its crossover, then running wires to the speakers.

This would have forced the use of about 30 feet of speaker wire to put the speakers and the subwoofer each into its optimum position.

If you guys really think an extra 20 feet of wire, PLUS sending a full range signal into a crossover in a $299 retail subwoofer would have resulted in superior sound, especially with the associated equipment, you have made an OOOOPS.

Here are some excerpts of what people said about the review:

Eddie Horton "From this review, it appears both speakers are great"

David Bikeman "This review has reinforced my decision to buy Ascends"

Kyle Pete "It is great the Ascends do so well against a floorstander"

Lou-the-dog
06-10-2005, 10:00 PM
"Gentlemen" ... I would not even be posting about this, except for I was taken to task with yet another misreprentation of the review.

So this can mean that your primary purpose to post on this thread was that you felt "taken to task" on a error of the size of your room and the listening levels?? I can't believe your self-esteem is that frail Craig. You seem to be all bent out of shape about the listening levels but even considering the info you provided within this thread the listening levels have already climbed from your original "70 to 80db" to "never exceeded 90db". If we are supposed to stick to the facts then how come the facts keep changing?

Randy

craigsub
06-10-2005, 10:04 PM
So this can mean that your primary purpose to post on this thread was that you felt "taken to task" on a error of the size of your room and the listening levels?? I can't believe your self-esteem is that frail Craig. You seem to be all bent out of shape about the listening levels but even considering the info you provided within this thread the listening levels have already climbed from your original "70 to 80db" to "never exceeded 90db". If we are supposed to stick to the facts then how come the facts keep changing?

Randy

The 90 dB was the PEAK as measured at the listening position ... This means the short term peaks would hit 90 dB. The typical volume did not get above 70 to 80 dB.

Music works this way Randy.

As for my frail ego, you have been quite insulting enough. First I was inexperienced - then I was throwing money - Now I am frail.

Did you actually READ the review ?

And the difference between 4200 and 8000 is not exactly small.

curtis
06-10-2005, 10:11 PM
Are we talking two channel and music ? Or For home theater ?

In the review, I never did any home theater killer effects. I used discs like Alannis Morrisette, Dire Straits, Tony Bennet Unplugged, and Roger Waters ...

The best method for integration for this would be running the bookshelves full range. Otherwise, you are running wires from the amp into the subwoofer, using its crossover, then running wires to the speakers.

This would have forced the use of about 30 feet of speaker wire to put the speakers and the subwoofer each into its optimum position.

If you guys really think an extra 20 feet of wire, PLUS sending a full range signal into a crossover in a $299 retail subwoofer would have resulted in superior sound, especially with the associated equipment, you have made an OOOOPS.
Are you stating you didn't have the right equipment?

30 feet of 12 gauge wire would not have been a big deal sonically, and Hsu puts pretty good crossovers into the subs.

Generally speaking, I certainly hope you are not saying no crossover is better for integration than with a crossover.

Lou-the-dog
06-10-2005, 10:13 PM
Otherwise, you are running wires from the amp into the subwoofer, using its crossover, then running wires to the speakers.

This would have forced the use of about 30 feet of speaker wire to put the speakers and the subwoofer each into its optimum position.


I could see how ONE would think that getting a suitable reciever would NOT have been an option.

Randy

craigsub
06-10-2005, 10:18 PM
Are you stating you didn't have the right equipment?

30 feet of 12 gauge wire would not have been a big deal sonically, and Hsu puts pretty good crossovers into the subs.

Generally speaking, I certainly hope you are not saying no crossover is better for integration than with a crossover.

Curtis - I am running $7000 worth of front end, and you seriously want to say the system would have sounded better with 20 extra feet of speaker wire going through a crossover which could not cost more than about $5 ?

Add into that the fact that I was not even coming close to taxing the speakers in question.

Of course, you never answered - do you think hitting 90 dB peaks at 10-11 feet away from a pair of 92 dB efficient 340's is taxing them ?

craigsub
06-10-2005, 10:20 PM
I could see how ONE would think that getting a suitable reciever would NOT have been an option.

Randy

Hmmmmmmm ... McIntosh amp from Stereophile's class "A" ? Or a receiver ...

craigsub
06-10-2005, 10:25 PM
I have found it, ironically, thanks to Chris Quinn. If you look at post # 28 from the review thread in Home Theater Forum (Run a search on Rocket 550's from the past year, it will turn up) ... Chris posted a link to the first two bookshelf shootouts.

I tried to link them here, to no avail. But they are there for anyone to see.

My post, word for word, on June 10, 2004 "The Ascend 170's are here, and hooked up with the McIntosh amp, modded Denon 2900, and the Hsu STF-1, with the 170's, as in past speaker tests, being run full range."

Lou-the-dog
06-10-2005, 10:25 PM
As for my frail ego, you have been quite insulting enough. First I was inexperienced - then I was throwing money - Now I am frail.

You get yourself into these binds Craig and then you start to suggest that folks are insulting you. I've seen this pattern with you time and time again. You've chosen to use your own insulting style here so don't start calling foul ball all of a sudden. If you feel insults were rendered... and don't like it... then let's call the ball both ways.

Randy

craigsub
06-10-2005, 10:26 PM
You get yourself into these binds Craig and then you start to suggest that folks are insulting you. I've seen this pattern with you time and time again. You've chosen to use your own insulting style here so don't start calling foul ball all of a sudden. If you feel insults were rendered... and don't like it... then let's call the ball both ways.

Randy

And how did I get into this "bind" ? This is getting better all the time ...

Lou-the-dog
06-10-2005, 10:28 PM
Hmmmmmmm ... McIntosh amp from Stereophile's class "A" ? Or a receiver ...


Hmmmmmm...pre-out or no pre-out...to configure properly or not to configure properly...decisions, decisions.

Randy

craigsub
06-10-2005, 10:34 PM
Hmmmmmm...pre-out or no pre-out...to configure properly or not to configure properly...decisions, decisions.

Randy

Randy - I just quoted the opening line of the review as linked to by Chris Quinn. You guys wanted proof - It is there.

And you might want to look into the McIntosh ... It is SO far superior to any receiver.

craigsub
06-10-2005, 10:39 PM
1. Ascend "fans" showed no praise for methodology. Please show me a post in regards to that.

2. Please post where you stated that no crossover was going to be used.....in the 170 comparison or 340 comparison.

3. In which test? In the 170 test......both speakers were subject to the same exact setup, not so in the 340 test.

What did I admit to? I did not ever admit to knowing that a crossover was not going to be used.

From the Link as provided by Chris Quinn ...

"Great Stuff, Craig. Looking forward to what you think of the 340's"

Guess who said that ?

curtis
06-10-2005, 10:44 PM
Curtis - I am running $7000 worth of front end, and you seriously want to say the system would have sounded better with 20 extra feet of speaker wire going through a crossover which could not cost more than about $5 ?

Add into that the fact that I was not even coming close to taxing the speakers in question.

Of course, you never answered - do you think hitting 90 dB peaks at 10-11 feet away from a pair of 92 dB efficient 340's is taxing them ?
Well...you didn't answer my question either, you seem to keep side stepping the crossover issue. Very simple, is it better or not to use a crossover for proper integration? I will answer yours though.....

No, I do not think it is taxing them, but I do think they sound better, especially as the sound level goes up, when properly integrated with an excellent subs such as the Hsu.

craigsub
06-10-2005, 10:46 PM
Here is the opening post to the test of the 170's on Home Theater SPot...

www.hometheaterspot.com/htsthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/606117

craigsub
06-10-2005, 10:49 PM
Well...you didn't answer my question either, you seem to keep side stepping the crossover issue. Very simple, is it better or not to use a crossover for proper integration? I will answer yours though.....

No, I do not think it is taxing them, but I do think they sound better, especially as the sound level goes up, when properly integrated with an excellent subs such as the Hsu.

Curtis, If I was testing them in a 5.1 channel system, yes, the optimal method would be to cross them over.

And since you have likely forgotten, we WERE supposed to do more tests between the 250 Mark II's and the 340's ... in a home theater setting.

I was asked not to - and you know by whom.

And, as you can see, you have your link to the opening of the 170 review.

curtis
06-10-2005, 10:58 PM
From the Link as provided by Chris Quinn ...

"Great Stuff, Craig. Looking forward to what you think of the 340's"

Guess who said that ?
Lets stop causing the confusion Craig....

That quote was in response to getting your thoughts on the 340's, not in regards to a comparison.

The earlier post about the 170's being run fullrange, was also NOT a comparison thread.

Here is Chris' post in HTF, which happens to be in the comparison thread. Chris' post will lead you to the thread on HTS:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?postid=2317708#post2317708

curtis
06-10-2005, 11:04 PM
Curtis, If I was testing them in a 5.1 channel system, yes, the optimal method would be to cross them over.

And since you have likely forgotten, we WERE supposed to do more tests between the 250 Mark II's and the 340's ... in a home theater setting.

I was asked not to - and you know by whom.

And, as you can see, you have your link to the opening of the 170 review.
I guess we differ on how to optimally configure the setup between two-channel and 5.1. I make no distinction between the two for the best sound. A properly implemented crossover is always the best when integrating a subwoofer. That is my position.

If that is not your thinking, I could understand why you were asked not to do more "tests".

craigsub
06-10-2005, 11:07 PM
Lets stop causing the confusion Craig....

That quote was in response to getting your thoughts on the 340's, not in regards to a comparison.

The earlier post about the 170's being run fullrange, was also NOT a comparison thread.

Here is Chris' post in HTF, which happens to be in the comparison thread. Chris' post will lead you to the thread on HTS:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?postid=2317708#post2317708

Curtis - I did a direct comparison between the ELT-Cse's and the 170's in the thread I linked to. The Ascends "won", 9.1 to 8. It is in the thread for anyone to read. And your quote was right after the stand alone review of the 170's.

You asked where I said I was running the 170's full range with the STF-1, and I found it for you. I am going to bed. And yes, I will be checking here tomorrow.

curtis
06-10-2005, 11:13 PM
The announcement of the comparison was done after my post, and the thread was never advertised as a comparison thread. That comparison and thread was so obsure, that you couldn't find it.

As for the use of the speakers in full range, that is my OOOPS. I should have known and remembered that very first post while you conducted your tests on a different forum.

craigsub
06-10-2005, 11:13 PM
I guess we differ on how to optimally configure the setup between two-channel and 5.1. I make no distinction between the two for the best sound. A properly implemented crossover is always the best when integrating a subwoofer. That is my position.

If that is not your thinking, I could understand why you were asked not to do more "tests".

Whatever, Curtis. You have stated since last year that I never posted that the 170's were run full range in the review and comparison of them. I have now posted proof, and THAT is not good enough.

Your agenda is crystal clear.

I could post numerous links in which Stereophile ran subwoofers with speakers, and the speakers were run full range. But nothing like that matters to you.

Good night.

curtis
06-10-2005, 11:22 PM
Whatever, Curtis. You have stated since last year that I never posted that the 170's were run full range in the review and comparison of them. I have now posted proof, and THAT is not good enough.

Your agenda is crystal clear.

I could post numerous links in which Stereophile ran subwoofers with speakers, and the speakers were run full range. But nothing like that matters to you.

Good night.
You know Craig, I made no attacks on you here, just differing opinion on proper setup.

When is Stereophile right and when are they wrong? I remember you questioning a review of their's recently with some un-flattering graphs. By they way, they also speak highly of using crossovers for proper subwoofer integration...but I guess in my case, they are wrong?

I have acknowledged at one point I knew you had 170's running fullrange with the STF-1.....what would you like next? It is interesting as well that it is in the one thread that you picked a speaker over another certain brand, but yet it is a very obscure comparison, and the comparison is not part of the thread title.

Your attitude and agenda are clear as well. Tomorrow, we can talk about what triggers you asking if a listener has blind tested. There....that was my attack.

Lou-the-dog
06-11-2005, 05:05 AM
Randy - I just quoted the opening line of the review as linked to by Chris Quinn. You guys wanted proof - It is there.

And you might want to look into the McIntosh ... It is SO far superior to any receiver.

I find this interesting in that thread also...


The 340's are scheduled to ship this week, along with the H-K 630. The DVD set up will be a Pioneer 563iA ... This will be the system that will be the basis for future "inexpensive" bookshelf tests...

--------------------
Craigsub


You now look down your nose at my suggestion to have used a reciever so you could have properly integrated the system. It appears you had a H-K 630 on-hand (with pre-out) AND a NAD available to do so. Which goes back to my original question of why you chose to run full-range (and on more than one occaision apparently). It wasn't because you lacked the equipment or the apparent original intention to use it... afterall you DID order the H-K with the package.

Randy

craigsub
06-11-2005, 05:06 AM
As far as chiming in before the test was done, if you can show me the post where you stated that no crossover was going to be used, then I will admit, that I, and every other experienced person should have chimed in, and it was our fault for not correcting you.

Lets just agree to disagree.

Mr. Chang - Your words. This sure sounds like you were contradicting the fact that the methodology had been publicly posted.

craigsub
06-11-2005, 05:11 AM
1. Ascend "fans" showed no praise for methodology. Please show me a post in regards to that.

2. Please post where you stated that no crossover was going to be used.....in the 170 comparison or 340 comparison.

3. In which test? In the 170 test......both speakers were subject to the same exact setup, not so in the 340 test.

What did I admit to? I did not ever admit to knowing that a crossover was not going to be used.

Again your words. You CHALLENGED me to show where I stated the crossover status. By the way, The "other speakers", as you noted in "3", above, were not tested in the same manner as were the 340's. The 340's were given the use of a subwoofer.

The other speakers were run full range, with NO subwoofer.

craigsub
06-11-2005, 05:21 AM
I find this interesting in that thread also...


The 340's are scheduled to ship this week, along with the H-K 630. The DVD set up will be a Pioneer 563iA ... This will be the system that will be the basis for future "inexpensive" bookshelf tests...

--------------------
Craigsub


You now look down your nose at my suggestion to have used a reciever so you could have properly integrated the system. It appears you had a H-K 630 on-hand (with pre-out) AND a NAD available to do so. Which goes back to my original question of why you chose to run full-range (and on more than one occaision apparently). It wasn't because you lacked the equipment or the apparent original intention to use it... afterall you DID order the H-K with the package.

Randy

Randy - Quite simply, For the purposes if this test, The way I set the speakers up and the volume levels which I used were optimal..

I am not "looking down my nose" at the receiver. I am stating a McIntosh MA-6900 is far superior in sound quality to a Harmon Kardon.

By definition, using what David Fabrikant stated in the room dimensions and listening levels, had I truly done what he said, He would have a point.

"High listening levels" typically means 90 to 100 dB for most listening, with 110 dB peaks.

This would require 50 times the power for a pair of speakers vs. what I used here - add into that doubling the size of the room, over what it really is, and you are looking at 500 watt peaks, rather than the 5 watt peaks I used here.

Again, I also used music which concentrated on the mids and highs.

But, hey, IF you guys want to think I was wrong because running less than 1 watt with normal listening levels and 5 watt peaks because that would somehow cause sonic degradation, go ahead.

Personally, I know the 340's are a better speaker than you guys give it credit for.

I had also OFFERED to use the H-K receiver in order to do another test using Rocket 250 Mark II's and Ascend 340's with a Hsu VTF-3 Mark II. I was asked not to by David F. It was HIS call, not mine.

curtis
06-11-2005, 08:02 AM
Mr. Chang - Your words. This sure sounds like you were contradicting the fact that the methodology had been publicly posted.
I will post it here and now. From your first post about the 170's, and how you were going to listen to them, you DID state that you were going to listen to them full range on a seperate forum. Point given to you Craig. My apologies as well. In the future, may I suggest that you keep a copy of your methodology in every comparison thread that you start.

Now, back to the issue of your comparison with the 340's. I will state this here and now as well. The 340's were not set up optimally. The use of a crossover for subwoofer integration was not used, and should have been. I know you know this is the case, but not willing to admit it.

You had the equipment to use a crossover. It is very unlikely that anybody purchasing these speakers would have $7K of electronics in front of them for solely 2-channel use.


Personally, I know the 340's are a better speaker than you guys give it credit for.
No....again, that is not the case. We know it is an excellent speaker. We are saying that you did not have them set-up optimally.

mv1612
06-11-2005, 08:46 AM
Craig,

I would just add my point, being the starter of this thread. I never wanted to start here the discussions from hometheaterforum, just wanted an answer at a benign question…

But now that we’re there, I would make a comparison. I’m a totally inexperienced audio user, but I’m quite a good high-school physics teacher. When discussing with my students I’m usually right, but from time to time a make a mistake, and afterwards, after realising it, I just tell Sorry guys, I was wrong, and my image in their eyes never suffers because of this.

No one here questions your experience and knowledge, we just feel that you made a mistake. Acknowledging it wouldn’t harm anything, on the contrary. Continuing to say that putting them on Large was best for their performance will affect your credibility, however, on the long run. Come on, Craig, is it so difficult to say Yes guys, I made a mistake, sorry!

Virgil.

craigsub
06-11-2005, 08:48 AM
Curtis ... I did later try the STF-1's crossover with the 340's and the STF-1. Using the front I have here, there WAS sonic degradation. It is a $299 subwoofer whose parts cost less than $100. How much of that money do you think was spent on the high level crossover ?

I do agree that most people won't use $7000 worth of front end. I also opined that the 340's might be an easier speaker to drive than were the 550's. Note - I said "MIGHT" ... not "WERE" ...

This was another reason I offered to continue testing with the H-K.

The offer was declined.

I also offered to try the bookshelf version of the 550 - the 250.

The offer was declined.

Finally - If you look at what was said by David F., and do so with an objective eye, he basically said I abused the 340's in the test.

It is clear the 340's are NOT intended for high level listening in an 8000 cubic foot room. To play them IN an 8000 cubic foot room at high volume levels would be to abuse them.

The idea that I somehow abused the 340's is just plain not true.

craigsub
06-11-2005, 08:57 AM
Craig,

I would just add my point, being the starter of this thread. I never wanted to start here the discussions from hometheaterforum, just wanted an answer at a benign question…

But now that we’re there, I would make a comparison. I’m a totally inexperienced audio user, but I’m quite a good high-school physics teacher. When discussing with my students I’m usually right, but from time to time a make a mistake, and afterwards, after realising it, I just tell Sorry guys, I was wrong, and my image in their eyes never suffers because of this.

No one here questions your experience and knowledge, we just feel that you made a mistake. Acknowledging it wouldn’t harm anything, on the contrary. Continuing to say that putting them on Large was best for their performance will affect your credibility, however, on the long run. Come on, Craig, is it so difficult to say Yes guys, I made a mistake, sorry!

Virgil.

Virgil - You are right. I have made quite a mistake. I believed that when one publically posted the methodology to be used in a test, and when everyone whose product was being tested agrees with said methodology, that they mean it.

I also discussed, via e-mail and phone, the test equipment being used, and the methodology. Again, I got approval.

Now, we have people saying that I:

1. Never posted the methodology prior to the test.
2. That I used high volumes.
3. That my room is 8000 cubic feet.

The fact that none of these MAJOR items is true is irrelevant to the members of this forum. I understand that.

I was a Physics major at Penn State, and taught several high school courses while attending university.

I have to deal with over 100 employees, 200 clients, and over 6000 people who work for those clients. I am wrong several times per day. This is not one of those instances.

The 340's and STF-1 do, in fact, sound the best in the McIntosh system run full range on the 340's with the STF-1 augmenting the bottom end. This is within the confines of moderate levels for SPL's which we used.

I never said, at ANY time, that running the 340's in "large" was ALWAYS optimal. For high output home theater spectaculars, they would NOT be best used as "large".

And, again, I really have offered to do a retest, using any methology that everyone agreed on. That offer was declined.

When running any type of experiment, one plans out the methods to be used. We did that. Some people had a problem with the results.

Ok ... I understand that.

But, when an offer is made to re-do the test, and the offer is snubbed, and then people attack the test methodology, that is just plain wrong.

curtis
06-11-2005, 09:06 AM
Craig,

If you reduce it to pure objectivity, the speakers were not set up optimally regardless of room size and listening levels.

In this instance of your comparison, without having to integrate a sub with the front end, the RS550's benefited in that scenario.

craigsub
06-11-2005, 09:15 AM
Craig,

If you reduce it to pure objectivity, the speakers were not set up optimally regardless of room size and listening levels.

In this instance of your comparison, without having to integrate a sub with the front end, the RS550's benefited in that scenario.

Curtis ... That is your opinion, not objective information. Why don't you objectively discuss what possible sonic degradation the test methodology caused ?

And, again, I OFFERED to re-do the entire test. There was one person who declined the offer.

curtis
06-11-2005, 09:46 AM
The technical information is in DaveF's post. If you are saying it is my opinion, you must certainly think the same way of your own.

The FACT still remains, all things being equal, the proper use of a crossover is always best for subwoofer integration. This is a fact that you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge. This is the only issue I have with this thread and your comparison.

A crossover fitting the caliber of the rest of your equipment should have been used.

Yes...we know you offered to redo the test. Quite noble of you, but in light of what has happenned, I think people would feel more comfortable if more than one knowledgeable and publically accessible person were part of the comparison. This not only benefits readers and skeptics, but you as well.

Busy day today....I won't have time to post much more until this evening, if I have the energy, but I will sneak a peak once in a while.

Also, this differing opinion discussion is probably best taken offline. I think you still have my phone numbers.

craigsub
06-11-2005, 09:56 AM
The technical information is in DaveF's post. If you are saying it is my opinion, you must certainly think the same way of your own.

The FACT still remains, all things being equal, the proper use of a crossover is always best for subwoofer integration. This is a fact that you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge. This is the only issue I have with this thread and your comparison.

A crossover fitting the caliber of the rest of your equipment should have been used.

Yes...we know you offered to redo the test. Quite noble of you, but in light of what has happenned, I think people would feel more comfortable if more than one knowledgeable and publically accessible person were part of the comparison. This not only benefits readers and skeptics, but you as well.

I saw David's post, Curtis. And, again, the problem you have with the test was the results. He clearly states that, at moderate volumes, running the 340's is not a problem.

I did, by the way, post the system on HTF, too. The review system was the same in the Axiom, ELT-Cse, Ascend 170, Ascend 340, and Rocket 550 tests.

The review system was also publically posted BEFORE each test.

When the Ascend 170's narrowly "beat" the Rocket ELT-Cse's - All you guys did was praise the results. There was NO comment about review methodology being flawed.

When the 550's narrowly "beat" the 340's, the review method and the reviewer were attacked.

curtis
06-11-2005, 10:10 AM
Once again, lets take out all the attacks and biases. All wrong...period. So lets not use them for basis for anything in this thread. I apologize for my part in it. We can even throw out the end results.

To reiterate:
The FACT still remains, all things being equal, the proper use of a crossover is always best for subwoofer integration. The CMT-340's were not setup optimally because of this fact.

craigsub
06-11-2005, 10:20 AM
Once again, lets take out all the attacks and biases. All wrong...period. So lets not use them for basis for anything in this thread. I apologize for my part in it. We can even throw out the end results.

To reiterate:
The FACT still remains, all things being equal, the proper use of a crossover is always best for subwoofer integration. The CMT-340's were not setup optimally because of this fact.

Curtis - In that case, neither speaker was set up optimally. It is still an even playing field. It is just frustrating to me - First you guys make up stuff about my room size, whether I posted about the methodology ahead of time, etc...

When THAT turns out to not be true, you switch gears.

Fine - Both the 550's and the 340's would benefit from the use of a crossover and a subwoofer. If you will remember, the 550's were ALSO run full range. Every "non optimal" problem with the test for the 340's applies to the 550's, too.

I offered, on the SAME day the results were posted, to re-do the test with 250's, 340's both crossed over with subwoofers. That was last August. It was declined.

I do owe you one thanks, though. Thanks for showing me why guys don't do these kind of tests.

Other than the BS posted last night about my 8000 cubic foot room and excessive volume levels, my life on the forums has been peaceful.

You and David are the main reason I got out of reviewing products.

sensibull
06-11-2005, 11:17 AM
At the risk of pissing off the "home team" (of which I am a member, with a pair of 340s myself), the condescension, nit-picking, mule-headedness, and equivocation displayed towards Criag does not speak well for Ascend owners and essentially amounts to a "pile on." I've read all the pertinent threads, followed the ensuing controversy, and while I implicitly trust Dave F.'s explanation for why, technically speaking, it is best not to run the 340s full range, there is clearly some ambiguity here as I believe Dave runs them that way himself.

Would anyone here be freaking out about the crossover setup if the 340s had "won" the comparison? In the end, I think Ascends' reputation would benefit most if its owners accepted the futility of (and avoided the mudslinging involved in) trying to win, control, or get the last word on any online brouhaha. This "high road" approach is one of the things that attracted me to this company (and community) in the first place and I'd hate to see that class sullied by one rather unimportant speaker comparison.

Just my $.02, FWIW, YMMV, yadda, yadda, yadda...

craigsub
06-11-2005, 11:28 AM
At the risk of pissing off the "home team" (of which I am a member, with a pair of 340s myself), the condescension, nit-picking, mule-headedness, and equivocation displayed towards Criag does not speak well for Ascend owners and essentially amounts to a "pile on." I've read all the pertinent threads, followed the ensuing controversy, and while I implicitly trust Dave F.'s explanation for why, technically speaking, it is best not to run the 340s full range, there is clearly some ambiguity here as I believe Dave runs them that way himself.

Would anyone here be freaking out about the crossover setup if the 340s had "won" the comparison? In the end, I think Ascends' reputation would benefit most if its owners accepted the futility of (and avoided the mudslinging involved in) trying to win, control, or get the last word on any online brouhaha. This "high road" approach is one of the things that attracted me to this company (and community) in the first place and I'd hate to see that class sullied by one rather unimportant speaker comparison.

Just my $.02, FWIW, YMMV, yadda, yadda, yadda...

Sensibull ... Thanks for the defense. One of the ironies of this is that I am still a proud Ascend owner. The speakers reviewed were purchased at the same price everyone pays. I have 340's across the front and 170's in the back.

I like them. A lot.

And yes, the comparison itself is unimportant. It was supposed to be fun.

Over the past year, literally dozens of people have asked me about whether or not to purchase Ascends. The answer has always been either an absolute yes, or a suggestion to try a pair, as the shipping risk is nominal.

mv1612
06-11-2005, 02:03 PM
Sensibull is right… Let’s face it, how often have you met with angry Paradigm or Axiom fans, angry that our beloved Ascends shattered their speakers, like they did on many Internet reviews and comparisons? (I said “our” Ascends, as I’m a certain future Ascend owner).

And the crossover problem seems to be a bit more complicated that I thought… I thought it is common knowledge that monitors should be put on small, and maybe it is, but it seems that we could also rise the question of the crossover quality in the subwoofer, and of suplementary wires, as Craig says, lets give him credit for this, we more or less rejected almost everything he said here. I would like so much to add something coming from my own listenings, I feel downright crippled of being able to talk only from the “common knowledge” found on the Internet. For example, speaking of common knowledge (the irony is directed toward myself), I would say that although both the 340s and 550s were driven as FULL, the 550s suffered less being full range. Don’t get angry on me, Craig, this is trying to be a nice, relaxed post :) .

I’m sure Ascends are not intangible… as an aside, I would enjoy a comparison with the new kid on the block, John de Vore. He makes truly high end, expensive speakers. There’s the Gibbon 7.1, http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/devore3/gibbon71.html , which is exactly the same size as the 340s but in an entire different price category, being priced at $3k, so they SHOULD be better!. I would certainly enjoy a comparison concluding that they are marginally better than the 340s :) .

Virgil.

sensibull
06-11-2005, 02:09 PM
Over the past year, literally dozens of people have asked me about whether or not to purchase Ascends. The answer has always been either an absolute yes, or a suggestion to try a pair, as the shipping risk is nominal.

I have read many such posts (and your recommendations), which (given the tendency for folks who can afford much more expensive speakers to look down their noses at "affordable" brands) is another reason I consider the animosity towards you misplaced. You're not above tooting your own (klipsch)horn, mind you :wink:, but you certainly don't seem to be miserly with your good fortune...

craigsub
06-11-2005, 02:13 PM
Sensibull is right… Let’s face it, how often have you met with angry Paradigm or Axiom fans, angry that our beloved Ascends shattered their speakers, like they did on many Internet reviews and comparisons? (I said “our” Ascends, as I’m a certain future Ascend owner).

And the crossover problem seems to be a bit more complicated that I thought… I thought it is common knowledge that monitors should be put on small, and maybe it is, but it seems that we could also rise the question of the crossover quality in the subwoofer, and of suplementary wires, as Craig says, lets give him credit for this, we more or less rejected almost everything he said here. I would like so much to add something coming from my own listenings, I feel downright crippled of being able to talk only from the “common knowledge” found on the Internet. For example, speaking of common knowledge (the irony is directed toward myself), I would say that although both the 340s and 550s were driven as FULL, the 550s suffered less being full range. Don’t get angry on me, Craig, this is trying to be a nice, relaxed post :) .

I’m sure Ascends are not intangible… as an aside, I would enjoy a comparison with the new kid on the block, John de Vore. He makes truly high end, expensive speakers. There’s the Gibbon 7.1, http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/devore3/gibbon71.html , which is exactly the same size as the 340s but in an entire different price category, being priced at $3k, so they SHOULD be better!. I would certainly enjoy a comparison concluding that they are marginally better than the 340s :) .

Virgil.

Virgil - There is no anger towards you at all. Nor is there towards Randy - You both are sort of "11th hour" on this stuff.

When you said "intangible", I think you meant "infallible" ? And you are right, there is no perfect speaker.

For some background (which certain people know), I own not only the Ascends, but Axiom, Rocket, Onix Reference, Paradigms, and Energy Veritas.

They are all excellent performers.

IF you want, go to the Loudspeakers and Subwoofers section on Home Theater Forum, a gent was asking about the decision between 170's and 340's. You might find it interesting the one person who answered his question ...

craigsub
06-11-2005, 02:15 PM
Virgil - Pretty cool review, too. You are right, for $3k, they SHOULD be good ... ;)

davef
06-11-2005, 07:38 PM
Wow...

I come back from a 2-day vacation and get to see this? Not fun...

Craig, my apologies for getting your room size wrong. That was an honest mistake. You have so many different systems in different rooms in your house. Maybe it was your review of The Ref 3s or some other speaker that you had in such a large room…

Also, regarding high output, I recall somewhere in your review measuring 92dB? I don't have the time now to read through your original review, but I will say you are taking my responses to member's questions the wrong way.

Yes, I certainly got your room size wrong but output levels are subject to opinion... And remember, while you correctly stated the CMT-340 sensitivity at 92dB, sensitivity has no bearing on power handling and maximum output capability. Sensitivity is measured at a distance of only 1 meter.. at 3 meters (approx 10 feet, your listening distance), the power requirements needed to reach that same level are dramatically higher. Certainly this output level is no problem when using the speakers high-passed, but it can introduce unwanted artifacts at frequencies below tuning, besides making it almost impossible to achieve the correct phase and amplitude integration between speaker and sub.

I would be happy to run a driver excursion simulation for you, just to see how hard the woofers were actually being pushed at frequencies below port tuning. Can't do it now though, must unpack, but just let me know... The techie side of you might find it interesting.

To everyone else in this thread, it is perfectly OK to disagree but let us all behave nicely please. I know Craig does not agree with my stance, he does not have to and I am OK with that.. you should be too. His opinion will not change, nor will mine, and from what I read it doesn’t seem like anyone is trying to change anyone’s opinion, just disagreeing. After a few days in the High-Sierra’s I realize that these are just loudspeakers after all….

In my opinion, it is important for a review of a loudspeaker system to best represent how potential buyers and owners intend to use the speakers. The fact is, I have never recommended (both before Craig's review or after the review) anyone to run the 340 mains full range combined with a subwoofer. I honestly don't think (at least I can't recall) a single customer using them in this manner. To this extent, regardless of Craig's testing methodology, the setup was not representative of how people actually use the 340 mains... I don’t think there can be any disagreement on that statement?

There is no reason to re-hash this over and over again.. Craig is welcome here, different opinions are welcome here.... I will NOT delete or close this thread. All of this would have been avoided if I hadn't posted the wrong information regarding Craig's room... My memory fails me all too often now (those of you with kids know what I am talking about) and with so much to do, I was lazy and tried to recall the room size from memory. (Craig, where did I get that large room from? Maestro review?)

However, my response to the member regarding using 340 mains with/without a subwoofer etc. would have been the exact same regardless of Craig’s room size.. If 340 mains are being considered and bass below 55Hz is desired, I strongly recommend a subwoofer combined with high-passing the speakers (60-80Hz)... Most of us know that obtaining any clean output below port tuning is next to impossible. A woofer in a ported enclosure is "uncontrolled" below the tuning point and both excursion and distortion dramatically increase.

And yes, I do run my 340 mains full range, but without a subwoofer (not the same setup as Craig's review, no sub)... However, please keep in mind that my listening habits are a bit different than most, if not all. I need to hear the speakers ONLY, all the good stuff and the bad.... Rarely do I listen for purely "enjoyment" purposes (and how I miss it), instead my listening is more as an evaluation of the design. Many times I will even listen to a single speaker in mono for hours (no fun at all but the best way to really "hear" the speaker)... Before the release of the 340 mains, I had CBM-170s subwooferless for the most part, as well as HTM-200s without a sub.. Of course, if I am going to give an audition, movies or music, a subwoofer will be reconnected and the speakers high-passed...

Craig, again, my apologies for my error and a sincere thanks for the kind words on the performance of the 340 mains.

craigsub
06-11-2005, 09:45 PM
Hi David,

Thanks for the welcome here. Regarding room size - I am not sure where the 8000 figure came from. Our two primary listening rooms are 5700 and 4200 cubic feet, with the 4200 cubic feet being even easier to work in for smaller speakers. It has a stairwell which divides the room into 1/3rd-2/3rd lengths. I also have always used moderate to low volume levels for the critical listening tests. The listening lasts for hours, and high volumes just won't "cut it" for this. I do typically do some short term, as in 30 seconds long, high volume tests to check for macro dynamics.

I do understand what ten feet does vs. one meter. This is why I estimated 5 watts on peaks for our listening tests, in order to achieve the 90 dB peaks.

As far as testing methodology goes, yes, what we do is demanding on a pair of speakers. The easiest test for a speaker is to run a 5.1 system. I can set up 5 Blank 201's and a decent subwoofer, put people who think they have pretty good ears into our room, and get some pretty positive feedback.

I also understand a lot of people here did not follow the various review threads I started last year. We tested quite a few loudspeakers, and every one of them received the identical treatment.

For example, The Rocket 550's were run full range. The Ascend 340's were run full range with the addition of a subwoofer to augment bass. They were both set in the arena of a high end, two channel system. They were both scrutinized. This was the same system in which $10,000 Infinity IRS speakers were used, along with $7500 Klipschorns and $4500 Onix Reference 3's.

The Ref 3's are Secrets of Home Theater & High Fidelity's speaker of the year. The Infinity's are a former Stereophile Class "A". The Klipshorns are ruthlessy revealing. Running these lesser expensive speakers in this system is a GREAT test for them.

The 340's and 550's scored within 5% of each other. In direct comparison to some VERY well thought of systems, they BOTH received excellent marks.

My first priority in a test is to make sure all contestants receive equivalant treatment.

My second is to make sure listening is blind. I like to remove all potential for bias.

What I learned in these blind comparisons is this: People who spent money on a product want to read a review which tells them they bought the best. Audiophiles want to be told, "Your XXXX speakers perform better than those selling for 5 times the price". They would far prefer someone looks (literally) at their XXXX speakers and tell them "You could not possibly have done better for the money". People do not want to hear, read, or be in any way told that their product MIGHT (my emphasis, as I have always stated others may disagree with my opinion) not be the absolute best.

That is the nature of the audio world. That is ok. Thankfully, there are a lot of audio magazines willing to do just that.

NewBuyer
06-11-2005, 10:48 PM
I just have to say this, although reluctantly:

To a potential customer of Ascend, this is a very confusing and distressing thread.

Dave F. himself has said - more than once - that running the 340's full range in a smaller room or at moderate volumes, will not be a problem. So we should feel that we have this statement on good authority - yes?

Craig has explained, many times, that he tested these 340 speakers full range in a smaller room (4200 cubic feet) AND at moderate volumes (only about 1 watt, with possibly 5 watt peaks). Craig also tested them crossed over with a STF-1 subwoofer, and he found the speakers sounded WORSE this way - which makes sense, since the passive crossover in the sub would obviously be the sonic weak-link in his $7000 front-end rig.

Dave F. had accidentally thought that Craig had tested them full-range at "very high levels" and also thought the test had occurred in an 8000 cubic foot room. We now know that both of these assumptions were incorrect, and Dave F. has apologized for these inaccuracies.

So in Craig's testing environment of a small room and at low to moderate levels, the 340's are therefore clearly operating in a perfectly acceptable manner for a full range test, at least according to Dave F.

So everything appears to be in order here.

Yet, there seems to be a very unbecoming "ganging-up" behavior of forum members here on Craig, simply because he did not conclude the 340's to be the best most absolutely perfect speaker ever made. Some of the above posts read like personal attacks on him, trying to either bully him into submission or making him feel unable to rationally discuss anything here at all.

I might be missing something however (?)

craigsub
06-12-2005, 05:22 AM
Newbuyer - Please don't let anything you have read here dissuade you from purchasing Ascend speakers. In my travels and listening tests, I found the 340's and a VTF-3.2 subwoofer to be superior to the Paradigm 100 v.3's.

How did I do this ? Pretty simple, I bought a pair of the Paradigms - and they are still here.

At the time of the now infamous test, I had auditioned speakers from Energy, PSB, Totem, Dahlquist ... etc... etc... etc...

The 340's were among the very best at reproducing music.

The one speaker which had potential, but which we have not tried here, is the Axiom M80ti ... perhaps soon.

Right now, I have a pair of $4500 Energy Veritas 2.4i's running with $4500 worth of Emotiva gear - This is a system WITH full bass management, and even though it has 7 channels of amplification, I find it to surpass even the McIntosh. (A review has been posted on Audioholics for those interested) ...

The 340's, with twin Onix UFW-10's added, give the Veritas real competition.

For less than 1/2 the price, they are about 95 % as good.

Same thing with the Rocket 250.2's.

The speakers companies like Ascend are producing are fantastic values. Your money will be well spent here - and THAT is what counts... :)

sensibull
06-12-2005, 05:33 AM
To a potential customer of Ascend, this is a very confusing and distressing thread.

Although I responded similarly, I now feel the need to play devil's advocate and make sure people are aware that more is/was involved here than whether a crossover was used properly. If you haven't read all of the threads about this particular comparison (the main one was closed and deleted), than you simply have to take this latest rehashing with a grain of salt. I won't go into details, because that would accomplish nothing but exhume beefs thankfully now buried. Suffice it to say that contention between the main individuals involved is not solely limited to the subject of this speaker comparison, and that, unfortunately, things got personal somewhere along the line. Happens ALL the time in this fanatical hobby, as even a casual reader of the more poplular forums can tell you, but thankfully MUCH less often around here and in regard to Ascends than several of the other brands.

In other words, it would be a big mistake for a potential buyer to assume this thread is in any way an accurate representation of Ascend, as a company, a product, or a community of owners.

craigsub
06-12-2005, 05:59 AM
Although I responded similarly, I now feel the need to play devil's advocate and make sure people are aware that more is/was involved here than whether a crossover was used properly. If you haven't read all of the threads about this particular comparison (the main one was closed and deleted), than you simply have to take this latest rehashing with a grain of salt. I won't go into details, because that would accomplish nothing but exhume beefs thankfully now buried. Suffice it to say that contention between the main individuals involved is not solely limited to the subject of this speaker comparison, and that, unfortunately, things got personal somewhere along the line. Happens ALL the time in this fanatical hobby, as even a casual reader of the more poplular forums can tell you, but thankfully MUCH less often around here and in regard to Ascends than several of the other brands.

In other words, it would be a big mistake for a potential buyer to assume this thread is in any way an accurate representation of Ascend, as a company, a product, or a community of owners.

Well said - with one small correction - The thread is actually still there, in closed status. For whatever reason, the easiest way to search it is to do a search on "Ascend 340's", and it will be on the 2nd page of threads listed. Just be prepared for some SERIOUS reading. It is a LOOOOOOOONG thread.

And you are quite correct, the direct factory forums tend to be far less (searching for the right word) .... petulant .... than the open forums.

Lou-the-dog
06-12-2005, 06:29 AM
Yet, there seems to be a very unbecoming "ganging-up" behavior of forum members here on Craig, simply because he did not conclude the 340's to be the best most absolutely perfect speaker ever made. Some of the above posts read like personal attacks on him, trying to either bully him into submission or making him feel unable to rationally discuss anything here at all.

Yes. You did witness some unbecoming behaviour of which I was a major part of. To those of you that were offended I apologize to. This thread is NOT an example of what goes on here regularly... it is a rarity.

To explain my behaviour somewhat... Craig apparently felt "taken to task" on the relatively small issue (keep in mind the spirit of the thread) of room size and listening levels... and this was apparent to me (knowing the history of the original comparison). He chose to come and post not to add (in a positive way) in an originally very friendly and informative thread but to simply defend his poorly done comparison...again. This negative behaviour of his (and mine) is simply remaining artifacts from the negative feelings created out of the comparison. This was immediately obvious to me. This is his style. He chooses to quickly point out errors of others but will not acknowledge and accept his errors. To accept his error in properly setting up that system in that comparison would have allowed this thread to move past that negative phase and productive discussion could have continued on properly optomizing your Ascend system. Unfortunately this probably won't happen and folks will continue to think that it is OK to run Ascends full range WITH a sub. PLEASE do not confuse the way Craig set up that system in that comparison with proper optomization!!

Dave designed the Ascends to integrate with a sub WITH the use of a crossover. You can run these speakers full range if you want (I do also at times) but if you add a sub then definitely use a crossover. That is the bottom line and hope this clears up some confusion with this mess.

Randy

craigsub
06-12-2005, 08:49 AM
Yes. You did witness some unbecoming behaviour of which I was a major part of. To those of you that were offended I apologize to. This thread is NOT an example of what goes on here regularly... it is a rarity.

To explain my behaviour somewhat... Craig apparently felt "taken to task" on the relatively small issue (keep in mind the spirit of the thread) of room size and listening levels... and this was apparent to me (knowing the history of the original comparison). He chose to come and post not to add (in a positive way) in an originally very friendly and informative thread but to simply defend his poorly done comparison...again. This negative behaviour of his (and mine) is simply remaining artifacts from the negative feelings created out of the comparison. This was immediately obvious to me. This is his style. He chooses to quickly point out errors of others but will not acknowledge and accept his errors. To accept his error in properly setting up that system in that comparison would have allowed this thread to move past that negative phase and productive discussion could have continued on properly optomizing your Ascend system. Unfortunately this probably won't happen and folks will continue to think that it is OK to run Ascends full range WITH a sub. PLEASE do not confuse the way Craig set up that system in that comparison with proper optomization!!

Dave designed the Ascends to integrate with a sub WITH the use of a crossover. You can run these speakers full range if you want (I do also at times) but if you add a sub then definitely use a crossover. That is the bottom line and hope this clears up some confusion with this mess.

Randy

Randy - So much for civility. Your points are as follows :

1. Saying a 4200 cubic foot room is an 8000 cubic foot room is a minor point.
2. Saying someone who listens to speakers at 70 to 80 dB, with occasional peaks to 90 dB is also listening at "high levels" is a minor point. These are your words, not mine.

In the field of audio, "high levels" has always meant a minimum of 105 dB peaks. This would mean I would have to have had run the speakers at levels between 85 and 95 dB on average, or a full 15 dB HIGHER than I really did.

When doubling the room size is added into the equation, this means a 21 dB difference in what I was asking the speakers to do.

When dealing with the logarithmic nature of sound, this means, if what I actually had used for average sound levels required 0.5 watts of power for the 80 dB level, and 5 watts for the 90 dB level, in order to achieve "high levels" into a room twice the size of the actual room used would require 50 watts for the 95 dB level and 500 watts for peaks.

So, in your opinion, "felt I was taken to task for some small issue". A 100 to 1 difference in the load sent to a loudspeaker is not a "small issue"

I really don't have a problem with someone thinking the myriad of tests being done was "not optimized". If you are going to take the position that the 340's are meant to only be used with a subwoofer's crossover, that is your perogrative. In a two channel system, like the one with the McIntosh MA-6900, using the extra pre-outs to send a signal directly to the subwoofer just plain sounds better than does sending a "speaker level" signal into the subwoofer's crossover, then back to the main speakers. The Caveat here is that the mains are not being overdriven.

If David Fabrikant comes back with a computer model showing audible break up from 30 Hz and up (the music sessions were specifically selected to keep the frequencies above 30 Hz - I was always running TrueRTA in "Peak Hold" mode in order to assure this, as always) at 0.2 to 5 watts, then yes, I made an error. I only ask that the 5 watt inputs be kept to short term peaks, as they were here.

Yesterday, I was taken to task by forum members here to "prove my assertion" that I had posted that the speakers were going to be run full range.

I posted links to the asked for "proof". It was clearly stated before each test, including the ELT-Cse/Axiom, the ELT-Cse/Ascend 170, and the Ascend 340/Rocket 550, that all main speakers were being run full range. For some reason, that does not seem to matter now. Oh well.

You want an admission from me of my "error". There was no "error" made. There was a review methodology posted prior to the review, which was agreed to by all parties. If you elect to not believe that, that is ok - I would rather you say I was lying and get it over with.

To be very concise here, David Fabrikant, Curtis Chang, Mark Schifter, The folks at Axiom ALL knew that their respective company's speakers were being run full range BEFORE each test. It would have been pretty simple, at that time, for any of them to ask me to change the methodology I used.

If you look at the specific comparison between the 340's and the 550's, the popular belief at the time was that the Ascend package was given an advantage over the other speakers due to its addition of a subwoofer. In fact, Axiom withdrew from the comparison due to this.

Remember, the 550's, like the 340's, have two 6.5 inch bass drivers in a ported cabinet. THEY were also run full range, without the benefit of a subwoofer.

If you would actually read the beginning of the review on HTF, I was being taken to task quite a bit for being overly "pro-Ascend". You will see where Chris Quinn posts a direct link to the 170/ELT review, which again states all review methodology, PLUS you will see where I (for about the tenth time during the various tests) posted the review system and methodology.

LOOKING at this from another standpoint - Let's say someone asked me for the optimum set up for five 340's, an H-K 635, and a VTF-3 Mark II subwoofer in a high output theater. YES, I would say the H-K's crossover should be used.

PART of the test was going to be continued in such a manner. A Full FIVE channel set up, using the 630 receiver I had here, as you pointed out. I was asked, by David, NOT to do this test. I understand that does not matter to you, and that you have decided I was "wrong" in the methodology used, and nothing I say will sway you.

I am fine with that. Be well.

Lou-the-dog
06-12-2005, 08:56 AM
I am fine with that. Be well.

And it best be left with that. An agreement to disagree is as best as it's apparently going to get.

Randy

JohnnyCasaba
06-12-2005, 10:09 AM
This is a quote from the first night's session Craig did to clear up some of the questions NewBuyer had:

"Tonight, as promised, we started the blind listening tests. The system being used is a McIntosh MA-6900 200 WPC Integrated Amp and a modified (UnderWood Wally) Denon 2900 Universal Player. We did make a change in music to Steely Dan's "2 Against Nature (2AN)" DVD/A and Sarah McLachlan's "Solace" CD.

For the set up, the Rocket 550's are about one foot away from the wall, both backs and sides. The Ascend 340's are just inside the 550's. This means the 550's are 12 feet apart, and the 340's are 10 feet apart. I am 11 feet from the speakers, and each is toed in a bit.

The STF-1 has the deepest response when corner loaded, so it is in the corner behind the speakers.

The results:

Speaker System "A" : Starting with Steely Dan, with the lows, it was clear this speaker had quality bass, my ears tell me "A" was good to the low 30's in bass extension. This disc has bass to the mid teens, as our B4+ has shown many times. "A" was missing that last octave completely, but what bass it did do was articulate, tuneful, and tight. The song "What a Shame about me" has some VERY powerful bass notes, and "A" was good, but again, not into the last octave.

On Solace's "Backdoor Man", it was more of the same. It has some outstanding deep bass in the beginning (apparently, when this disc was mastered, twin Hartley 24 inch drivers were used with the monitors), this bass is combined with the kick drum... very difficult and powerful down to 22 Hz. "A" was good in the low 30 Hz and up range again.

In the mids and highs, "A" was a LOT better than one would expect for the money. Guitar from "Solace" and Sax from "2AN" were presented with only a small amount of "nasal" quality. Sarah's voice was quite clear and seductive, and there is some upper bass playing that is almost grungelike, and this came through with a lot of punch.

Soundstage was quite deep, and wide as the room... with a believable presentation. More on soundstaging as the tests continue.

Dynamics were quite good, "A" could easily hit 100 dB peaks in our large room before sounding conjested. This room is 43 x 14 feet, so that is no small feat.

Speaker "B" : Starting again in the Bass, Take everything from Speaker "A" and drop the response to the low 20's. The bass quality is as good as the "A" speakers, but the depth and power are better. While they were not B4+ in power, "B" gave the impression of being a truly full range system, lacking only the last 1/3 octave, rather than the full octave. For example, the "grungelike" bass form Solace was presented by "B" with a foundation lacking in "A". It WAS playing bass you could feel as well as hear. When you consider these systems are $1000, that is remarkable.

Mids and highs were quite similar between the two systems. "B" was excellent on guitar, sax, drums... all of it. Compared to "A" it was a bit more open and relaxed, though not quite as focused. "B" was an imaging and soundstaging champ, They gave a lot more of a feeling of the musicians being across the room in front of you to a great degree than did "A"

Dynamics in "B" were astounding. I listened for about 30 seconds at 105 dB from the listening position with little or no congestion at all. "B" is definitely shaping up to be a possible choice for a larger room."

The room Craig used is 43 x 14 feet, this is far from a small room. Also you will note, the program material used has some significant bass extension. Down into the teens for the Steely disc and 22hz for the Backdoor Man track from Solace. I believe Craig also used the 1812 Overture and Roger Waters' In The Flesh, not very familiar with this 2 discs, but it seems like the music used did have some significant bass below 30 hz.

Another quote from Craig:

"If David Fabrikant comes back with a computer model showing audible break up from 30 Hz and up (the music sessions were specifically selected to keep the frequencies above 30 Hz - I was always running TrueRTA in "Peak Hold" mode in order to assure this, as always) at 0.2 to 5 watts, then yes, I made an error. I only ask that the 5 watt inputs be kept to short term peaks, as they were here."

It looks like some significant bass below 30 hz was used. I don't see anywhere you stated about limiting the bass with TrueRTA, maybe you could point that out somewhere, I could be wrong. In fact, one of your stated performance criteria was bass extension. And it seems the 550's got response to the low 20's.

davef
06-12-2005, 12:17 PM
This is a quote from the first night's session Craig did to clear up some of the questions NewBuyer had:

"Dynamics were quite good, "A" could easily hit 100 dB peaks in our large room before sounding conjested. This room is 43 x 14 feet, so that is no small feat."

The room Craig used is 43 x 14 feet, this is far from a small room. Also you will note, the program material used has some significant bass extension. Down into the teens for the Steely disc and 22hz for the Backdoor Man track from Solace. I believe Craig also used the 1812 Overture and Roger Waters' In The Flesh, not very familiar with this 2 discs, but it seems like the music used did have some significant bass below 30 hz.


Johnny, thanks so much for posting this.... I knew I remembered things a bit differently than what was being posted here. I was never able to find Craig's original review, thus the errors I made regarding room size. 43 x 14 is a very large room, assuming 9 foot ceilings; we are approaching 6000 cubic feet.

And I quote
"A" could easily hit 100 dB peaks in our large room before sounding conjested. This room is 43 x 14 feet, so that is no small feat."

Sounding congested? In other words, reaching the maximum output capability of the speaker…. 100dB peaks at about 3 1/2 meters in that size room will require a bit over 28 volts to reach that level. The CMT-340 has a DC resistance of approx 6 ohms… using Ohm’s Law, 28 volts = 130 watts.

130 watts at even 40Hz (being run full range) and the woofers excursion far exceeds their maximum capability. I just ran a driver excursion simulation using 28 volts input and it is UGLY… From 55Hz and up, peak to peak excursion is within the woofers limits (6mm).. Here is the fun part, at 40Hz at this power level driver excursion reaches 12mm peak to peak (excursion rating of a good 12” subwoofer)… at 30Hz peak to peak excursion is 28mm, that is over an inch of excursion. No 6.5” woofer in existence that I know of can handle this type of excursion demand…

In other words, the voice coil was completely out of the gap, and at that very instant, not capable of reproducing ANY frequencies. This perfectly coincides with what Craig heard, congestion.... And, isn't this exactly what I posted in that same review thread? Must I now really post a driver excursion simulation?

This is why it is really not fair to compare a smaller speaker with a high tuning point to a larger speaker with a low tuning point (full range speaker) at even moderate volume levels, unless the smaller speaker has the bass rolled off. In trying to reproduce the deeper bass signals that the larger speaker can play with ease, the smaller speaker is struggling severely and in doing so, other frequencies are being compromised. And to make matters worse, when combining the smaller speaker with a sub and running the speakers full range, the mechanical distress caused by reaching woofer excursion limits, which is most definitly audible, can be masked (not heard) because of the output of the subwoofer. The speaker might be trying to tell you in its own way, turn that volume down!!, but you can't hear it because the output of the subwoofer is overpowering it.... This is why I do not use a subwoofer in my system, remember I said I need to hear all of the good as well as the bad?

Here is some useful information while I am at it…. To maintain optimal performance when running the CMT-340 full range, I would recommend not to exceed 6 volts. 6 volts input = 6 watts. 6 watts at a distance of 1 meter = is about 100dB. Sound decreases at a rate of 6dB per meter.

As I posted in the beginning of this thread, if the speakers were high-passed and the low bass frequencies filtered out, performance would have been greatly improved.

I made a significant error in trying to recall the review from memory; I got the room size wrong by about 2500 cubic feet. Craig also made an error stating peak wattage of 5 watts. 100dB peaks at a distance of 11 feet = approx 130 watts, in reality since the speaker hit its maximum output capability while the "other" speaker hit 105dB peaks, the maximum output capability of the amp was reached (200 watts).. Although, as I am sure Craig would agree, McIntosh amps are conservatively rated.

I now remember why I was impressed that the CMT-340 even survived....

We all made some errors in this thread and things got ugly fast.

To Newbuyer…. As sensible Sensibull posted, there was quite a bit going on that has not been mentioned in this thread… Let us just say that Craig and I had some history before this review, and that a few things were revealed after the review that caused Craig’s credibility to be questioned. Please do not read any deeper into this. Without question, Craig and I have a few issues that perhaps a few sessions with a good marriage counselor could clear up ;) I offer a quality product and try to remain behind the scenes and respect everyone.

Keep in mind, that this is the Ascend forum… I could have closed or deleted this thread at anytime (as many people suggested)… Instead I left it open, subjecting both myself and my company to damage simply as respect to Craig, to let him speak his mind publicly.

I am, however, going to close this thread… In the 1000 or so threads on this board, this is my very first thread closure…. There is simply no reason at all to continue with this… ALL of this bickering back and forth took place already, and that thread was closed. The questions both you and mv1612 asked have been answered, Craig responded to my error in his room size, and the details of the original review were revealed.