PDA

View Full Version : Ugrade: I thought sub, but maybe 340s



frank
04-01-2004, 10:18 AM
hi I have the cmt-340's across the front and the stf-3 as the sub keep the extra money and buy some dvd's or cd's with the money you save with the stf-3 I'm very very happy with stf-3 great boom for the buck! great with all types of music

salee88
04-01-2004, 10:49 AM
I have my cmt-340 X 3 across the front, stf-3 as the sub and 170 x 2 as surround setup a week ago. Both music and HT sound real good. Very happy about the speakers. I have the 340/l/r with ascend stands and they look real good, just like floorstanding. The monimound for 170s at the back are not so stable if the speakers are touched. According to DavidF of Ascend, stf-3 is newer speaker and normally, you don't need the Variable Tuning Frequency port from VTF-2/3.

curtis
04-01-2004, 11:06 AM
fifolifo,

Welcome to the forum.

How big is your room?

My first inclination is to say keep the 170's, send back the VTF-3MK2, and get an STF-1....especially since you are mostly music.

-curtis

fifolifo
04-01-2004, 12:05 PM
Thanks for the welcome Curtis and thanks to frank and salee88 for their replies as well.

My room is 13'x11.5' with a 9' ceiling. It has a pretty big opening on one side of the narrower wall that leads to the rest of my apt.

As for a sub, I know that Curtis posted about the STF-2 which he acquired and subsequently given away to his dad. I read his positive comments about how it could keep up with his vtf3 with everything except for the very low end. Basically, what I need out of a sub is to sound musical, fill in the low end appropriately, and help my 170s to get louder by taking on the low end load. I'm not looking to have things im my apt. start shaking. The reason I bought the vtf3 and not one of the other smaller models was that I was always under impression to buy the best you could afford. And now that I have it, I think it's too much bass for my needs.

As for the 340s, I've read a post where the poster compared the new 340s to their 170s. And the poster mentioned that he did a comparison between the two and how he had almost preferred the sound of the 170s over the 340s. Although, the poster mentioned that it wasn't a complete blind test since he was swapping them by disconneting/reconnecting the speaker cables. That kinds worried me because like I said before, I love the sound of the 170s and would just live with not being able to play them really loud, if I had to.

Now, I've read posts on this forum saying that a pair of 340s goes for a little under $500 and that the matching stands go for around $150. Did anyone buy the 340 l/c/r with stands as set and if so, can you share what the price of the set was? Also, for those who had a 170 center, what did you end up using it for after you upgraded your center to the 340. Is there some sort of tradein that one can do with Ascend.

I know the logical use for it would be in a 6.1 back channel, but my receiver tops out at 5.1 . And really, that's plenty for me.

curtis
04-01-2004, 12:26 PM
You love the 170s, I say keep them and get the smaller sub to fill the the bottom. Maybe look at the Adire Rava which some say is more musical.

If the thought of the 340s continue to intrigue you, give Ascend call, get their suggestion, and see if they will work out a deal with you.



-curtis

Lou-the-dog
04-01-2004, 01:53 PM
fifolifo,

I might be the poster you referenced above. I'd like to clarify my thoughts. If you like the 170's then you'll like the 340's too. I really like my 340's and, even tho I also have the 170's, the 340's will always be my mains. They go a tad lower and sound a tad bigger but the same awesome sound of the 170's. I haven't really spent too much time comparing top end tho. From time to time I like to bring the 170's to the front just for fun. When I listen to them they always amaze me how great a speaker they really are. The last time I switched them I was listening to BB King and there seemed to be something the way the 170's presented this that I kinda liked but really was very subtle... and maybe just in my mind. The point that I'd like to make is that both speakers sound really similiar to me, and outside of the bass extension of the 340's, anyone won't be dissapointed with either choice. I still contend that the choice should be made on size of the listening room. I'd also stick with the 170's if I were you and find a sub you like.

Randy

loraan
04-02-2004, 01:04 AM
If you're a 95% music listener, it's possible you won't get as much value-add out of a sub as someone who listens to more home theater. With the exception of certain genres, such as electronica/trance/techno or pipe organ music, most music doesn't have a lot of the very-low frequencies that sub really enhances. Not to say that a sub doesn't make a difference, but maybe it won't make a night-and-day, seven-hundred-dollar difference. With home theater, on the other hand, the sub would probably make a night-and-day difference, as it is heavily utilized for kinesthetic effects as much as for auditory ones.

Mag_Neato
04-02-2004, 01:49 AM
I was once told by an audio store sales professional(if there is such a thing!) that to properly mate speakers to a sub to go with the next closest size driver(i.e. - main speaker w/6" driver should go with a sub w/8" woofer, 10" MAX.)in order to get the best integration. When I first bought my PSB sub w/12" woofer I was using Vandersteen 1B's as my mains and could use a 60Hz x-over. This worked out well. Now with the 170's the x-over is @ 80hz and seems to work well also, but I'm thinking a 10" sub may produce better sound for music considering the higher x-over point. As to whether or not a sub is essential, I say without-a-doubt! There are spatial queue's that add an intangable realism to well recorded material that would otherwise be non-existant without a good sub. If home theater is not on your priority list, heed Curtis' recommendations and go with an STF-1 or Rava.

MAG

fifolifo
04-02-2004, 12:40 PM
Thanks for everone's feedback thus far. I appreciate it.

And I looked though the forums and found that it was indeed the post by Lou-the-dog I was referencing earlier about the 340 and 170 comparison.
http://www.ascendforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=366

I'm gonna give the vtf-3 another week but based upon the feedback, I'm leaning towards replacing it with a smaller sub (maybe a stf-2 (if so, more for growing room) or stf-1 or something else). I actually read a review on the adire rava, but wasn't thrilled with the Oak finish on the sub. Although I checked again today and noticed that they have a plain black one now as well. As well as a new SE version that costs $200 more than the original one. I read somewhere that a sealed sub tends to be more musical than ported subs. Does anyone have an opinion on this?

I realize now as loraan mentioned that my cd collection isn't filled with the bass heavy stuff. And I like the driver size remark by Mag Neato as well. It seems to make sense to me at a very intuitive level now. Instead of looking for a BOOM, I should have been looking for a boom. I guess I just got sucked up by the subwoofer thing because most audio review sites tend to have a home theater leaning now more than they might to two channel stereo.

Quinn
04-02-2004, 12:54 PM
I listen to music way more than HT stuff and love my STF-2 w/ my 170s. I think if your subs is calibrated properly in doesn't(shouldn't?) stand out but you should notice more low end extention. I like bluegrass and the sub adds so much to pieces with a stand up bass. Things like a kick drum in rock or jazz sound more "live" to me with the sub. I haven't heard the 340 L/R yet. Of course when I do watch a movie. I enjoy the couch shaking too.