Would I really need a sub...

[sensibull]

Forgot to mention... room size will be approx. 12 x 22, but the speakers will be facing across the narrow axis and the seating probably confined to a space more like 12 x 14 or so. Thanks.

[Lou-the-dog]

Being as your not interested in wall rattling bass I'd definately say that you could easily forgo the sub. I ran without until Hsu released the VTF3 MkII and I was very pleased. Make sure your reciever is set to large and enjoy. The 340's go plenty deep by themselves. You can always add a sub later if/when the bug hits.

Randy

[metalaaron]

yep, definitely get the 340s if you're not going to purchase a sub.

i'd just second what lou said.

in fact, ascend offers a plan just for you...

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/purchase/expurchplan.html

cbm-170s

[sensibull]

Thanks for the feedback Lou and Aaron. Much appreciated.

[curtis]

My Parents have a pair CMT-340m's hooked up to an HK stereo receiver, in a 15x25 room...with a 12 foot ceiling. If you add the entry way, the overall room is 15x32x12. Without a sub, they sound great and more than fill the room. The speakers are in front of the 15ft wall.

-curtis

[sensibull]

Thanks for your reply, Curtis. I've been lurking on the Axiom, Onix, and AVS boards enough to recognize you as the resident Ascend aficionado. Would you be kind enough to give me a brief rundown of why you feel Ascend edges out those two other brands (at the same price points)? (I'm inviting bias, here, no need to preface everything with IMHO. There are few enough people who have actually heard all three brands, and if I'm not mistaken, you are one of them).

[curtis]

May I call you sense or bull? [:D]

It is actually quite simple. I feel the Ascends are more balanced and accurate. Ascend takes the signal from the source, and reproduces it uncolored.

I have taken the CMT-340's to my local audio shop to compare to various speakers. The first time they were played, the shop owner and other sales reps were drawn into the room because of what they were hearing. The shop owner says "It sounded like a live performance from my office". He asked some questions, and as soon as I said they were internet direct and $500/pr....it was like the switch was turned off, and he replied "That's a pretty good speaker for $500". It was funny....that day we were comparing them to the Von Schweikert VR-1.

-curtis

[sensibull]

Well, that was short and to the point. Thank you. I sense no bull in you [;)]

If I could ask just two more questions, and then I'll leave you in peace.

1. I read somewhere else on this forum that the 340s are a lot more placement picky than the 170s, and require some breathing room from the back wall and a decent sized room in front to really shine. If I understood you correctly, your parents have them playing across the 25' (or 32') space, but mine would be playing across the narrow axis of a 12' x 22' room. With 1' to 18" from the wall, and a couch against the far wall providing seating, that narrows the distance from the listener to something like 10' (placed as much as 10' apart). Would that space do justice to the 340s? Or might I be better off with 170s and a sub?

2. I understand you and your parents also have (or have had) HK receivers. I'm having a little trouble understanding the function of the A-Bus/RS-232 port thingie. I get that you can use it to power speakers in multiple rooms, with additional accessories. I also get that you can hook a computer to it and download new "firmware" so to speak, when available (to shorten the dropout mutes, while scanning a new source, for example). But is there any chance this would ever function like an ethernet port? In addition to getting new HT gear, I'm trying to solve the problem of a accessing a huge digital file collection (mostly lossles, full quality FLAC files) from my living room. (The Onkyo 801 has the port I need, but cannot read FLAC files.)

Bountiful thanks, once more, for your help.

[Lou-the-dog]

Sensibull,

Any chance that someday you might rotate your theater so you would be playing on the long axis or is this pretty much locked in as is?

Randy

[sensibull]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Lou-the-dog

Sensibull,

Any chance that someday you might rotate your theater so you would be playing on the long axis or is this pretty much locked in as is?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Not in that particular house, but there's a good chance we'll be moving again in 3 years and hopefully at the next place I'll have a dedicated room. I can see where you're going... might as well get the better speaker, in case listening room size increases. I agree, just worried that the 340s would not sound right in a more confined space. I believe I read a post on here somewhere about them bouncing off smaller spaces and creating "increased reflections."

Just to be as specific as possible, the room will actually be L-shaped, with the 12 x 22 section forming the upright and leading into an (approx.) 8 x 12 dining room. Ceilings are not all that high (haven't moved in yet, so I can't be exact) -- maybe 8' or 9', but perhaps that additional jog into the dining room would give enough air all-around to make the 340s more feasible?

[curtis]

The 340's are more placement picky only because of the larger rear port and need more space behind them.

On the HK's, as far as I know, the A-Bus port will not act as an ethernet port.

I am not sure which media players support FLAC, but for MP3's, I use the Linksys Wireless Media adapter to stream music from my PC to my audio system. Works great.

No need to leave us in peace....stick around and keep asking questions.

-curtis

[Lou-the-dog]

Actually IMHO the 170's would work great for you too... now. With a 12' room width, by the time you place the speakers slightly forward of your screen and sit in the listening position you might be as close as 9'. Justifying the 340s really come down to your future situation. A possibility might be to utilize 170's for the mains, 340 center and 200's for surround. Then eventually (when room configuration changes) buy 340's for the mains and move the 170's to L/R surround duty and move the 200's to rear surround. Just a thought. I'm not trying to talk you out of the 340's...you can't go wrong with them...just offering up another option.

Randy

[sensibull]

You're probably right, Randy, that the 170s would suffice in my current situation. I'm still somewhat on the fence, though I'm leaning towards the 340s, just so I don't have to upgrade again anytime soon and I can forego a sub for the time being (they're not as easy to place, aesthetically speaking). I'm also undecided about what to choose for the surrounds. At present, Ascend does not offer a true surround, though I read mention that they might be working on one for future release. Does anyone have any specific info about that, like possible availability date?

[curtis]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by sensibull

At present, Ascend does not offer a true surround.....
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Actually, it is debateable on what a "true surround" is or should be.

-curtis

[sensibull]

My bad [;)] All I meant was Ascend does not make a dipole, and I was leaning towards those for my surrounds...

As I don't seem to have annoyed anyone yet with my newbie questions, perhaps I can slip another one in, in regards to choise of surrounds.

For financial and living space reasons, I have been using a Cambridge Soundworks Ensemble II sat & (passive) sub setup for a couple years now (with **** bookshelf for surrounds, but the less said about them, the better). I've never really been wowed by the system (particularly the lack of any real bass) but it does provide decent sound for such a small footprint. Because I'm looking at purchasing new main and center speakers, a new television, and a HT receiver, I'm going to be really pushing my budget and I was wondering about the feasibility of putting the sub/sat system in the rear or possibly removing the sub altogether and just using the sats as small surrounds (I've also toyed with the notion of getting a middling 2-channel amp or old receiver on eBay and driving the passive sub with it). My question is, just how important is matching the fronts and rears? I'm guessing the simple answer is: more important on multi-channel music, less so for HT, especially movies that don't incorporate many surround effects. But I'm wondering whether anyone has experience with pairing the Ascends with another brand in a 5 or 5.1 setup.

[metalaaron]

sensibull,

just build your system slowly. go ahead and get what you feel is most important (the front soundstage) and work on the surrounds later.

you could do what i've done? i got 170s to start. if you get the 340s in the future, simply put the 170s as surrounds.

i would also recommend that you stick with direct firing speakers instead of dipoles. IMHO dipoles are 'outdated' with the latest digital soundtracks. i really feel that direct firing speakers perform best in a 5.1 setup. digital tracks are designed to be positional and the direct firing speakers will present you with a much more directional soundfield.
IMHO and in the simplest sense...direct firing speakers will make you think, "that bullet just whizzed by my head" and dipoles will make you think, "a bullet was shot somewhere on the left"

surround speakers are usually heavily debated (subjective) though and some still think dipoles are the only way to go. to each his/her own. they're your speakers afterall. ;)

[sensibull]

Forgive me for overthinking everything guys, but after finally catching up on the budget speaker comparison thread over on AVS, in which the 340s L/R tested (albeit right out of the box) left a bit to be desired, I'm left wondering whether hidden in all these suggestions to start with the 170s is a lesser confidence in the 340s. Obviously the 170s have been around longer and garnered more raves and reviews... Is it simply a matter of break in?

Curtis, I know you said your parents are very happy with their 340s, but what about the pair you used for the shootout? Is that what you're using now and did they mellow with age?

Thanks, yet again, for fielding my queries. It says alot about the passion generated by a speaker and a company that you guys are willing to hang around and deal with newbies. Frankly, this stuff is so head-spinning that once I find a speaker I like I think I'll drop off the boards and just listen to 'em [;)]

[sensibull]

Ah, forget it Curtis. I went back and re-read this thread and you clearly think highly of the 340s. No need to repeat yourself. I'm just running myself in circles here (I started with Axioms, was ready to buy, then talked myself out of it... moved on to Onix, and ultimately the wife nixed them as completely unmatching our decor. Now I'm running the same cycle with Ascends.)

[curtis]

That pair, at least one of the speakers had a problem in the crossover. Something probably happenned when I was transporting them to the shootout. I had four pairs of speakers, and a center channel in my car that day.

-curtis

[metalaaron]

sensibull,

we have traveled down the same road. i tried axioms and rockets. they weren't for me and now i have ascends.

i think nothing could be more satisfying than someone showing up, asking questions, finding what they want, and never second guessing their choice. certainly not a problem if you want to retire from the boards. definitely not a problem if you and your wife find what you're looking for. :)

340s are still pretty new. as mentioned on ascendacoustics.com - they've worked on the design for 2 years. they just finished all the hard work. some reviews are beginning to pop up...

http://www.audioreview.com/Center,Channels/Ascend%20Acoustics/PRD_287721_2743crx.aspx

[Lou-the-dog]

Sensibull,

The 340's are fantastic speakers as are the 170's. Here is a thread that I think sums up my (and others) feelings between the two.

http://www.ascendforum.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=366

I think the folks here on Ascend Forum (and the Ascend Acoustics Co. themselves) want to give the best advice so everyone realizes the most bang for the buck. I know when I was auditioning and asking questions on some of the other forums I kept getting pushed into "bigger/better/more expensive". I got to the point where I was about to give up altogether because I was convinced that I had to spend an enormous amount of money to get desirable results. I have found that this is not the case with Ascend. I've got 340's for the front and 170's for the surrounds and I highly repect them both. You won't go wrong with either choice.

Randy

[Lou-the-dog]

Just reading back on this thread and noticed your question about the unmatched surrounds. I think you've hit the nail on the head... very important for multi-channel music and less so with movies. Alot of movies really don't have that much information going to the surrounds anyhow...an occaisional bullet whizzing by and such. Go ahead and try using your current stuff for surrounds... you can always upgrade them to the 200's or 170's as funds/priorities allow.

Randy