200s vs. 170s vs. 340s

[S_rangeBrew]

This may be a totally subjective question, but if there are any objective facts, this should be the forum to find out!

I'm going to have a small, (13ft wide x 16ft long x 8ft high) room in my new house for a home theater. It will have a door, so it can be totally sealed. So that's only about 1700 cubic feet.

I plan on using a nice Infinite Baffle (http://f20.parsimony.net/forum36475/index.htm) subwoofer to handle the 80hz and below sound.

So my question is this: Since the HTM-200s can go down to 80hz, is there any advantage to getting CBM-170s or CMT-340s? Right now, I'm under the assumption that the sound between 80hz-20khz is the same or close to it on all three of these. :confused:

[BradJudy]

There are differences and I think most agree that the difference between 200 and 170 is greater than the one between the 170 and 340, particularly for a smaller room. That, and the fact that the 170s only cost a bit more than 200s, lead me to generally recommend 170s across the front and 200s in the rear if you're looking to save money. This assumes that the size difference is not an issue. I'm sure there will be some other opinions too.

[ClutchBrake]

I'm with BradJudy. If you are trying to get the least expensive setup for your room I'd go with 170s across the front and 200s in the rear. If you wanted to spend a little more money get a 340 center, 170 left and right, 200 rears.

[S_rangeBrew]

I guess I *am* looking at size as a consideration, which is why I'm looking at the HTM-200s. CSW http://tinyurl.com/68nuz has there MC200s which have almost identical specs to the HTM. Probably a good idea to get a pair of each and try them out, huh?

If anyone knows of any other small, wall mountable speakers that go down to 80hz and cost less than $150 each, let me know. I think the Onyx ELTs might fill the bill too.

I'm going to have to live with these for a long time, so I don't mind spending a little time and money trying them out! :D

[S_rangeBrew]

Also, I read somewhere that Dr. Hsu (you know, the guy who builds some decent subwoofers) prefers the HTM-200s over the CBM-170s. Something about the 200s being more "forward". :confused:

[BradJudy]

As you mentioned, the ELTs are another option. They are bigger than the 200s, but smaller than the 170s. You gain a wood finish (and a premium finish extra cost option) but you lose the mounting screw threads that the Ascends have. These trade-offs depend on your decor/tastes and how you wanted to mount them. If you're looking at using omnimount style mounts, the threaded holes are a definite plus.

[curtis]

Also, I read somewhere that Dr. Hsu (you know, the guy who builds some decent subwoofers) prefers the HTM-200s over the CBM-170s. Something about the 200s being more "forward". :confused:

Yup....this is true. I first demo'd Ascends at the Hsu facilities. Dr. Hsu prefers a more forward sound.

[debron]

OK, I'll bite. What is "more forward sound"?

[eRob]

I dunno. Someone care to explain what more forward is? :confused:

[davef]

What is "more forward sound"?

Here is what I use to explain it... and this is using general terminology (there is no specific definition)

A "forward" sounding speaker tends to make the vocals sound like they are coming from a point dead center in between and in front of the speakers, or more defined as directly in front of you

A "laid back" speaker tends to make the vocals sound like they are coming from further away...

Another good explanation is imagine you are at a concert hall, a forward sounding speaker might make the presentation sound like you are in the first 10 rows... a more laid back speaker from a distance of maybe 50 rows back.

All of our loudspeakers are designed to present an accurate performance presentation such that the perceived distance of the singer in reference to the other performers is consistent with stage positioning and also how the recording engineering intended it to be heard.

Hope this helps!

[bluesea]

Interesting. I have a small (880 Cf) sealed room with 4 200s and a 340c. Was thinking abot moving to the 170 for right and left, but due to depth considerations, they would have to be mounted level with the 340 above the display. If I thought I would get more clarity on vocals I would go for it, otherwise I am pretty happy as is.

[debron]

Comparing the HTM-200's with the CSW MC-200's there are a couple of significant differences. First they claim response down to 80 (vs. 74 for the HTM) but don't give the variance, +/- db as does Ascend. I would guess if they were +/- 3 db or better, they would tought it. Therefore I suspect their response is considerably worse the - 3 db. So sure they have a response down to 80, but can you hear it? Maybe you can, but without the specs, who knows?

Second, the MC-200's have one 4" woofer, the HTM's have two. That means the HTM's should be capable of pushing twice as much air. That's significant.

If you're going for best sound and budget is a major consideration, you can't go wrong with the HTM's. If size (small) is the driving factor, consider Hsu's Ventriloquist speakers.

[S_rangeBrew]

The HTM-200s really seem to be the best combination of value and small size available. Like Debron mentioned, the CSW MC-200s only have one woofer, yet they cost a little more. I really like the fact that David actually puts *everything* up on the website. It's a good sales technique. Everything from the crossovers to the cast 4" woofer baskets looks high quality on these things. He has nothing to hide. :cool:

The fact that the smallest decent speaker I can find that goes down to 80hz is still 11"x6.5"x6.3" make me cringe to think what sounds my inlaws are missing on their expensive **** system with it's teeny-weeny cubes. My wife wants small speakers like that.... but the HTM-200s is where I'm drawing the line. It's time to be a man. LOL. :D

[S_rangeBrew]

missing on their expensive **** system with it's teeny-weeny cubes.

ROTFLMAO This board censors B O S E!!! :D

[bikeman]

No matter what speakers we like or dislike, there is one name that should not be allowed. I had one very minor, semi-good thing to say about this company on another board and you would have thought that I'd insulted everyone's mother. There is just no reasonable way to mention, let alone discuss ****. :(

David

[S_rangeBrew]

Not everyone has bad opinions of B*se. I have a 12 year old pair of 301 Series IIIs that got dropped, driven with clipping amps, beer-soaked, etc. in the dorm room days, and those babys still kick ass today. My parents have them now, and I was listening to some dynamic Irish music (can't remember the name of the band) on them, and it sounded great. My inlaws old Acousimass Pro-Logic system also sounds good with movies, and dare I say, music. I know there is no way those little speakers can be accurate, but it's good enough for them.

All that said, knowing what I know now, there are very few situations where I would use a B**e product.

[S_rangeBrew]

Well, thanks for the help, folks. I pulled the trigger on a pair of HTM-200s for my apartment, when my house is finished this summer, I'll get 5 more to complete the surround setup. I have a Pioneer 1014 which will be driving them all, and a Sony SAW-M40 sub until I build an infinite baffle beast (evil laugh). My hope is to equal or better a B*se system, for less money. LOL.

I'm sure I will post a full review, comparing them with the 3x2" speakers built into my 32" Panasonic TV. :rolleyes: The HTM-200s will actually have to sit on top of the TV for now, as I don't even have room to mount them on the wall!!

I'm still thinking of buying some Circuit City/Best Buy speakers to compare with these for the fun of it. It would be intresting to see how some similarly priced Infinitys or Athenas stack up. I'll be using the 80hz crossover with the speakers set to small, so "bass response" will not really be tested.

I haven't had this much fun with gadgets since the first time I put 117 octane race gas in my car and cranked the boost to 23psi! Woot!

:D

[bikeman]

"I'm still thinking of buying some Circuit City/Best Buy speakers to compare with these for the fun of it. It would be intresting to see how some similarly priced Infinitys or Athenas stack up. I'll be using the 80hz crossover with the speakers set to small, so "bass response" will not really be tested. "

The 200 seem to be a niche speaker. They cost almost as much as the 170 but don't garner anywhere near the enthusiasm as the 170. I'll likely end up with 200's as surrounds because of issues unrelated to SQ. If I was going to do a "shootout" with CC/BB speakers in this price range, I'd use the 170 unless the CC/BB speaker was also a niche speaker. YMMV.

David

[Quinn]

I don't think the 200 gets its due. I think that is because of a lack of professional reviews and all the acclaim heaped on the 170. I have 200s for surrounds and they shred the Paradigm Atoms that they replaced. Don't forget that it has 2 4" cones which gives it quite a lot of driver area. They have the same Ascend clarity that the 170 and 340s have.

[bikeman]

Thanks, Quinn. I'm going with the 200's because they'll fit my existing stands and they're more portable than the 170's. When not in use, my surrounds have to be move to a less trafficed area. If this were strickly my house, I'd use 170's as surrounds and just not use the downstairs closet on one side and bookshelf on the other. But SWMBO says otherwise so we compromise. I get my speakers and I keep em outta da way when not in use.

David

[S_rangeBrew]

I also have a thing for sealed speakers. Ports blow. (get it?)

However, I'm not going to give any "free pass" to the HTM-200 because they are smaller and sealed. If I don't like 'em they are going back. I very much doubt this will be the case.

They use the same tweeter as the 170s, and TWO 4" woofers, as Quinn pointed out. With the 120+ watts per channel my amp puts out, I don't see me exceeding the dynamic range of these things anytime soon. Especially in my tiny room.

- Member #001 of "HTM-200 doesn't get no respect" Internet Fan Boy Club :rolleyes:

[S_rangeBrew]

Thanks, Quinn. I'm going with the 200's because they'll fit my existing stands and they're more portable than the 170's. When not in use, my surrounds have to be move to a less trafficed area. If this were strickly my house, I'd use 170's as surrounds and just not use the downstairs closet on one side and bookshelf on the other. But SWMBO says otherwise so we compromise. I get my speakers and I keep em outta da way when not in use.

David

SWMBO told me the 200s were too big(!). I told her, "tough, that's the smallest speaker I'll get!"
*I* wear the pants around here! (looking over my shoulder) ;)

[S_rangeBrew]

Over the next two weeks, I will be trying out (A/Bing, extended listening, set to small, large and in between, etc. etc) a few different bookshelf speakers.

I hope by the end of it to have a pretty good set of small bookself speakers that, combined with a subwoofer, will play great music, and great home theater.

The Players:

Ascend HTM-200s About $280 a pair. Use a 1" soft dome tweeter and two 4" polypropylene woofers. Have a set of binding posts on the back, and threaded inserts for popular wall mounts. Dimensions: 11" H x 6.5" W x 6.375" D. Their listed "shipping weight" is 19lbs a pair. I don't know what they really weigh. Probably 7-8lbs each These are the only sealed speakers I am testing.

Polk Audio Monitor 30s Found these at Circuit City. $200 a pair. Oddly, they have a two sets of binding posts, and crossover capable of bi-amping, just like Ascend CMT-340s. Odd feature on a speaker this price. They have a 1" Fabric/Polymer dome tweeter, and a 5 1/4-inch "Bi-Laminate Composite Driver". They have hole & slot type metal hangers on the back at the top, and rubber feet at the bottom to hold the speaker about half an inch from the wall when hung. They have a port on the back. The dimensions are: 11" H x 7" W x 8-3/8" D and they weigh 9 lbs each.

JBL Northridge E20s From Best Buy. $250 a pair. 2 binding posts in back. Use a 3/4" Titanium laminate dome, and a 5" PolyPlas driver. There is a port in the back. These are 10-7/8ths" H x 6" W x 8 x 1/8" D. They are 7lbs each. The smallest frontal area of the three, and they weigh the least.

And just for the heck of it:

The TV speakers The are the little speakers built into the 32" Panasonic. I've been using these for awhile. They have been loyal, so I had to give them a chance. They are small, and built into the bottom of the TV. That's all I know. :rolleyes:

Cambridge Soundworks Cubes These came with a PC 2.1 system. They are single, B*se-sized cubes. These would look great and satisfy WAF easily, so I have to test them. Something like this was once at the top of my list, but after reading internet forums, I've realized that these probably won't cut it, even with a sub backing them up.

Also-rans: I listened to some Athenas and Klipshes at Best Buy, but they didn't make the cut. The Athenas sounded tinny, and the Klipshes had *fantastic* vocals with that horn, that unfortunately totally overwhelmed any other sound they were trying to make. :rolleyes: I also tryed the JBL Northridge E10s, which are a sealed, wall-hanging speaker. They sounded really different than the E20s. Tinny midrange. If I was making a JBL surround setup, I would use all E20s, and skip the E10s.

[curtis]

Should be interesting and fun!

[S_rangeBrew]

I got all the speakers home (except for the Ascends, which will get here in a week). The JBLs and the Polks were nicely packed, and had no visible damage when removed. The manuals in the boxes are skimpy and tell you pretty much nothing. (The Polk manual tells you to go to their website if you need more information. I did, and the Polk website is nicely done and quite informative)

The first thing I did is unscrew the binding posts/crossover networks from the cabinets to see what was going on inside.

The Polk Monitor 30 has a crossover that is pretty big and has quite a few more components on it than the JBL Northridge E20 x-over. The reason for this seems to be the fact it has 2 sets of binding posts and is bi-ampable. Other than that, both are very similar in their construction. The JBL x-over uses "JBL" capacitors. Horray for vertical integration. :p Both have lots of Poly-Fill inside. The port on the JBL is plastic, and smooth on both ends. The Polk one is plastic on the outside, with a cardboard extension inside.

Now it was time to hook them all up. I first tried the TV speakers, the Cambridge Soundworks cubes, and the JBLs. The TV speakers made a good effort, but just couldn't hack it. The cubes were worse. They sounded ok up high, but that was it. It seemed they were even smaller than the TV speakers when it came to the lower ranges. Remember, I have the crossover set at 80hz. It was an easy choice. I turned off the TV speakers and hooked the Polks up in place of the cubes. It was time to do some A/B switching between the Polks and the JBLs. :cool:

First CD is The Traveling Wilburys Vol. 1 This has a bunch of different instruments, so there is a lot you can try and pick out. Pretty mellow stuff for the most part. The first thing I noticed is that the Polk played louder in the high end with the same amount of power. (In other words, when switching, I often had to turn the JBLs up, and the Polks down) I also noticed the JBL had a more emphasized low end. A real difference, but I wasn't sure which I liked better. There was some metallic percussion being played (triangles?) that stood out more with the Polks, and was more subtle with the JBLs. Neither any better or worse with this CD, just different.

The second CD: Sade - Love Deluxe You really have to be careful when playing this CD, as this artists sultry voice can be offically termed "music to shag to" ;) That out of the way, this is a good CD with which to pick out what you like about a speaker. I know what I want Sade to sound like. Sexy. Whatever make her sound sexier... wins. This contest was easily won by the JBLs. The vocals were smoother, more "smokey" when played on them. The Polks were sharper, harsher. Not as sexy. I wanted Sade to smoke a pack after hearing the Polks. *I* wanted to smoke a pack after listening to her on the JBLs. The low end was still a little to boomy on the JBLs, but they won this round.

At this point, I'm going to just let these speakers break in for a couple of days, and then come back to them. I don't know if I believe in speaker break-in, but I've heard people a lot more knowlegeable than me say it happens. We shall see.

Thank you for letting me ramble here. I really enjoy reading other peoples speaker comparisons, so I feel I must make a modest effort myself. :)

[bikeman]

Question Brew. Are you using the receiver's A/B output terminals for this? On my receivers (Kenwood, Onkyo, JVC & Yamaha), there is a big difference between the the two outputs. The difference is so large that I wouldn't be able to use them for comparison purposes. All my receivers are on the low end of mid-fi. One of the ways these manufactures keep the cost down is to cheapen the "B" outputs. I don't know if your receiver suffers the same shortcoming.
Thanks for taking the time to do this.

David

[S_rangeBrew]

Question Brew. Are you using the receiver's A/B output terminals for this? On my receivers (Kenwood, Onkyo, JVC & Yamaha), there is a big difference between the the two outputs. The difference is so large that I wouldn't be able to use them for comparison purposes. All my receivers are on the low end of mid-fi. One of the ways these manufactures keep the cost down is to cheapen the "B" outputs. I don't know if your receiver suffers the same shortcoming.
Thanks for taking the time to do this.

David

Hi David, yes I am using the AB terminals on my Pioneer 1014tx to do this. I was planning on swapping them like you suggest, but it was not high on my list of things to do. Now it will be. I'm very suprised you noticed a change. Every reciever I've opened up uses the same opamps, connectors, etc for the A and B channels. It's simple, solid state electronics. The 1014 doesn't really have a "B" channel, you can just reassign the rear surrounds to that duty in the setup. So they should be the same quality as the real "A"'s, in theory. I guess I'll find out.
:cool:

[Quinn]

The other thing when comparing like this is using a sound meter to level match. If one speaker is a touch louder or softer it can effect your perception of its performance.

[S_rangeBrew]

The other thing when comparing like this is using a sound meter to level match. If one speaker is a touch louder or softer it can effect your perception of its performance.

The JBLs are 86db sensitivity vs. 89db for the Polks. I can confirm they don't pull these specs out of nowhere, as the Polks *are* noticeably louder. However, the differences I am noting are independent of volume levels, for the most part. For instance, the JBLs have a slightly more exaggerated bottom end. When I switch from the Polks to the JBLs, the high end gets quieter, but the bass actually gets a little louder. It's a bit annoying, but at this point, I guess I'm picking the least annoying speaker. :( I really hope the HTM-200s make things easy for me by being fantastic. :D Although after finding out I can buy the JBLs online for $60 each, the HTMs are gonna have to be pretty darn good!

[S_rangeBrew]

I got the HTM-200 pair and have been listening to them for a couple of nights. They are very "clear" compared to the JBL E20s. The E20s sound like they have a cloth over them in comparison.

However, when I listen to the JBLs, most of the sound comes from in between them. I guess you would say, from the middle of the soundstage. With the HTM-200s, some things (like vocals) come from the middle, but with other sounds, it is very easy to tell which speaker they are coming from. I don't know if I like that right now.

Also, even though I have the crossover set at 80hz, when I use the JBLs, they have more bass than the HTM-200s. Once again, I'm not sure what I like better, and will need to play with the subwoofer level to see.

Right now, the build quality and clear sound of the Ascends makes me prefer them over the JBLs, but the imaging and bass issues need to be resolved. Hopefully some setup tweaks will do this.

Anyway, lots of fun. I'll be listening to them a lot more over the next couple of days.

[davef]

Hi S_rangeBrew,

Sounds like you are having some fun :D

Just wanted to share some thoughts with you...


They are very "clear" compared to the JBL E20s. The E20s sound like they have a cloth over them in comparison.

This is exactly what we were after with the HTM-200. Very distinct, intelligible and detailed sound. You must keep in mind that this is a true satellite speaker, designed to be used with secondary bass reinforcement (subwoofer etc.). While I do not have any first hand experience with the JBLs you mention, these are a ported speaker and their response is listed (from what I managed to find) at -3dB at 68hz. I suspect that cabinet is tuned to around 60-70Hz which in most cases means that there will be quite a bit of output at these frequencies (bumped up), compared with a sealed enclosure.

Using an 80Hz high pass filter will filter the low frequency response, but it is a gradual filter, not a brick wall, meaning that there is still plenty of information below 80Hz that will be reproduced. In the JBL design, the bump in the bass response will still be heard and while this can most definitely be enjoyable, it is not accurate sound reproduction and can become a distraction over time.


when I listen to the JBLs, most of the sound comes from in between them. I guess you would say, from the middle of the soundstage. With the HTM-200s, some things (like vocals) come from the middle, but with other sounds, it is very easy to tell which speaker they are coming from. I don't know if I like that right now.

This is indeed interesting. In most cases, vocals should come from dead center and other instruments should come from off toward one side. Think about how a concert stage or band is setup. The HTM-200s have wide horizontal dispersion so what you might be experiencing is simply an expanded soundstage compared to a tighter one.

However, there are some factors that can wreak havoc; depending on how close to the side walls and how far apart the speakers are from each other, the HTM-200 can benefit from placing them so their tweeters are on the inside (as opposed to the outside). Also, toeing them in about 5 degrees toward the listening position can help "shrink" the soundstage.

Regardless of which speaker better suits your tastes, have fun!!!

[S_rangeBrew]

Hi S_rangeBrew,

Sounds like you are having some fun :D

Just wanted to share some thoughts with you...

A lot of fun. My wife is helping out too, and actually seems to have a bit better ear than I do. The fact I'm using mostly music she likes (Sade, Nora Jones) to test helps. She doesn't really understand the SPL meter and test tones. :) She thinks they are annoying and loud. I cannot argue with that.




This is exactly what we were after with the HTM-200. Very distinct, intelligible and detailed sound. You must keep in mind that this is a true satellite speaker, designed to be used with secondary bass reinforcement (subwoofer etc.). While I do not have any first hand experience with the JBLs you mention, these are a ported speaker and their response is listed (from what I managed to find) at -3dB at 68hz. I suspect that cabinet is tuned to around 60-70Hz which in most cases means that there will be quite a bit of output at these frequencies (bumped up), compared with a sealed enclosure.

Thanks for saving me a lot of typing! I was just about to write as an update pretty much what you just said. The HTMs were clearer than the JBLs, without being harsh like the Polk Studio 30s, (which use a cloth dome tweeter like the HTMs, but if you look at the cloth, the HTM dome looks like a much finer weave than the Polk cloth... I don't know if that makes any sense) which is what I was hoping for. Sade sounded much clearer on the Ascends, but still sultry. On the Polks, she was clear, but harsh. On the JBLs, smooth but muffled. None were *bad*, but the differences were clear. Everyone could hear the same thing as me, without any prompting. What I described as "clear" my wife described as "acoustical".

After listening a lot more tonight, I found that what I thought was better bass on the JBLs was actually sounding like extra "boom"... neat special effect at first, but a bit annoying after awhile. This was confirmed with test tones and a RS SPL meter. I tested each speaker, one at a time, at the same distance (about 2 feet). I can tell you that the manufacturing on both is consistent, as both JBLs matched at all tones, and so did the Ascends. What I found was the curves were pretty much the same for both brands, from 1000hz down to 90hz, then the JBL started acting a bit strange. It dropped off more than the Ascend at 80hz, then started going up again... after the x-over point! Here is an Excel Spreadsheet (http://www.geocities.com/s_rangebrew/JBLE20vsAscendHTM-200.xls)



Using an 80Hz high pass filter will filter the low frequency response, but it is a gradual filter, not a brick wall, meaning that there is still plenty of information below 80Hz that will be reproduced. In the JBL design, the bump in the bass response will still be heard and while this can most definitely be enjoyable, it is not accurate sound reproduction and can become a distraction over time.


Hit the nail on the head.



This is indeed interesting. In most cases, vocals should come from dead center and other instruments should come from off toward one side. Think about how a concert stage or band is setup. The HTM-200s have wide horizontal dispersion so what you might be experiencing is simply an expanded soundstage compared to a tighter one.

However, there are some factors that can wreak havoc; depending on how close to the side walls and how far apart the speakers are from each other, the HTM-200 can benefit from placing them so their tweeters are on the inside (as opposed to the outside). Also, toeing them in about 5 degrees toward the listening position can help "shrink" the soundstage.

I think I made more of this than it actually is. Listening some more tonight, it really wasn't that big a deal. I will take your advice and try different placement, I'm sure they will be fine.


Regardless of which speaker better suits your tastes, have fun!!!

I'm going with the HTM-200s, even though they cost almost twice as much as the JBLs. (Online. At Best Buy, the JBLs cost the same as the Ascends!) The build quality and the support really add a lot of value, but the most important thing is the sound quality. We are going to be listening to these for many years. If you could put a dollar value on sound quality, then multiply it over time, these things will definitly pay for themselves. :cool:

[S_rangeBrew]

I did some "torture" testing of the HTM-200s yesterday. A lot of music in the 80db to 95db range. I wanted to see what they could handle.

It all sounded very clear, and they had no problems. These little things pass the ROCK test. I was a bit worried, but the two 4" woofers seem to be up to the task.

They really seperate the well-mixed from the poorly-mixed! Def Lepard's "Hysteria" is a sonic work of art. Mutt Lange is a genious.

I did find the HTM-200s Achilles Heel: :(
Kelis "Milkshake", sounded kind of strange. There is this repeating bass sound that makes the little 4" drivers vibrate like crazy in that song. Because of this, I must sadly return the HTM-200s. Kelis is my life.

Ha Ha. Just Kidding. :D

Good Jazz music is wonderful on these. The voices, the instruments are all played with such clarity. I don't feel like I'm missing anything. Even so, after listening at these extended volumes for probably 5 hours or more, there was no fatigue. Good stuff.

Movie watching: Gladiator has a great DTS soundtrack. We watched this about 15db below reference, and when "hell" was unleashed at the start of the movie, it was kind of scary! I cannot wait for my house to get finished so I can buy the other 5 HTM-200s and hear this movie in glorioius 7.1 DTS!

I honestly feel that these things are the best compromise between sound, price and size you can get. Better sounding than a **** cube, yet still small enough to mount in most of the same places. As good or better down to 80hz than any other speaker, yet far more svelte and image-friendly. :cool:

[debron]

So why wait to buy the other 5? Buy now, enjoy now! We're building a house also with scheduled move-in in mid May but I bought an Ascend/Hsu 5.1 system and set up the fronts and sub in our current house. They sound so good I have no regrets not waiting!

By the way, just kidding about what - returning the HTM's? That Kelis is your life? Or, that the HTM's vibrated like crazy (which means what?)?

Ron.

[S_rangeBrew]

So why wait to buy the other 5? Buy now, enjoy now! We're building a house also with scheduled move-in in mid May but I bought an Ascend/Hsu 5.1 system and set up the fronts and sub in our current house. They sound so good I have no regrets not waiting!

By the way, just kidding about what - returning the HTM's? That Kelis is your life? Or, that the HTM's vibrated like crazy (which means what?)?

Ron.

I don't have room, or I would have bought all 7 at once and saved some cash.

I was kidding about everything except the HTM woofers moving like crazy on that damn annoying "Milkshake" song. They were really going nuts.