Printable View
To go along with my new 340SE center, does anyone have a feeling about which would be better for the L,R mains: a pair of 170SE's, or a pair of 340M 'Classics'? My room is ~2100 ft^3, i.e., at the small end of 'medium' size, and main use is HT. Would appreciate any opinions from those with more experience than me. The 170SE's will presumably match the 340SE center better, but in my size room will they give as 'full' a front stage as the 340M's?
Thanks in advance.
You know, Bill...
I've got to recommend 340's across the front. You know this is where the majority of the soundtrack comes from.
Having the 340 classics as my rear speakers and the 340SE's across the front, I can assure you the the difference (tested with various tones and white noise) is not great enough to defeat the advantage of the added qualities that the speaker will provide. I have not heard the 170SE's (I had the classics), so I can not compare them to the 340SE's or classics, but I know that for movies or multi-chanel music, the 340 Classics will, especially for HT, give the soundtrack an added punch that the 170SE's probably would not provide.
JMHO (of course) ;)
shane
I would just get 340 SEs and never look back. They sound so friggin good paired with my HK 435. I think in a year (or less) you'll be happy you spent the extra money.
I have 3 340 'Classics' for my L,C,R, and have liked them immensely. However because the center channel carries so much for the load for HT, I did decide that it would be worthwhile to replace it with the new 340SE center (and had no trouble selling the 340C 'classic' on craigslist). It is less clear to me whether this would make any significant difference for the L and R 'mains', and if I did replace them whether the 170SE's would be as good in my size room (~2100 cu ft) as 340's. Thanks for the feedback from you and shane55!Quote:
Originally Posted by MrTomasulo
Well... if I were to replace them (and I DID!) I would just get the 340SE's and not think about the 170SE's. If you are severely restricted by cost, then yes, keep the 340 classics as your L&R. This setup will be just fine. But if you are going to get rid of them, skip the 170SE's and go straight for the 340SE's. In the long run, I believe you will be happier... as MrT said.Quote:
Originally Posted by millerwill
shane
I can certainly afford replacing them with the 340SE's, but at some point it seems a bit ridiculous! I did convince myself that it was worthwhile for the center, but think I will just stay with the 340M's as L & R as several of you have suggested. Thanks, Shane, for the comments. (About a year ago, when I first got my Ascends, I did first get the 170's for L & R and returned them for the 340M's; and I do remember the extra 'fullness' that they provided for the front stage.)Quote:
Originally Posted by shane55
Can't go wrong with the 170SE's. UNREAL! Got the 340SE center and 170SE's with the 200's and I'm blowned away every day. Have played music, as a player, sinced 1965 and still do, had a recording studio and absolutly LOVED JBL's, but I am sold on these speakers. I mean I thought I would buy these speakers and be either satisfied or send them back, but I find that not only am I totally satisfied but I keep coming back to this site to check and talk.
Biscayne, thanks for the comments. Yes, I have 2 pair of the 200's for surround sides and backs; they do an excellent job in this role (and are VERY convenient to wall mount; like hanging a picture!). I'm sure the 170SE's would be very good as L & R mains, but my question is are they BETTER than two 340M's (the 'classics'), or not as good, in this role (with a 340SE center).Quote:
Originally Posted by Biscayne
Never had the 340 classics, so really can't address that. Can only say that the 170SE's are about the best I've heard up to $1500 a pair (and put in a a link to some that are $6000 that I have'nt heard but seem somewhat similiar). Don't think you can go wrong any way you go, but have to put my vote in for the 170's.
They are the real thing.