Brand new 170s - Comparison - Admittedly Not Much Compeition YET

But, I'm now here to report on the Ascends, although understand that their competition wasn't all that great, yet.

First, I got into my system and made certain that I had everything wired in phase, because frankly, I had never done it before.

Then, I hooked the 170s up as my fronts and turned off my sub. I listened to just the Ascends in 2 channel (well not really because I left my center channel on) and compared it to my old Rock Solids and BAs. (Well Edster, thanks for saying the old BA rears wouldn't measure up -that was the understatement of this century.)

WOW!!! The Ascends simply sounded incredibly neutral with clear highs and a great midrange. The BAs were incredibly outlclassed (now in fairness they were $100-$150/pair speakers 10 years ago.) I never realized how BAD these BA rears were.

Next, I A/Bed the Ascends and the Rock Solids (which I believe were an entry level B & W that I paid about $400 for the pair - 10 years ago.) The Rock Solids still sounded pretty good in comparison BUT they were muddier in the midrange and they were "bright" isn't exactly the right word, maybe slightly tinny. Piano sounded like piano but not quite right and violins sounded a little too "stringy" and steel guitar just didn't sound like steel guitar and horms kinda blended together. BUT, given their age and all, they sounded OK. I listened to classical, jazz, several different rock groups and an orchestral/choir collection.

Then, I added the BK sub to the mix and it filled in the low incredibly well. (I kept the fronts as "small" in the Denon 3803 so most of the bass was coming from the MK at that point.) I should add, though, I could live with the 170s without the sub BUT you would clearly be missing a fair amount of the music.

Then, I listened to the same pieces of music comparing the RSs and the 170s and the difference in musical quality was even more obvious, the Ascends just reproduced the music better/more crisply, especially with the bass filled in by the MK.

Later in the evening, I decided to put the Rock Solids in the rears and put on LOTR - Two Towers. In the scene at Helm's Deep, which I have purposely watched 3-4 in the last week so I could compare, there's a scene where Vigo is talking to a young man and playing with his sword while they're waiting for the Orcs, Kury - whatever they are, and ever so faintly I began to hear the footsteps in the background. This was probably a good 10-15 seconds before I'd heard them before.

Later, I brought my wife in and replayed that scene. She noticed it immediately and said, "I've never heard that before!!!!."

Anyway, she promptly sat down, told me restart the movie and we watched it in its entirety. I'm a little hard of hearing on highs especially, and lately I've had to use subtitles to catch all the dialogue in movies. She asked if I needed to turn on the subtitles about a 1/3 of the way through and I had not had any problem hearing the dialogue. There's that crisp, clear high again AND I know it wasn't the dang, Polk center because it's been there all along.

Anyway, I know this is too long and it was probably only 4-5 hours of listening total BUT I was incredibly impressed with the Ascends so far. AND, James at Ascend said "wait until you get 20-30 hours on these speakers before you judge them because they start getting broken in, the sound improves even more."

WOW is all I can say so far. Thanks all.

still a nice review, David

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakulis

I'm a little hard of hearing on highs especially, and lately I've had to use subtitles to catch all the dialogue in movies. She asked if I needed to turn on the subtitles about a 1/3 of the way through and I had not had any problem hearing the dialogue. There's that crisp, clear high again AND I know it wasn't the dang, Polk center because it's been there all along.

Anyway, I know this is too long and it was probably only 4-5 hours of listening total BUT I was incredibly impressed with the Ascends so far. AND, James at Ascend said "wait until you get 20-30 hours on these speakers before you judge them because they start getting broken in, the sound improves even more."

WOW is all I can say so far. Thanks all.

---

Wait till you add a 340C. Dialogue will take on a whole new meaning.
James and I respectfully disagree on break-in. The only thing that improves is our enjoyment. Welcome to the club.

David

Bikeman, Dave and/or James,

OK, I'm impressed to say the least. I played around a little more last night and the joy continued. So, I've got a question based upon aesthetics (mostly wife imposed at this point), involving the 170s vs. the 340s.

The front speakers have to fit in a HT enclosure that my wife purchased to "hide" the TV, stereo equipment and speakers. For some reason, this "hiding" does not apply to the rears, mostly because I explained that either the speakers could sit on end tables (her choice) or I would buy speaker stands. Consequently, the size of the rears is not as important.

So, actually I guess I've got 2 questions. First, how do the 170s compare sound wise to the 340s (I'm already committed to the 340C center)?

If the sound is substantially better in the 340s, can I use the 340s as rears for the time being and will that mess up the sound quality of the system?
(My HT set up is likely to change because we are contemplating the purchase of a plasma or DLP screen that will get rid of the center section of the HT enclosure so I could move the 340s to the front below the plasma TV. So, is that a possibility or will the 170s more than provide me the audio nirvana I seek. (OK, that was more than two questions, so sue me.) :)

If I may...

I too had that question, so I tried them both out, and wound up keeping both. I chose to put the 340's across the front because it was important to match the soundfield across the front plane. Also, since music is very important to me (at this point only stereo), I wanted the 340 mains to be my primary music speakers because of the following reasons.

The 170's impressed me so completely in terms of their dead-on neutrality. I was stunned by their accuracy and clarity. Simple. The 340's do not sound as neutral. They definitely have their exaggerations and their dips across the FR range, though not as much as others I've auditioned or owned. To be more specific, I found them to be more 'musical' than the 170's because I prefered the sound that they made. They seemed more 'warm' and 'rich'... (dontcha just love those terms?). They are brilliant and clean, but de-accentuate the clinical coolness of the 170s. The 340's are not as seemingly accurate as the 170's, but are more 'listenable' (to me) for music for long periods.

To me, the 340 - 170 surround combination amazes me on a continual basis. I just got an Auralex SubDude yesterday and re-tuned my system.... again...! I put on some 'reference' discs and was again transfixed by how good it all sounds.

Being that it's my ears and my accoustically crippled listening environment... YMMV. ;) But I hope this helps.

Cheers.

shane

OK guys,

Now, I've listened to BAs - the VR series, some Klipsch and Infinitys and some high end JBLs. (These were all bookshelves - some costing as much as 3 times the Ascends.) I felt like the 170s were still equals, if not superior to, everything I previewed. So, I've decided to buy the rears and center.

SO, the question remains, do I purchase 340s and use them as rears for now? OR, do I go for perfect speaker and timbre matching by going with the 170s all around and the 340C center.

James and/or David - I'd love to have you weigh in here and give me some insight as to the pros and cons of using the 340s as rears in the short term - probably for a year or so - until I can talk the wife into a plasma or DLP HDTV.

You should post that first paragraph (immediately above) on ecoustics if you haven't already.

Pretty impressive

Don

Don,

I posted something similar in my thread on Ascends, Axioms, Paradigms, etc. and I thought about sticking it in yours as well BUT I hate to overkill the subject. I'm really hung up on whether to get the 340s and use them as rears for the time being or just stick with the 170s all around and the 340c center. I'm waiting for some feedback BUT I've decided to pull the trigger and just go with Ascends all around.

I started this whole experience with upgrading my receiver from a 12-15 year old Denon to a used Denon 3803, figured it had most of what was in the 3905 and the uplink video for almost half of a new or B stock Denon 3805. We were so impressed with the immediate improvement in sound and Art suggested upgrading speakers as further improvement. So, here I am and I'm ready to take the next step, SOON!!!! We'll see whether anyone here has the answer AND, if not, I'll probably just buy the 170s and 340c and I suspect I'll be very happy with that BUT I thought if the 340s are a huge improvement - I can afford them now and I get the package discount on top of it, even it they sit in the rear for a year or so, WHY NOT DO IT NOW? (I'm still waiting for someone who's tried it, liked it, hated it, recommends it, won't recommend it, etc. and why?)

I would think the 340s would work fine as surrounds and then you could one day have 340 mains.

I think I have read comparisons of the 340s vs. the 170s on this board. Occasionally material sounded better on the 170s, but overall the 340s are better and won't break the bank - fitting your prerequisites I think.

I am still a noob - but I don't see any reason not to use the 340s as surrounds until you can have three 340s across the front.

I started my journey with a sacd player, then new speakers (foolishly believing consumer reports that all receivers pretty much sound the same and the big difference was in the speakers).

Well, after sacd player and Axiom M22s an Onkyo was in order to replace the Sony yard sale item I had.

Maybe the bigger difference is in the speakers, I don't know. But the receiver made a big difference, as did the speakers.

Maybe one day I will upgrade to a denon. How much difference from an Onkyo 501?