Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: 170's or 340's for large room?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    49

    Default 170's or 340's for large room?

    This is my first attempt at a real stereo/HT system (even my parents never had anything other than stereo, and even that was 1970's vintage).

    I have decided upon a 5 channel package from ascend, but am just trying to figure out what front speakers to get. I would say my listening will be split 50/50 between music and tv/HT. My big reason for the upgrade though is dvd-audio/sacd listening. There is no other stereo in the apartment (save our two computers). I am just trying to decide if I want to go 170's for fronts and rears with 340c for center, or 340's across the front with 170's as rears.

    The room these will go in is large, and an akward place to have a HT system. The main room is 16 x 20, with the 16 x 10 kitchen next to it, only a bar counter seperates them. My apartment is a loft in an old knitting mill, so half my inside walls are brick, the other half are drywall. The ceilings are 14 foot, and exposed 2x6's (solid, nothing but wood showing). Also, the floors are polished concrete. To compensate for this I have a large rug (with padding) in the center of the living room, and a smaller one by the bar. There is also a tapestry on one of the drywall walls, and 4 very large and heavy velvet curtains ove the windows. Finally, there is a large (double bed futon), L sectional couch, and large leather recliner around the outside of this room. With everything in there I haven't noticed any echoing whatsoever, but I also don't have any sort of real sound source in there as of yet.

    I know the 340's may be better because of the size of the room, but I have read that the 170's are more monitor like and neutral, which is what I want. Will the 170's on stands still be able to fill up a room this size (paired with the VTF-2 MK2, or will I deffinitely need the 340's? Price is a concern here as I am a student, so working is only secondary. Aesthetic concerns are irrelevant, my girlfriend wants good music too, and would much rather have some speakers around that have some balls than little cubes.

    I know this was long, but any insights would be helpful. Thanks!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Posts
    462

    Default

    There seems to be a misconception floating around that the 170's sound better, but the 340's are louder. Make no mistake, the 170's are great speakers. They are what I use for my rears and I have no regrets in buying them. For smaller rooms, 170's all around would be my choice. The 340's, however, are every bit as good as the 170's and then some. For large rooms, this is the speaker of choice, and it's what I use for my front 3. There is a thread around here somewhere in which Dave F. explains everything there is to know about these 2 speakers and why one is not better than the other. The two are simply different. Maybe someone who knows where it is could link to it. To answer your question, for a room that big and leaky, I would get the 340's for the fronts and 170's for rears. If money is no object and you have the room, get 340's all around and be done with it.
    - EVH III

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    49

    Default

    I guess I need to find that thread then. I wish I had the moeny for 340's all around, but since the rears will be right behind the listening position, I figure they will be OK.

    Now I just need to decide if i get the 340's and the sub first, or the whole 5 speakers, and get the sub later.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    15

    Default

    Shane provided a nice write-up of his impression, regarding the 170's versus the 340's. Here is what he said, in case it helps you.


    Quote Originally Posted by shane55
    ...There is more of a difference between these two than I would have imagined. The imaging is completely different as is the tonality and timbre. I haven't put much of this into concrete thoughts (let alone words) yet, but I still feel that the 170's are probably the most neutral speakers I've heard. They are almost scary flat (and that's a good thing in my book). The 340's are not. The 170's are clear, clean and revealing.

    As I said on another post comparing the 170's to the PSB Image B25's, the 170's have a cold precision to them. They do nothing wrong. Their soundstage, however is somewhat thin and narrow, and slightly directional. This is fine, but holosonics(?) and dimensionality was better in the PSB's.

    The 340's are an odd bird. Similar to the PSB's, they sound amazingly good with some music... and not so with others. They have some deficiencies and exaggerations in their tonal range. I.e. certain frequencies are extenuated and others are diminished. This gives a false quality to certain recordings, but can 'improve' others. On the whole, they are excellent speakers, but are far from 'monitor' quality as the 170's are. They are not neutral. They are colored, but not as much so as the PSB's. The 340's seem to dump some of the high mid-band and pump up the extreme high's and the low mid-band. This leaves a bit of a void... right where the middle violin strings are, but gives a 'loudness' impression. They sound more 'rich' and 'warm' than the 170's. In that regard they somewhat between the 170's and the PSB's... which is actually what I was hoping for.

    Even after almost three days with the 340's, they are still an enigma. Movies are fantastic with them. Actually, I prefer them to the 170's for most loud, action-type soundtracks. Listening to the 340's during the gunfight near the end of Open Range (DTS) is a fantastic experience. Each shot is felt in the gut, and it provides a tremendous 'presence' to the sound. Underworld, Hellboy, LOTR, etc... all kick butt with these. The 170's were also excellent, but proved the slightest bit 'harsh' and fatiguing *in comparison*... after many hours.

    I'm not through putting these through their paces. The imaging on the 340's is 'interesting'. I'm going to need to move them around to see if it's positional, or if they really do what I've experienced. I don't want to get into that too much as it may not be relevant...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    49

    Default

    Yea, I had already read that. I think I would like to go with 170's all around, but the room these will be going in is a bit over 6000 cubic feet, and I don't think the 170's alone could handle this.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    7,032

    Default

    My assessment would differ from Shane's.

    I think both are very neutral, the difference coming with more bass and mid-bass from the 340's, along with a more dynamic presentation.

    I just do some comparison of the two speakers with my Chesky 5.1 setup disc. It was nothing in depth, but speaker identification portion of the disc, it was very apparent how the mids of the speakers are so good and closely matched. A true Ascend signature IMO.

    I think the wider dispersion of the 340's also contribute to it having a bigger soundstage.

    jimsiff I think posted that he is getting some 170's for surrounds. Maybe he will get to compare them to his 340's.

    They are different speakers for sure, and someone may like either one more than the other. As I said in the past, if someone told me they were going to take my 340's away and replace them with 170's, I would not be too upset.
    -curtis

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    415

    Default

    Maybe get a pair of 170s + sub + center. If you like 'em, Ascend has the "Extender Purchase Plan" where you can then add other components within 45 days & still get the package price. If they're good enough, get another pair of 170s. Or, if not, then get 340s & push the 170s to your surrounds.

    As for the large room thing, you may wanna check with Ascend. They'll probably recommend the 340s, but I've cranked the 170s to excruciating levels & they didn't waver even a tiny bit.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oaktown, CA
    Posts
    226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NewBuyer
    Shane provided a nice write-up of his impression, regarding the 170's versus the 340's. Here is what he said, in case it helps you.
    Yeah... well, I only had them for 3 days, and this was more of an initial impression than a final critical evaluation. (Can you say 'backpedaling'?)

    Ok, after dialing them in a bit better I still feel that the two types are different, though not nearly as different as I initially thought. That said... they are mine. I'm keeping them all. The 340's across the front and the 170's in the surround position is perfect for movies. They carry out their respective jobs with aplomb.

    As I said in that preliminary 'review' I needed to move the 340's around to see if the effects I was experiencing were positional (ah... dontcha just love room acoustics!). They were. By putting them in a better position I was able to change the imaging slightly and bring the sound to a bit more neutral place. The tonality and timbre of these compared to the 170's is still different, but not much. They integrate incredibly well and as a surround system are first rate. As sounds pan across the front or move to the rear, there is very little difference in tone and the seamlessness of the setup provides a homogeneity that can be breathtaking.

    The great thing about the 340's is their ability to work beautifully with music as well as movies. As has been said before, there is little fatigue to long hours or high volume with these speakers. They are rich and fluid... they seem accurate and precise without being cool and sterile. First rate.

    To sum... The 340's across the front and the 170's for the surround is a great system. I think the opinion that a complete 340 system being a phenomenal way to go is not an exaggeration. I would do that if I could have afforded it. For now, I have the best 5.1 system that I could afford. You will not be disappointed if you go this route.

    Cheers, and good luck to you.

    shane
    Yes Eve, I like to watch.

    My setup:
    http://www.fototime.com/5EF1F78FC789849/orig.jpg
    HT: 340SE's Front & Center - 340 Classic's Surround, SVS PB110-ISD.
    Office (2-ch): 170SE's

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Portland, Or
    Posts
    165

    Default

    I just received my 170s last week and did a quick comparison, but nothing substantial. I was blown away by the 170s, but not because they were better than the 340s, which IMO they weren't. I was simply amazed because of the value the 170s offer. Purchased on the extender plan, they were $276 shipped. I can't imagine another pair of speakers costing $300 sounding even close.

    As to the sound, the 170s were honest in their reproduction, but not quite as revealing as the 340. The top end of the 340 is just a bit sweeter, yet not at all bright. The 340s have a more dynamic soundstage, and offer more midbass extension. When properly integrated with a sub, crossed over at 80 hz, and played at reasonable volumes in a mid size room or smaller, I believe the 170 is a better value than the 340.

    In larger rooms, the advantages of the 340 start to separate it from the 170. My setup is in a 3700 cubic foot room, about half of which is open to another 3350 cubic foot room, and has two other open hallways, one of which is vaulted. The 340 fills the space with more authority and greater ease than the 170 can, without sacrificing the Ascend sound. Physics alone dictates that the 340 can play louder with less distortion with the same input signal compared to the 170.

    For me, the bottom line is that I prefer the 340s, but I wouldn't feel slighted if I had to "settle" for the 170s.
    -Jim

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,066

    Default

    Here is what Dave said on another thread.-

    "Hi Rosa,

    It is certainly OK to prefer the CBM-170 over the 340 main… both speakers were designed for specific purposes and what sounds best to you is purely subjective.

    From a technical standpoint, the CMT-340 is superior… The CBM-170 uses a single high performance woofer while the 340 uses two. In any loudspeaker, distortion increases as output increases. Depending on how you look at it, the 340 has the capability to deliver either twice the output of the CBM-170 at the same distortion level, or close to half the distortion at the same output level.

    The tweeter used in the CMT-340 is also technically superior, having lower distortion, a lower resonance frequency and extended high frequency response."

    To read the whole post here is the link- http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/sho...2&postcount=17
    Last edited by Quinn; 05-23-2005 at 06:06 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •