340s with/without subwoofer

[NewBuyer]

I think that it is really nice of Dave to post in this thread!

Dave I am wondering, since the 340's are not designed for the full bass range, will running them full-range cause any damage whatsoever to the drivers over time?

Also, have you ever considered adding a "powered tower" version of the 340's to your line, i.e. a floorstander with an integrated powered subwoofer, for instance like the 533-PT units offered by Aperion Audio? If you did have something like this, we could enjoy the benefits of your driver/crossover design along with the space-savings of having no separate subwoofer unit, and use the "pure-direct" mode of our pre/pro units to full advantage. I would purchase this immediately from you, so if you will consider such an item, I will be waiting eagerly to buy them! Please advise?

[bikeman]

I think that it is really nice of Dave to post in this thread!

Dave I am wondering, since the 340's are not designed for the full bass range, will running them full-range cause any damage whatsoever to the drivers over time?

Also, have you ever considered adding a "powered tower" version of the 340's to your line, i.e. a floorstander with an integrated powered subwoofer, for instance like the 533-PT units offered by Aperion Audio? If you did have something like this, we could enjoy the benefits of your driver/crossover design along with the space-savings of having no separate subwoofer unit, and use the "pure-direct" mode of our pre/pro units to full advantage. I would purchase this immediately from you, so if you will consider such an item, I will be waiting eagerly to buy them! Please advise?

We will not hear a peep out of Dave F. when it comes to new product. All he will tell us is that he is always working on something. Several of us have expressed an interest similar to yours and we'll get our answer if and when it's done. I respect his way of introducing a product when it's ready to go. Too many things can and do go wrong with pre-mature announcements.
In answer to your first question, you will not damage these drivers over time. I run my 20 year old Mission bookshelf speakers full range almost every day. They're not quite as nice as the 340's but damage isn't a concern with these either.

David

[craigsub]

Hi Virgil,

The review you were referring to wasn't so much as a review, but more so an A/B comparison between a bookshelf speaker used with a subwoofer (CMT-340 + STF1) and a well regarded full range floor standing speaker.

Many, many things were questionable about that comparison, including the fact that the 340 mains were set to large thereby receiving a full bandwidth signal, even though they were being used with a subwoofer...

For ANY woofer being used in a ported enclosure, the woofer will exhibit extreme excursion below the tuning point of the enclosure. The lower the frequency and the higher the output, the more excursion. This excess non-controlled movement will have an adverse effect on the delicate midrange frequencies that it is trying to reproduce at the same time. This is one of the reasons that quality speakers have specialized drivers for specific frequency ranges.

The CMT-340s having a tuning point of 55Hz. In the comparison you referred to, they were played at very high levels, with full range signals, in what I believe was at least an 8000 cubic foot room. I was quite impressed that the speaker even handled the deep bass output demands in a room this large. If the speaker was set to small (as it should have been for this type of usage) thereby rolling off the low frequencies and allowing the sub to properly integrate with the speaker, maximum output levels would have increased, distortion would have dramatically decreased and the detail and clarity of the midrange would have been much improved. Would the difference have been audible? Very much so…

Also of important note, a woofer that is capable of deep bass must have increased mass, be extremely stiff and will usually exhibit poor damping. This is almost the exact opposite of a woofer that is designed for accurate mids and fast transients. This type of woofer must have very low mass and superb damping. Generally speaking, the lower the mass of the cone, the more accurate the transient response is (faster) and the better ability for the cone to resolve detail. Here is a good way to imagine this.. Picture a rock dropped in a pool of water.. how quickly do the waves travel and then disappear? How many waves are produced? Now drop the rock in a liquid of much heavier density, (something like honey or molasses comes to my mind)….. Visualizing the difference between the two is easy… and this visualization can be thought of as “detail”.. Now, take a bucket full of each and splash it at someone.. which one is going to have more impact? This visualization could be thought of as bass capability…

The woofers used in our CBM-170 and CMT-340 are very low mass, with excellent damping. They are specifically designed for fast transients, low distortion and impressive levels of details. They are simply not designed for deep bass.

In your room size (about 2000 cubic feet), you can certainly run the 340 mains full range and they will deliver tight bass into the 50Hz region. However, if your intentions are to avoid a subwoofer, have exquisite mids, deep bass, and be able to maintain this performance at very loud levels, I would recommend a much larger loudspeaker (more cabinet volume) with a woofer dedicated to bass, a dedicated midrange driver and of course an excellent tweeter...

Or... you could simply and affordably, high pass the 340 mains and add a subwoofer

hope this helps!

For the record, I am the individual who did the comparison. It was done at the request of quite a few people, and was done so entirely at my expense. This means I purchased both the Ascends and the "other" speakers.

The room in which the comparison was done is 4200 cubic feet, and is in our basement. The listening levels were approximately 70 to 80 dB, with occasional peaks higher than that. At no time was this ever a "high level" test. The listening position is approximately 10 feet from the speakers.

As for the performance of the 340's, they are a terrific speaker. For example, when combined with a UFW-10, they, IMO, sound superior to the Paradigm Studio 100 V.3's.

Here is a pic of the room ... As you look at the room, Keep in mind this is the same place we had earlier done a blind test with 170's and another, more expensive speaker pair, which the 170's won.

[Lou-the-dog]

For the record, I am the individual who did the comparison. It was done at the request of quite a few people, and was done so entirely at my expense. This means I purchased both the Ascends and the "other" speakers.

The room in which the comparison was done is 4200 cubic feet, and is in our basement. The listening levels were approximately 70 to 80 dB, with occasional peaks higher than that. At no time was this ever a "high level" test. The listening position is approximately 10 feet from the speakers.

As for the performance of the 340's, they are a terrific speaker. For example, when combined with a UFW-10, they, IMO, sound superior to the Paradigm Studio 100 V.3's.

Here is a pic of the room ... As you look at the room, Keep in mind this is the same place we had earlier done a blind test with 170's and another, more expensive speaker pair, which the 170's won.

In that personal comparison why did you choose to run the 340's "large" with the sub? Did you feel that you preferred the sound with the reciever set this way or just inexperience on your part (at least at the time... but I'm sure you are much wiser today after that elementary fumble)?

Randy

[craigsub]

In that personal comparison why did you choose to run the 340's "large" with the sub? Did you feel that you preferred the sound with the reciever set this way or just inexperience on your part (at least at the time... but I'm sure you are much wiser today after that elementary fumble)?

Randy

Randy, I used a Stereophile Class "A" McIntosh MA-6900 integrated amplifier, a modified Denon 2900 Universal player, and Better Cable Interconnects and speaker wires.

The Amp and Universal player alone will set you back about $7000.

The Amp has no subwoofer output - it is a high end, two channel unit.

The equipment and testing methodology was identical to those used in the test between the 170's and ELT-Cse's two months earlier. It is ironic, the methodology was fine for the 170's, but not the 340's. This methodology, including the fact that all speakers were being run full range, was posted PUBLICALLY in the pre-review discussion on Home Theater Spot.

My refererence speakers at the time of the test were Klipschorns, Infinity IRS Sigmas, and Onix Ref 3's. Those three speakers total more than $20,000.

I have also done hundreds of blind tests with loudspeakers and subwoofers dating back to the 70's.

To call the review method flawed or unfair would also be to say that the Ascend 340's cannot handle a full range signal at the 70 to 80 dB levels we typically listen to.

Somehow, I don't think the 340's have that problem.

Is there anything else you care to know about my "inexperience" ?

[curtis]

The equipment and testing methodology was identical to those used in the test between the 170's and ELT-Cse's two months earlier. It is ironic, the methodology was fine for the 170's, but not the 340's. This methodology, including the fact that all speakers were being run full range, was posted PUBLICALLY in the pre-review discussion on Home Theater Spot.

One big difference, it that test, both sets of speakers were configured the same way. So if there was a flaw in hook-up, both sets of speakers were subject to it. The test with the 340, the speaker set-ups were configured differently.

To call the review method flawed or unfair would also be to say that the Ascend 340's cannot handle a full range signal at the 70 to 80 dB levels we typically listen to.

Somehow, I don't think the 340's have that problem.

I do not think they have that problem either, but I would say the test was flawed because the speakers were not setup optimally.

I will say that the test did raise my curiosity about the other speakers, and I did finally get to hear them side by side the CMT-340m's.

[Lou-the-dog]

I think it would be best on your part to accept that you made a very elementary error while running this (and others, now, apparently) personal comparison AND quit being defensive. If you are going to choose to broadcast results of such comparisons (and claim expertise as you apparently are in this thread) then it is YOUR responsibility to make sure the systems are optimized. If you choose to forego the basics then be ready to ACCEPT being discredited...so yeah, I really really STILL believe you are way too inexperienced to take on the task you set out to do. Throwing money at a hobby for many many years does not automatically buy you the title of "experienced".

Randy

[craigsub]

One big difference, it that test, both sets of speakers were configured the same way. So if there was a flaw in hook-up, both sets of speakers were subject to it. The test with the 340, the speaker set-ups were configured differently.


I do not think they have that problem either, but I would say the test was flawed because the speakers were not setup optimally.

I will say that the test did raise my curiosity about the other speakers, and I did finally get to hear them side by side the CMT-340m's.

Curtis, you know better than to post such drivel. I responded here to direct BS that my room was 8000 cubic feet and that I was listening to speakers at high volume levels. Neither was true, but you guys don't mind yet another CLEAR mistatement about the review process.

You also had EVERY opportunity to chime in before the testing was started last year. You said nothing.

By the way, you may want to read what David F. said about the 340's doing rather well to 48 Hz, and how he likes the bass they put out.

For you to believe nonsense such as "the speakers were not set up optimally" is to state the 340's just cannot tolerate putting out a 70 to 80 dB SPL at a distance of 10 feet.

The 340's have an in room sensitivity of 92 dB with one watt @ one meter. I was ten - eleven feet away, which means one speaker would be a bit over 80 dB ... and two a bit over 83 dB at the listening position.

We never exceeded 90 dB at any time, and, as mentioned before, were typically in the 70 to 80 dB range.

This means we never ran above about 5 watts PEAK into the 340's.

It is your position the 340's cannot handle 5 watts peak, with less than one watt at typical listening levels ?

[craigsub]

I think it would be best on your part to accept that you made a very elementary error while running this (and others, now, apparently) personal comparison AND quit being defensive. If you are going to choose to broadcast results of such comparisons (and claim expertise as you apparently are in this thread) then it is YOUR responsibility to make sure the systems are optimized. If you choose to forego the basics then be ready to ACCEPT being discredited...so yeah, I really really STILL believe you are way too inexperienced to take on the task you set out to do. Throwing money at a hobby for many many years does not automatically buy you the title of "experienced".

Randy

Randy - Some of you people amaze me. The facts are:

1. I used the identical methodology in the test of the 170's as I did with the 340's. I have also used this method in several other tests. The Ascend "fans" praised this method when the 170's "won".

2. I posted publically what the methodology was before each test.

3. Noone had a complaint about the test method (level matched, blind testing) until AFTER the results.

Are you following this ? The methodology was posted BEFORE the test began. Curtis has even admitted this in the past.

I know facts can be painful ... and, for the record, I STILL own and like the Ascends, despite this mudslinging by a certain few people.

[curtis]

no...my position is that the 340's were not set up optimally with a sub, no matter what the listening level, and the 340's sound great without a sub.

As far as chiming in before the test was done, if you can show me the post where you stated that no crossover was going to be used, then I will admit, that I, and every other experienced person should have chimed in, and it was our fault for not correcting you.

We have gone over this before. Sorry you do not like my position/opinion, but it has never changed. It just seems that when the subject comes up, differing opinions get ugly, and there is no need for that.

Lets just agree to disagree.