340s with/without subwoofer

[Lou-the-dog]

Hmmmmmmm ... McIntosh amp from Stereophile's class "A" ? Or a receiver ...

Hmmmmmm...pre-out or no pre-out...to configure properly or not to configure properly...decisions, decisions.

Randy

[craigsub]

Hmmmmmm...pre-out or no pre-out...to configure properly or not to configure properly...decisions, decisions.

Randy

Randy - I just quoted the opening line of the review as linked to by Chris Quinn. You guys wanted proof - It is there.

And you might want to look into the McIntosh ... It is SO far superior to any receiver.

[craigsub]

1. Ascend "fans" showed no praise for methodology. Please show me a post in regards to that.

2. Please post where you stated that no crossover was going to be used.....in the 170 comparison or 340 comparison.

3. In which test? In the 170 test......both speakers were subject to the same exact setup, not so in the 340 test.

What did I admit to? I did not ever admit to knowing that a crossover was not going to be used.

From the Link as provided by Chris Quinn ...

"Great Stuff, Craig. Looking forward to what you think of the 340's"

Guess who said that ?

[curtis]

Curtis - I am running $7000 worth of front end, and you seriously want to say the system would have sounded better with 20 extra feet of speaker wire going through a crossover which could not cost more than about $5 ?

Add into that the fact that I was not even coming close to taxing the speakers in question.

Of course, you never answered - do you think hitting 90 dB peaks at 10-11 feet away from a pair of 92 dB efficient 340's is taxing them ?

Well...you didn't answer my question either, you seem to keep side stepping the crossover issue. Very simple, is it better or not to use a crossover for proper integration? I will answer yours though.....

No, I do not think it is taxing them, but I do think they sound better, especially as the sound level goes up, when properly integrated with an excellent subs such as the Hsu.

[craigsub]

Here is the opening post to the test of the 170's on Home Theater SPot...

http://www.hometheaterspot.com/htsth.../Number/606117

[craigsub]

Well...you didn't answer my question either, you seem to keep side stepping the crossover issue. Very simple, is it better or not to use a crossover for proper integration? I will answer yours though.....

No, I do not think it is taxing them, but I do think they sound better, especially as the sound level goes up, when properly integrated with an excellent subs such as the Hsu.

Curtis, If I was testing them in a 5.1 channel system, yes, the optimal method would be to cross them over.

And since you have likely forgotten, we WERE supposed to do more tests between the 250 Mark II's and the 340's ... in a home theater setting.

I was asked not to - and you know by whom.

And, as you can see, you have your link to the opening of the 170 review.

[curtis]

From the Link as provided by Chris Quinn ...

"Great Stuff, Craig. Looking forward to what you think of the 340's"

Guess who said that ?

Lets stop causing the confusion Craig....

That quote was in response to getting your thoughts on the 340's, not in regards to a comparison.

The earlier post about the 170's being run fullrange, was also NOT a comparison thread.

Here is Chris' post in HTF, which happens to be in the comparison thread. Chris' post will lead you to the thread on HTS:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...08#post2317708

[curtis]

Curtis, If I was testing them in a 5.1 channel system, yes, the optimal method would be to cross them over.

And since you have likely forgotten, we WERE supposed to do more tests between the 250 Mark II's and the 340's ... in a home theater setting.

I was asked not to - and you know by whom.

And, as you can see, you have your link to the opening of the 170 review.

I guess we differ on how to optimally configure the setup between two-channel and 5.1. I make no distinction between the two for the best sound. A properly implemented crossover is always the best when integrating a subwoofer. That is my position.

If that is not your thinking, I could understand why you were asked not to do more "tests".

[craigsub]

Lets stop causing the confusion Craig....

That quote was in response to getting your thoughts on the 340's, not in regards to a comparison.

The earlier post about the 170's being run fullrange, was also NOT a comparison thread.

Here is Chris' post in HTF, which happens to be in the comparison thread. Chris' post will lead you to the thread on HTS:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...08#post2317708

Curtis - I did a direct comparison between the ELT-Cse's and the 170's in the thread I linked to. The Ascends "won", 9.1 to 8. It is in the thread for anyone to read. And your quote was right after the stand alone review of the 170's.

You asked where I said I was running the 170's full range with the STF-1, and I found it for you. I am going to bed. And yes, I will be checking here tomorrow.

[curtis]

The announcement of the comparison was done after my post, and the thread was never advertised as a comparison thread. That comparison and thread was so obsure, that you couldn't find it.

As for the use of the speakers in full range, that is my OOOPS. I should have known and remembered that very first post while you conducted your tests on a different forum.