340s with/without subwoofer

[curtis]

Craig,

If you reduce it to pure objectivity, the speakers were not set up optimally regardless of room size and listening levels.

In this instance of your comparison, without having to integrate a sub with the front end, the RS550's benefited in that scenario.

[craigsub]

Craig,

If you reduce it to pure objectivity, the speakers were not set up optimally regardless of room size and listening levels.

In this instance of your comparison, without having to integrate a sub with the front end, the RS550's benefited in that scenario.

Curtis ... That is your opinion, not objective information. Why don't you objectively discuss what possible sonic degradation the test methodology caused ?

And, again, I OFFERED to re-do the entire test. There was one person who declined the offer.

[curtis]

The technical information is in DaveF's post. If you are saying it is my opinion, you must certainly think the same way of your own.

The FACT still remains, all things being equal, the proper use of a crossover is always best for subwoofer integration. This is a fact that you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge. This is the only issue I have with this thread and your comparison.

A crossover fitting the caliber of the rest of your equipment should have been used.

Yes...we know you offered to redo the test. Quite noble of you, but in light of what has happenned, I think people would feel more comfortable if more than one knowledgeable and publically accessible person were part of the comparison. This not only benefits readers and skeptics, but you as well.

Busy day today....I won't have time to post much more until this evening, if I have the energy, but I will sneak a peak once in a while.

Also, this differing opinion discussion is probably best taken offline. I think you still have my phone numbers.

[craigsub]

The technical information is in DaveF's post. If you are saying it is my opinion, you must certainly think the same way of your own.

The FACT still remains, all things being equal, the proper use of a crossover is always best for subwoofer integration. This is a fact that you seem to be unwilling to acknowledge. This is the only issue I have with this thread and your comparison.

A crossover fitting the caliber of the rest of your equipment should have been used.

Yes...we know you offered to redo the test. Quite noble of you, but in light of what has happenned, I think people would feel more comfortable if more than one knowledgeable and publically accessible person were part of the comparison. This not only benefits readers and skeptics, but you as well.

I saw David's post, Curtis. And, again, the problem you have with the test was the results. He clearly states that, at moderate volumes, running the 340's is not a problem.

I did, by the way, post the system on HTF, too. The review system was the same in the Axiom, ELT-Cse, Ascend 170, Ascend 340, and Rocket 550 tests.

The review system was also publically posted BEFORE each test.

When the Ascend 170's narrowly "beat" the Rocket ELT-Cse's - All you guys did was praise the results. There was NO comment about review methodology being flawed.

When the 550's narrowly "beat" the 340's, the review method and the reviewer were attacked.

[curtis]

Once again, lets take out all the attacks and biases. All wrong...period. So lets not use them for basis for anything in this thread. I apologize for my part in it. We can even throw out the end results.

To reiterate:
The FACT still remains, all things being equal, the proper use of a crossover is always best for subwoofer integration. The CMT-340's were not setup optimally because of this fact.

[craigsub]

Once again, lets take out all the attacks and biases. All wrong...period. So lets not use them for basis for anything in this thread. I apologize for my part in it. We can even throw out the end results.

To reiterate:
The FACT still remains, all things being equal, the proper use of a crossover is always best for subwoofer integration. The CMT-340's were not setup optimally because of this fact.

Curtis - In that case, neither speaker was set up optimally. It is still an even playing field. It is just frustrating to me - First you guys make up stuff about my room size, whether I posted about the methodology ahead of time, etc...

When THAT turns out to not be true, you switch gears.

Fine - Both the 550's and the 340's would benefit from the use of a crossover and a subwoofer. If you will remember, the 550's were ALSO run full range. Every "non optimal" problem with the test for the 340's applies to the 550's, too.

I offered, on the SAME day the results were posted, to re-do the test with 250's, 340's both crossed over with subwoofers. That was last August. It was declined.

I do owe you one thanks, though. Thanks for showing me why guys don't do these kind of tests.

Other than the BS posted last night about my 8000 cubic foot room and excessive volume levels, my life on the forums has been peaceful.

You and David are the main reason I got out of reviewing products.

[sensibull]

At the risk of pissing off the "home team" (of which I am a member, with a pair of 340s myself), the condescension, nit-picking, mule-headedness, and equivocation displayed towards Criag does not speak well for Ascend owners and essentially amounts to a "pile on." I've read all the pertinent threads, followed the ensuing controversy, and while I implicitly trust Dave F.'s explanation for why, technically speaking, it is best not to run the 340s full range, there is clearly some ambiguity here as I believe Dave runs them that way himself.

Would anyone here be freaking out about the crossover setup if the 340s had "won" the comparison? In the end, I think Ascends' reputation would benefit most if its owners accepted the futility of (and avoided the mudslinging involved in) trying to win, control, or get the last word on any online brouhaha. This "high road" approach is one of the things that attracted me to this company (and community) in the first place and I'd hate to see that class sullied by one rather unimportant speaker comparison.

Just my $.02, FWIW, YMMV, yadda, yadda, yadda...

[craigsub]

At the risk of pissing off the "home team" (of which I am a member, with a pair of 340s myself), the condescension, nit-picking, mule-headedness, and equivocation displayed towards Criag does not speak well for Ascend owners and essentially amounts to a "pile on." I've read all the pertinent threads, followed the ensuing controversy, and while I implicitly trust Dave F.'s explanation for why, technically speaking, it is best not to run the 340s full range, there is clearly some ambiguity here as I believe Dave runs them that way himself.

Would anyone here be freaking out about the crossover setup if the 340s had "won" the comparison? In the end, I think Ascends' reputation would benefit most if its owners accepted the futility of (and avoided the mudslinging involved in) trying to win, control, or get the last word on any online brouhaha. This "high road" approach is one of the things that attracted me to this company (and community) in the first place and I'd hate to see that class sullied by one rather unimportant speaker comparison.

Just my $.02, FWIW, YMMV, yadda, yadda, yadda...

Sensibull ... Thanks for the defense. One of the ironies of this is that I am still a proud Ascend owner. The speakers reviewed were purchased at the same price everyone pays. I have 340's across the front and 170's in the back.

I like them. A lot.

And yes, the comparison itself is unimportant. It was supposed to be fun.

Over the past year, literally dozens of people have asked me about whether or not to purchase Ascends. The answer has always been either an absolute yes, or a suggestion to try a pair, as the shipping risk is nominal.

[mv1612]

Sensibull is right… Let’s face it, how often have you met with angry Paradigm or Axiom fans, angry that our beloved Ascends shattered their speakers, like they did on many Internet reviews and comparisons? (I said “our” Ascends, as I’m a certain future Ascend owner).

And the crossover problem seems to be a bit more complicated that I thought… I thought it is common knowledge that monitors should be put on small, and maybe it is, but it seems that we could also rise the question of the crossover quality in the subwoofer, and of suplementary wires, as Craig says, lets give him credit for this, we more or less rejected almost everything he said here. I would like so much to add something coming from my own listenings, I feel downright crippled of being able to talk only from the “common knowledge” found on the Internet. For example, speaking of common knowledge (the irony is directed toward myself), I would say that although both the 340s and 550s were driven as FULL, the 550s suffered less being full range. Don’t get angry on me, Craig, this is trying to be a nice, relaxed post .

I’m sure Ascends are not intangible… as an aside, I would enjoy a comparison with the new kid on the block, John de Vore. He makes truly high end, expensive speakers. There’s the Gibbon 7.1, http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/d.../gibbon71.html , which is exactly the same size as the 340s but in an entire different price category, being priced at $3k, so they SHOULD be better!. I would certainly enjoy a comparison concluding that they are marginally better than the 340s .

Virgil.

[sensibull]

Over the past year, literally dozens of people have asked me about whether or not to purchase Ascends. The answer has always been either an absolute yes, or a suggestion to try a pair, as the shipping risk is nominal.

I have read many such posts (and your recommendations), which (given the tendency for folks who can afford much more expensive speakers to look down their noses at "affordable" brands) is another reason I consider the animosity towards you misplaced. You're not above tooting your own (klipsch)horn, mind you :wink:, but you certainly don't seem to be miserly with your good fortune...