340s with/without subwoofer

[craigsub]

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.

Virgil - There is no anger towards you at all. Nor is there towards Randy - You both are sort of "11th hour" on this stuff.

When you said "intangible", I think you meant "infallible" ? And you are right, there is no perfect speaker.

For some background (which certain people know), I own not only the Ascends, but Axiom, Rocket, Onix Reference, Paradigms, and Energy Veritas.

They are all excellent performers.

IF you want, go to the Loudspeakers and Subwoofers section on Home Theater Forum, a gent was asking about the decision between 170's and 340's. You might find it interesting the one person who answered his question ...

[craigsub]

Virgil - Pretty cool review, too. You are right, for $3k, they SHOULD be good ...

[davef]

Wow...

I come back from a 2-day vacation and get to see this? Not fun...

Craig, my apologies for getting your room size wrong. That was an honest mistake. You have so many different systems in different rooms in your house. Maybe it was your review of The Ref 3s or some other speaker that you had in such a large room…

Also, regarding high output, I recall somewhere in your review measuring 92dB? I don't have the time now to read through your original review, but I will say you are taking my responses to member's questions the wrong way.

Yes, I certainly got your room size wrong but output levels are subject to opinion... And remember, while you correctly stated the CMT-340 sensitivity at 92dB, sensitivity has no bearing on power handling and maximum output capability. Sensitivity is measured at a distance of only 1 meter.. at 3 meters (approx 10 feet, your listening distance), the power requirements needed to reach that same level are dramatically higher. Certainly this output level is no problem when using the speakers high-passed, but it can introduce unwanted artifacts at frequencies below tuning, besides making it almost impossible to achieve the correct phase and amplitude integration between speaker and sub.

I would be happy to run a driver excursion simulation for you, just to see how hard the woofers were actually being pushed at frequencies below port tuning. Can't do it now though, must unpack, but just let me know... The techie side of you might find it interesting.

To everyone else in this thread, it is perfectly OK to disagree but let us all behave nicely please. I know Craig does not agree with my stance, he does not have to and I am OK with that.. you should be too. His opinion will not change, nor will mine, and from what I read it doesn’t seem like anyone is trying to change anyone’s opinion, just disagreeing. After a few days in the High-Sierra’s I realize that these are just loudspeakers after all….

In my opinion, it is important for a review of a loudspeaker system to best represent how potential buyers and owners intend to use the speakers. The fact is, I have never recommended (both before Craig's review or after the review) anyone to run the 340 mains full range combined with a subwoofer. I honestly don't think (at least I can't recall) a single customer using them in this manner. To this extent, regardless of Craig's testing methodology, the setup was not representative of how people actually use the 340 mains... I don’t think there can be any disagreement on that statement?

There is no reason to re-hash this over and over again.. Craig is welcome here, different opinions are welcome here.... I will NOT delete or close this thread. All of this would have been avoided if I hadn't posted the wrong information regarding Craig's room... My memory fails me all too often now (those of you with kids know what I am talking about) and with so much to do, I was lazy and tried to recall the room size from memory. (Craig, where did I get that large room from? Maestro review?)

However, my response to the member regarding using 340 mains with/without a subwoofer etc. would have been the exact same regardless of Craig’s room size.. If 340 mains are being considered and bass below 55Hz is desired, I strongly recommend a subwoofer combined with high-passing the speakers (60-80Hz)... Most of us know that obtaining any clean output below port tuning is next to impossible. A woofer in a ported enclosure is "uncontrolled" below the tuning point and both excursion and distortion dramatically increase.

And yes, I do run my 340 mains full range, but without a subwoofer (not the same setup as Craig's review, no sub)... However, please keep in mind that my listening habits are a bit different than most, if not all. I need to hear the speakers ONLY, all the good stuff and the bad.... Rarely do I listen for purely "enjoyment" purposes (and how I miss it), instead my listening is more as an evaluation of the design. Many times I will even listen to a single speaker in mono for hours (no fun at all but the best way to really "hear" the speaker)... Before the release of the 340 mains, I had CBM-170s subwooferless for the most part, as well as HTM-200s without a sub.. Of course, if I am going to give an audition, movies or music, a subwoofer will be reconnected and the speakers high-passed...

Craig, again, my apologies for my error and a sincere thanks for the kind words on the performance of the 340 mains.

[craigsub]

Hi David,

Thanks for the welcome here. Regarding room size - I am not sure where the 8000 figure came from. Our two primary listening rooms are 5700 and 4200 cubic feet, with the 4200 cubic feet being even easier to work in for smaller speakers. It has a stairwell which divides the room into 1/3rd-2/3rd lengths. I also have always used moderate to low volume levels for the critical listening tests. The listening lasts for hours, and high volumes just won't "cut it" for this. I do typically do some short term, as in 30 seconds long, high volume tests to check for macro dynamics.

I do understand what ten feet does vs. one meter. This is why I estimated 5 watts on peaks for our listening tests, in order to achieve the 90 dB peaks.

As far as testing methodology goes, yes, what we do is demanding on a pair of speakers. The easiest test for a speaker is to run a 5.1 system. I can set up 5 Blank 201's and a decent subwoofer, put people who think they have pretty good ears into our room, and get some pretty positive feedback.

I also understand a lot of people here did not follow the various review threads I started last year. We tested quite a few loudspeakers, and every one of them received the identical treatment.

For example, The Rocket 550's were run full range. The Ascend 340's were run full range with the addition of a subwoofer to augment bass. They were both set in the arena of a high end, two channel system. They were both scrutinized. This was the same system in which $10,000 Infinity IRS speakers were used, along with $7500 Klipschorns and $4500 Onix Reference 3's.

The Ref 3's are Secrets of Home Theater & High Fidelity's speaker of the year. The Infinity's are a former Stereophile Class "A". The Klipshorns are ruthlessy revealing. Running these lesser expensive speakers in this system is a GREAT test for them.

The 340's and 550's scored within 5% of each other. In direct comparison to some VERY well thought of systems, they BOTH received excellent marks.

My first priority in a test is to make sure all contestants receive equivalant treatment.

My second is to make sure listening is blind. I like to remove all potential for bias.

What I learned in these blind comparisons is this: People who spent money on a product want to read a review which tells them they bought the best. Audiophiles want to be told, "Your XXXX speakers perform better than those selling for 5 times the price". They would far prefer someone looks (literally) at their XXXX speakers and tell them "You could not possibly have done better for the money". People do not want to hear, read, or be in any way told that their product MIGHT (my emphasis, as I have always stated others may disagree with my opinion) not be the absolute best.

That is the nature of the audio world. That is ok. Thankfully, there are a lot of audio magazines willing to do just that.

[NewBuyer]

I just have to say this, although reluctantly:

To a potential customer of Ascend, this is a very confusing and distressing thread.

Dave F. himself has said - more than once - that running the 340's full range in a smaller room or at moderate volumes, will not be a problem. So we should feel that we have this statement on good authority - yes?

Craig has explained, many times, that he tested these 340 speakers full range in a smaller room (4200 cubic feet) AND at moderate volumes (only about 1 watt, with possibly 5 watt peaks). Craig also tested them crossed over with a STF-1 subwoofer, and he found the speakers sounded WORSE this way - which makes sense, since the passive crossover in the sub would obviously be the sonic weak-link in his $7000 front-end rig.

Dave F. had accidentally thought that Craig had tested them full-range at "very high levels" and also thought the test had occurred in an 8000 cubic foot room. We now know that both of these assumptions were incorrect, and Dave F. has apologized for these inaccuracies.

So in Craig's testing environment of a small room and at low to moderate levels, the 340's are therefore clearly operating in a perfectly acceptable manner for a full range test, at least according to Dave F.

So everything appears to be in order here.

Yet, there seems to be a very unbecoming "ganging-up" behavior of forum members here on Craig, simply because he did not conclude the 340's to be the best most absolutely perfect speaker ever made. Some of the above posts read like personal attacks on him, trying to either bully him into submission or making him feel unable to rationally discuss anything here at all.

I might be missing something however (?)

[craigsub]

Newbuyer - Please don't let anything you have read here dissuade you from purchasing Ascend speakers. In my travels and listening tests, I found the 340's and a VTF-3.2 subwoofer to be superior to the Paradigm 100 v.3's.

How did I do this ? Pretty simple, I bought a pair of the Paradigms - and they are still here.

At the time of the now infamous test, I had auditioned speakers from Energy, PSB, Totem, Dahlquist ... etc... etc... etc...

The 340's were among the very best at reproducing music.

The one speaker which had potential, but which we have not tried here, is the Axiom M80ti ... perhaps soon.

Right now, I have a pair of $4500 Energy Veritas 2.4i's running with $4500 worth of Emotiva gear - This is a system WITH full bass management, and even though it has 7 channels of amplification, I find it to surpass even the McIntosh. (A review has been posted on Audioholics for those interested) ...

The 340's, with twin Onix UFW-10's added, give the Veritas real competition.

For less than 1/2 the price, they are about 95 % as good.

Same thing with the Rocket 250.2's.

The speakers companies like Ascend are producing are fantastic values. Your money will be well spent here - and THAT is what counts...

[sensibull]

To a potential customer of Ascend, this is a very confusing and distressing thread.

Although I responded similarly, I now feel the need to play devil's advocate and make sure people are aware that more is/was involved here than whether a crossover was used properly. If you haven't read all of the threads about this particular comparison (the main one was closed and deleted), than you simply have to take this latest rehashing with a grain of salt. I won't go into details, because that would accomplish nothing but exhume beefs thankfully now buried. Suffice it to say that contention between the main individuals involved is not solely limited to the subject of this speaker comparison, and that, unfortunately, things got personal somewhere along the line. Happens ALL the time in this fanatical hobby, as even a casual reader of the more poplular forums can tell you, but thankfully MUCH less often around here and in regard to Ascends than several of the other brands.

In other words, it would be a big mistake for a potential buyer to assume this thread is in any way an accurate representation of Ascend, as a company, a product, or a community of owners.

[craigsub]

Although I responded similarly, I now feel the need to play devil's advocate and make sure people are aware that more is/was involved here than whether a crossover was used properly. If you haven't read all of the threads about this particular comparison (the main one was closed and deleted), than you simply have to take this latest rehashing with a grain of salt. I won't go into details, because that would accomplish nothing but exhume beefs thankfully now buried. Suffice it to say that contention between the main individuals involved is not solely limited to the subject of this speaker comparison, and that, unfortunately, things got personal somewhere along the line. Happens ALL the time in this fanatical hobby, as even a casual reader of the more poplular forums can tell you, but thankfully MUCH less often around here and in regard to Ascends than several of the other brands.

In other words, it would be a big mistake for a potential buyer to assume this thread is in any way an accurate representation of Ascend, as a company, a product, or a community of owners.

Well said - with one small correction - The thread is actually still there, in closed status. For whatever reason, the easiest way to search it is to do a search on "Ascend 340's", and it will be on the 2nd page of threads listed. Just be prepared for some SERIOUS reading. It is a LOOOOOOOONG thread.

And you are quite correct, the direct factory forums tend to be far less (searching for the right word) .... petulant .... than the open forums.

[Lou-the-dog]

Yet, there seems to be a very unbecoming "ganging-up" behavior of forum members here on Craig, simply because he did not conclude the 340's to be the best most absolutely perfect speaker ever made. Some of the above posts read like personal attacks on him, trying to either bully him into submission or making him feel unable to rationally discuss anything here at all.

Yes. You did witness some unbecoming behaviour of which I was a major part of. To those of you that were offended I apologize to. This thread is NOT an example of what goes on here regularly... it is a rarity.

To explain my behaviour somewhat... Craig apparently felt "taken to task" on the relatively small issue (keep in mind the spirit of the thread) of room size and listening levels... and this was apparent to me (knowing the history of the original comparison). He chose to come and post not to add (in a positive way) in an originally very friendly and informative thread but to simply defend his poorly done comparison...again. This negative behaviour of his (and mine) is simply remaining artifacts from the negative feelings created out of the comparison. This was immediately obvious to me. This is his style. He chooses to quickly point out errors of others but will not acknowledge and accept his errors. To accept his error in properly setting up that system in that comparison would have allowed this thread to move past that negative phase and productive discussion could have continued on properly optomizing your Ascend system. Unfortunately this probably won't happen and folks will continue to think that it is OK to run Ascends full range WITH a sub. PLEASE do not confuse the way Craig set up that system in that comparison with proper optomization!!

Dave designed the Ascends to integrate with a sub WITH the use of a crossover. You can run these speakers full range if you want (I do also at times) but if you add a sub then definitely use a crossover. That is the bottom line and hope this clears up some confusion with this mess.

Randy

[craigsub]

Yes. You did witness some unbecoming behaviour of which I was a major part of. To those of you that were offended I apologize to. This thread is NOT an example of what goes on here regularly... it is a rarity.

To explain my behaviour somewhat... Craig apparently felt "taken to task" on the relatively small issue (keep in mind the spirit of the thread) of room size and listening levels... and this was apparent to me (knowing the history of the original comparison). He chose to come and post not to add (in a positive way) in an originally very friendly and informative thread but to simply defend his poorly done comparison...again. This negative behaviour of his (and mine) is simply remaining artifacts from the negative feelings created out of the comparison. This was immediately obvious to me. This is his style. He chooses to quickly point out errors of others but will not acknowledge and accept his errors. To accept his error in properly setting up that system in that comparison would have allowed this thread to move past that negative phase and productive discussion could have continued on properly optomizing your Ascend system. Unfortunately this probably won't happen and folks will continue to think that it is OK to run Ascends full range WITH a sub. PLEASE do not confuse the way Craig set up that system in that comparison with proper optomization!!

Dave designed the Ascends to integrate with a sub WITH the use of a crossover. You can run these speakers full range if you want (I do also at times) but if you add a sub then definitely use a crossover. That is the bottom line and hope this clears up some confusion with this mess.

Randy

Randy - So much for civility. Your points are as follows :

1. Saying a 4200 cubic foot room is an 8000 cubic foot room is a minor point.
2. Saying someone who listens to speakers at 70 to 80 dB, with occasional peaks to 90 dB is also listening at "high levels" is a minor point. These are your words, not mine.

In the field of audio, "high levels" has always meant a minimum of 105 dB peaks. This would mean I would have to have had run the speakers at levels between 85 and 95 dB on average, or a full 15 dB HIGHER than I really did.

When doubling the room size is added into the equation, this means a 21 dB difference in what I was asking the speakers to do.

When dealing with the logarithmic nature of sound, this means, if what I actually had used for average sound levels required 0.5 watts of power for the 80 dB level, and 5 watts for the 90 dB level, in order to achieve "high levels" into a room twice the size of the actual room used would require 50 watts for the 95 dB level and 500 watts for peaks.

So, in your opinion, "felt I was taken to task for some small issue". A 100 to 1 difference in the load sent to a loudspeaker is not a "small issue"

I really don't have a problem with someone thinking the myriad of tests being done was "not optimized". If you are going to take the position that the 340's are meant to only be used with a subwoofer's crossover, that is your perogrative. In a two channel system, like the one with the McIntosh MA-6900, using the extra pre-outs to send a signal directly to the subwoofer just plain sounds better than does sending a "speaker level" signal into the subwoofer's crossover, then back to the main speakers. The Caveat here is that the mains are not being overdriven.

If David Fabrikant comes back with a computer model showing audible break up from 30 Hz and up (the music sessions were specifically selected to keep the frequencies above 30 Hz - I was always running TrueRTA in "Peak Hold" mode in order to assure this, as always) at 0.2 to 5 watts, then yes, I made an error. I only ask that the 5 watt inputs be kept to short term peaks, as they were here.

Yesterday, I was taken to task by forum members here to "prove my assertion" that I had posted that the speakers were going to be run full range.

I posted links to the asked for "proof". It was clearly stated before each test, including the ELT-Cse/Axiom, the ELT-Cse/Ascend 170, and the Ascend 340/Rocket 550, that all main speakers were being run full range. For some reason, that does not seem to matter now. Oh well.

You want an admission from me of my "error". There was no "error" made. There was a review methodology posted prior to the review, which was agreed to by all parties. If you elect to not believe that, that is ok - I would rather you say I was lying and get it over with.

To be very concise here, David Fabrikant, Curtis Chang, Mark Schifter, The folks at Axiom ALL knew that their respective company's speakers were being run full range BEFORE each test. It would have been pretty simple, at that time, for any of them to ask me to change the methodology I used.

If you look at the specific comparison between the 340's and the 550's, the popular belief at the time was that the Ascend package was given an advantage over the other speakers due to its addition of a subwoofer. In fact, Axiom withdrew from the comparison due to this.

Remember, the 550's, like the 340's, have two 6.5 inch bass drivers in a ported cabinet. THEY were also run full range, without the benefit of a subwoofer.

If you would actually read the beginning of the review on HTF, I was being taken to task quite a bit for being overly "pro-Ascend". You will see where Chris Quinn posts a direct link to the 170/ELT review, which again states all review methodology, PLUS you will see where I (for about the tenth time during the various tests) posted the review system and methodology.

LOOKING at this from another standpoint - Let's say someone asked me for the optimum set up for five 340's, an H-K 635, and a VTF-3 Mark II subwoofer in a high output theater. YES, I would say the H-K's crossover should be used.

PART of the test was going to be continued in such a manner. A Full FIVE channel set up, using the 630 receiver I had here, as you pointed out. I was asked, by David, NOT to do this test. I understand that does not matter to you, and that you have decided I was "wrong" in the methodology used, and nothing I say will sway you.

I am fine with that. Be well.