Hate to ask another 170 vs 340 question but this is with twist...

[ncHTsetter]

I would like to get the opinions of other users on the following two options that are closer in $$, for a 2.1 system (particulary from people who have one of the setups and have heard the other setup):

1. 340 mains with a Dayton 12" sub
2. 170 mains with a HSU STF2

For reference I live in an apartment with room dimensions of 14' x 16' with 12' high ceiling, can't have too much bass else the neighbors are going to be knocking on the door (and sometimes walls).

Also, I received the 170 classics and have been auditioning them for about a week. I have been running these as large as I don't have a sub yet.
Well, you guys already know the results: saxophone and other kinds of music without too much low frequency stuff sounds really good and detailed. The only addition is in my room due to the corner placement of the speakers, the room seems to add some additional LFE.
I watched Italian Job and some of the bassy scenes really got me reaching for the remote (I only wonder what it would sound like with a real sub).

Anyways, I'm planning to get a sub sometime next week and do a in home audition of some B&W 602s, 705s (if the dealer would allow both to be auditioned at the same time) and maybe some thing less expensive like Athena's AS-B2s. This way I cover the spectrum of speakers (within my range). Will post impressions later.

[bikeman]

I have the Dayton 10" and it's an excellent value in it's price class but it's no match for the Ascends with music. No legitimate complaints for movies. As Sens and I have pointed out, it'll shake the house. If you're going to use a sub for music, get a musical sub. Lots of folks like the Hsu and many like some of the sealed subs like the Rockets.

David

[ncHTsetter]

Thanks David. I was hoping to run the 340s full range for music particularly the new SEs (if I got setup #1) but I do understand there might be some music with LF less than 45Hz.
But I have also read some posts about issues with sub integration for music. I guess I'll have to try it for myself but it sure is getting expensive just in shipping costs if I have to audition all the components.

[sensibull]

I live in an apartment with room dimensions of 14' x 16' with 12' high ceiling, can't have too much bass else the neighbors are going to be knocking on the door (and sometimes walls).

I watched Italian Job and some of the bassy scenes really got me reaching for the remote (I only wonder what it would sound like with a real sub).

Given those two statements, I'd consider a third option, which is to trade in the 170s for 340 SEs and forego the sub for the time being. I've happily run the 340 Classics w/o a sub and would be very surprised if the newer models don't suffice on their own (David suggested as much, with great confidence, in his official announcement). You may miss out on any real bump for movies, but it sounds like you don't necessarily need or want it at the moment anyway.

You can always pick up a sub later, if you find your setup lacking, and they're getting better (and cheaper) all the time.

[Jorge59]

ncHTvsetter

I have 170 mains with a HSU STF2. And 340 center. The 170 are great but the 340 are greatER. I love my STF-2 too.

If you are doubtful about the subwoofer, I suggest you play music with all speakers disabled. Then you will notice how much bass is played through the speakers (not the sub) and what you'd be missing initially, without the sub. I guess the sub normally carries only about 15% of the bass.

So, with the new 340SE you'd probably get at least 90% of the bass perfectly. Not that you'll not have anything of the remaining 10%: you'll probably get the very low frequencies somehow weaker (but still there...). Of course, a good sub fills that lower end beautifully, and it is essential for action movies, but you can live without it for a while. I wouldn't compromise on the speakers to get the sub earlier.

If you are going to audition those B&Ws, you will set very high standards and you might not like the 170's. I think the B&W 705 will blow any Ascend in a minute (I hope Dave forgives me...and please tell me if I'm wrong), and even "thrash" the 602. It's another league but the 705s will cost about three times the 340 (although it would not be 3x as good). I hope the 340SE will be a closer match to the 705.

I'll be interested in getting your impressions.
Good Luck.

[ncHTsetter]

Jorge59,

I did already audition the B&Ws - 601, 602 and 705 in the dealer showroom but did not compare it to the Ascends (did not have them by then).
In the showroom, the 601s were just flat even to my wanna-be audiophile ears. The 602s were better, clean and smooth highs but not as big a difference as in the mid-range, which was much more detailed and overall better imaging.
Like you said the 705s are in a different league, the minute the 705s were swapped in (dealer did not have a way to A-B, no switcher), the first thing I noticed was the soundstaging and room filling sound. The bass extension went much lower and was pretty tight for a 2-way speaker.
The only reason I wanted to check the 705s out was because there were some folks who pointed out that the 602s were no match for the Ascends and that they were more in the 700 series league. I guess its time to find out in my setting. The 705s are a little out of my budget but I wanted to see what I'll be missing in terms of SQ (if anything) and maybe reaching up might be an option :-)

[curtis]

Two years ago, I compared the CMT-340 with the Paradigm Studio 60 and the B&W CDM7 NT(predecessor to the 700 series). I was persuaded by someone shopping for speakers to bring my speakers to the local shop to do the comparison.

The speakers were all set up in the same room, side by side, powered by a Sunfire Ultimate Receiver.

It was myself, an Axiom owner, a Monitor Audio owner, and the guy shopping for speakers. We all took turns in the listening position. We all agreed that the 340's held their own in every aspect except bass extension.

The guy shopping for speakers bought 340's and a Hsu STF-2 sub.

[KPFury]

I'm actually following Jorge's advice to a T. I feel that the 340SE's will probably satisfy 90% of my listening requirements, and I can always add a sub, center, and surround later (in that order.) Also if I got the 170SE, I'll always be wondering "what if..."

People are often very conservative when it comes to how much they want to spend on speakers when they're first looking around, but if you buy it piece by piece over the course of a couple of months, it's really not that bad at all.

[rajacat]

I still do not understand what are the audio differences between the 170's and the 340's. Are the 340's just the 170's with an extended bass response? Could the 170's fill this deficiency with the addition of a sub while further extending the bass response of the system? Is the reason that the 340 is a superior mid channel is because of a better middle response and higher efficiency thereby being particularly suitable for human voice reproduction? Is the lower efficiency of the 170's a deficit or can it be overcome by just applying more power? Does this relative inefficiency affect the size of the soundstage and dispersion?

[Quinn]

Here is what Dave says,

"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." http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/sho...2&postcount=17

Now, if you're waiting for the SE I believe the tweeter will be the same in both speakers.