Which 5 speakers for HT?

[Ivory05G35]

No I don't have a Pio now, I'm currently using a Yamaha RX-V440. I'm considering the 1015tx for an upgrade though. I'm thinking it will be that or an HK cause I'm currious about Logic7 processing...

Do you enjoy your 1014?

[Jorge59]

Yes, GaryB

If I was going to set a new HT, today, I'd probably go with 5 HTM-200 (and a cheaper AVR - probably Yamaha, excellent for movies) and put the savings on a pair of CMT-340SE for another good stereo system.

[Gov]

No I don't have a Pio now, I'm currently using a Yamaha RX-V440. I'm considering the 1015tx for an upgrade though. I'm thinking it will be that or an HK cause I'm currious about Logic7 processing...

Do you enjoy your 1014?

The 1014 and 1015 are awesome receivers. They have plenty of power, realistically capable of what they are rated at. I love my receiver and have no desire to upgrade at all. I would strongly suggest getting one if you are in the market for a new receiver. I believe they compliment ANY decent speaker you hook up to it. The Ascends sound crystal clear and so detailed. My old JBL's sounded good too, but not quite as good as the Ascends!!

[Gov]

Yes, GaryB

If I was going to set a new HT, today, I'd probably go with 5 HTM-200 (and a cheaper AVR - probably Yamaha, excellent for movies) and put the savings on a pair of CMT-340SE for another good stereo system.

I use my 200's for surround duty. When I first got them I had them hooked up as mains for awhile to compare them to my JBL E30's. I will tell you that minus a bit of the bass the E30's had, they sounded better to my wife and I. These speakers do not get the credit they deserve!

[GaryB]

These speakers do not get the credit they deserve!

Better late than never!

[Quinn]

I found the HTM-200 to be more dynamic (sealed spkr) and have better dispersion than the CBM-170 (rear ported). This is good for movies (dialogue and special effects).

They also seem brighter to me (what, for a neutral speaker with silk tweeter, seems good to my taste). Furthermore, if your receiver is on the warmer side, I'd say - no doubt - pick the HTM-200.

Of course, the 170 has better imaging and deeper extension, what is better for music, specially 2-channel. But I guess for HT you won't benefit much from the 170 over the 200, besides spending more and dealing with a bulkier piece.

Ascend's do not have silk tweeters. Dave does not like silk tweeters because mid and lower highs are their weakness from how delicate silk domes are.

I recently lent out my 170s from the home theater and put my 340 from my 2 channel in their place. The 340s aren't moving anywhere! Both my wife and I love the 340s in the HT.

[Jorge59]

Quinn,

Sorry for my ignorance. I thought the tweeter were silk (cause I think they are not aluminum...). Which kind is it?

Well, the comparison of HTM-200 or even the CBM-170 with CMT-340 is not fair.... price tells the distance.

[S_rangeBrew]

I use my 200's for surround duty. When I first got them I had them hooked up as mains for awhile to compare them to my JBL E30's. I will tell you that minus a bit of the bass the E30's had, they sounded better to my wife and I. These speakers do not get the credit they deserve!

I've used HTM-200's in stereo for about a year now, combined with a Pioneer 1014-TX and a Sony SAW-M40 12" Sub w/80hz x-over. They really are great sounding speakers.

My new house will be finished in the next couple of weeks, and I have to make a decision on what to fill out my system with. All HTM-200s, or 340s across the front. I like the fact that the 200s can be mounted anywhere, easily. However, the 340's and 170's cost more and are bigger for a reason, right? Many people have said they are superior to the 200s, and I believe them... I'm just not sure how *much* superior they would be in my situation. I'll probably just end up getting some of each and comparing.

But yeah, they do get treated like a bastard stepchild of the Ascend line, barely capable of even surround duty. Personally, I'm disapointed they have not got the new tweeter. I know David has said it wouldn't have made a big difference with them, but after seeing the raves about all the great features of the new tweeter, that assurance is still ringing a bit hollow to me.

[Charles D]

i have to agree with the tweeter thoughts on the 200 , personally i would be more apt to buy the 200's for surround or whatever if they had the new tweeter also. even if it really doesnt 'need' it, it would make me feel better about it

also if they were a little cheaper ( i know they are prob a good deal anyway ) being the "little brother" there isn't much of a price break. makes me just want the 170SE's but maybe thats the point , hehe

[bikeman]

I'll probably just end up getting some of each and comparing.

I did that. I encourage you to follow through on this. It was a fun experiment.

Personally, I'm disapointed they have not got the new tweeter. I know David has said it wouldn't have made a big difference with them, but after seeing the raves about all the great features of the new tweeter, that assurance is still ringing a bit hollow to me.

I've seen this in the bike business. No matter how much the engineers say it won't make a difference or the difference is so minute that it dosen't justify the increased cost, the public has just gotta have it. Let's have a guess at how long before Dave F. gives in against his better judgement. I've got January 2007.

David