Comparing to Boston VR3 and CSW T500 towers

[karltsai]

Hi there,

I'm wondering have you guys compared Ascend 200/170/340 to Boston Acoustics VR3 ($1000) or Cambridge Soundworks T500 ($2000)? I understand this may not be a fair comparison but I need a frame of reference of how good the Ascend is.

Let me rewind a bit. I've owned a set of Cambridge Soundworks (CSW) original Ensemble speakers since 1990 and has been quite satisfied with it over the years. Over time, I added CSW's center channel as well as their surround speakers and a BIC Venturi 185W powered sub-woofer. We used it for both music and HT.

Things are relatively happy until 2-3 years ago and I finally found out the reason is due to CSW's satellite speakers' busted surround. Tried speaker repair kit but found out the CSW uses non-standard 4" drivers which I can't find replacement. So I'm in the market again looking for great value. I'm more interested in replacing the 3 front channels at the moment.

I bought a AR HC6 (6+1) speaker set based on some ancient reviews. That was a big mistake as it couldn't generate enough volume and sounded vastly inferior. After getting rid of it, wife and I have done some auditioning and found we liked Boston Acoustics VR3 and CSW's T500 a lot, both of which are floor standing models.
I've also done some online research and found Ascent Acoustics to have tremendous followings and praises. Since I can't audition before I order, I'd like to get some comparative information between Ascent's and aforementioned speakers.

If someone lives in Lincoln/Lexington, Massachusetts area who can give me an auditioning oppertunity, it'll be even better. CSW satellite speakers appear to be less sensitive (I think it is 86DB only) and can handle less power than even the 200. So I think I may get by with either 200 or 170. Let me know if you think otherwise.

FYI, my room is 25'(W) x 21'(D) and a slanted ceiling from 11' rises to 19'. Worse yet, it has openings (4'x10') into the kitchen on the back.

Thanks for your opinion.

[SteveCallas]

Lol, what are the odds? Yeah, I compared the 340s to the VR3s, post #153 specifically:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...+story+ascends

You really need to AB them at the same time if you can - it's not a subtle difference, but both are great speakers and I can't expect everyone to share my preference. I'd suggest just ordering a pair of 340s and use the 30 day trial for comparisons - if you prefer the VR3s, you are only out ~$40 in shipping.

Hope that helps.

[Lou-the-dog]

I believe Steve used the 340 Classics in his comparison. Since then the SE's have been introduced.

Randy

[S_rangeBrew]

I used to live near Boston, and I and my friends are big fans of Cambridge Soundworks speakers. Very good bang for the buck.

That said, the MC300 (small sealed speaker, two 4" drivers, 1" dome tweeter, goes down to 80hz) costs $400 a pair. The Ascend HTM-200 are under $280 a pair. And I like the build quality of the Ascends more.

I think the Ascends are a much better deal than CSWs. But CSWs are still a good deal.

[karltsai]

Guys,

Thanks a lot for the information. Especially Steve! Really enjoyed your first-hand report on VR3 vs. 340. It was very enjoyable but lengthy ... some 20+ pages read.

I've already heard VR3 so I'm going to try the 340s. I know I'm not going to get a tower sound out of bookshelf speakers. But if 340 is as good as Steve have found, then I'd like to get 3-channel and save the change for surround.

I've already tried CSW MC300 as center channel. Being not very impressed I promptly return it.

[Lou-the-dog]

Karltsai, if you could, let us know your thoughts of the SE's and how you feel they compare to the VR3's.

Randy

[karltsai]

Randy,

Unfortunately I don't think I'll do A-B test as Steve has done. Wife and I have done that for more than 8 hours in 3 different outings and we've been to Tweeter, Best Buy, and Cambridge Soundworks and have gone through Polks, Boston, Definitive T., Sapphire, CSW, and some other lines within our budget.

For those interested, Tweeter is probably going to drop Sapphire line and their flagship ST3 (MSRP $1500 or so) is dropped to $570. We were very interested in that but there is only floor demo left and the discount wasn't very attractive ($540). We probably would have got that should they have new stock.

We didn't like Definitive's sound even with their $2000 pair (unknow model but it was the most expensive at BB/Magnolia) when compared with Boston's VR3. We also liked CSW T500 very much as the build quality is excellent (the best we've seen) and each speaker has its own powered subwoofer built in - a true full range sound.

Our objectives is a bit different from Steve's. We are not going to buy the best we can afford, we are going to pay the least for something we can be satisfied with and even proud of for the next 10 years. In short, the best bang for the bucks. And I believe 200/170/340s may fit that bill if what I heard from you guys are correct.

[Lou-the-dog]

Karktsai,

I hear ya on the auditioning thing. There comes a time to put all the auditioning and research behind and move forward and make the purchase. If it helps ease your mind at all I think you will be VERY impressed with your Ascend purchase. I've had my Classic Ascend system going on two years now and am still thoroughly impressed.

Randy

[SteveCallas]

Our objectives is a bit different from Steve's. We are not going to buy the best we can afford, we are going to pay the least for something we can be satisfied with and even proud of for the next 10 years. In short, the best bang for the bucks. And I believe 200/170/340s may fit that bill if what I heard from you guys are correct.

I can understand that viewpoint, but I was really looking forward to read your impressions from an AB test, just to see if we would be on the same wavelength. Oh well, no worries. From all that I listened to, I would rank the 340 as the ultimate bang for the buck.

[karltsai]

Things are taking an interesting turn. We picked up the VR3/VRC from Magnolia/Best-Buy last Friday. We did this because:

1. Our room is especially large. The volume is around 7000 cu-ft plus very open to other large spaces. And the room is very wide (25'). VR3 has an edge here as it is a bit more sensitive.

2. Our sub is an old BIC Venturi and may not be good enough for music. I was running full range on CSW Ensemble before. Again VR3 may be better suited as direct replacement.

3. After adding up the matching stands and shipping, 3 channels of 340s cost $1010. VR3/VRC cost me $1250 picking up from local Magnolia. I got 30-day return previlege in either case.

4. Boston Acoustics is located 15 miles or so from me, should I need any service. Warranty period is the same 5 years.

Wife and I feel VR3 is a safer bet for our main speaker system. However, I'm going to look into replacing the stereo speakers (good old Advent 1) in my bedroom possibly with the 170s. I have no doubt I'm going to hear huge improvement there.

Steve, perhaps I could offer a comparison of VR3 and 170 instead. But I'm not going to put them in the same space so the comp. may not be of much value.