ascend vs. energy

[starcycle]

hi everyone - i'm auditioning some energy C-3s right now, most things about which i like but a few i don't. i'm thinking about getting a pair of 170se to compare the two, but i've heard they are very similar, with the differences mainly being the ascends having less low and high end. i'm not really bothered by the energy high end and also don't have the best sub, so i'm wondering if it's even worth demoing the ascends. can anyone who has heard both speakers give me any more insight on how they compare? i've searched through the forum, but most of what i found wasn't too detailed, only mentioning that they are very similar. thanks.

[starcycle]

no one's heard the C-3s, huh? anyone?

i'm still debating on whether to try a pair (of ascends). since that post i've auditioned axiom m3s, PSB B25s, boston acoustics cr67, and the energy C-3s, and overall i'd have to say i'm not impressed with any of them. i really don't want to keep racking up these return shipping costs (the PSBs are local, thank god - they're really heavy).

out of all those, i'd say that the energies have the most accuracy and clarity, the boston acoustics the most vibrancy and 3-D. the axioms sounded "muted" in the midrange and overall too "hissy," while the mids on the PSBs sounded like they were coming from down a hollow tube. they also had the most coloration of all -- very weird sounding speakers (to my ears, at least).

when i listen to the bostons, the notes and music seem to "dance" or float all around the speakers with a really nice resonance. it's very pleasing to the ear, very full sounding and alive. but there is some coloration of course, and a tad too much in the high end that can sound a little caustic at times. the energies are much smoother and more accurate, but at the expense of that 3-D sound. the midrange sounds like two steel rods going directly down through the speakers: very "cool" and precise, but not a lot of vibrancy or airiness. if i had to choose one, i'd probably sacrifice the accuracy of the energies for the liveliness of the bostons, just because overall they are more dynamic and "friendly" to listen to, in the sense that they make you want to keep listening, while the energies are just kind of "there." but ideally i'd like to find a happy mix between the two. from what i described, does it sound like the ascends would fit the bill (170se)?

[bikeman]

I have not auditioned the Energy's in my home so I can't speak to how they compare but I do think you owe it to yourself to audition the 170SE's. The 170's are neutral so they might not give you that liveliness you're looking for. I wouldn't sacrifice accuracy for anything. I still feel you'll find that compromise you're looking for even though it's not actually a compromise. Does that make sense? Of course not. Get back to us when you've finished the audition.

David

[curtis]

I have heard the C-3's, but not in a side by side comparison. The noticeable difference to me were the mids. Cleaner and clearer on the 170's.

[starcycle]

I have heard the C-3's, but not in a side by side comparison. The noticeable difference to me were the mids. Cleaner and clearer on the 170's.

that's what everyone seems to say. i'm just wondering if it's enough to give that kind of resonant vibrancy of the BAs. or maybe i just like the "boston sound" and should stick with them. i hear the VR line is pretty good. searching now for VR vs. ascend links -- maybe avsforum has some comparisons.

[RAM]

I recently compared a pair of !70 SEs with the Energy C-3 as well as the Axiom 2Mi. While the Axiom and Energy are both good speakers in my opinion, I thought the 170's were smoother and more accurate overall, resolved detail better than both the Energy and Axiom speakers( cleaner and clearer as Curtis said), and had tighter, better defined base response in the 80- 125 Hz region.

Based on reviews (mainly soundstage) I had read, I was a little surprised at the differences among these speakers. To me, the differences were quite obvious and significant.

Hope this helps

Bob

[starcycle]

thanks for all the responses. i think i'm going to demo a pair once i send the axioms back. i've heard so much about them that at this point i think i owe it to myself to have a listen.

as a side note, after living with the energies for a couple of weeks they are really starting to "open up." whether it's my ears and brain adjusting or whether it's speaker "break in" i don't know, but i have to say they are a pretty good sounding speaker once you get used to the super-flat midrange. in comparison, my expectation for the ascends are now even higher. can't wait to hear what all the fuss is about. thanks again

[Eddie]

i hear the VR line is pretty good. searching now for VR vs. ascend links -- maybe avsforum has some comparisons.

search for "Funny Ascend Story"---a guy goes on a MASSIVE speaker shopping comparo expedition, ended up choosing a Boston VR over the Ascend 340s by a narrow margin. Long thread but very much worth reading, unlike many AVS threads it stays civil throughout and is very educational.