Ascend vs Ascend vs Dynaudio

[GirgleMirt]

Could anyone comment on Ascend 170SE/340SE vs Dynaudio? Maybe vs Audience 42, 52SE or Contour 1.4? Or any other model actually...

It would probably be for a ~10x20 room or maybe larger... I say 170/340 because I'm actually not quite sure which one I'd be better off with.. I know its vague, but so are my audio plans..

I have a sub (12 inch sealed DIY design) and an amp which are both unused, so I might build a 2nd system or maybe replace my current set of speakers (Totem Sttafs) who knows...

I was eying a pair of 340's, but now I'm wondering whether I'd just be as good with a pair of 170SE's. I'd use the sub anyhow, and 170s would almost cut the price in half. Music would be the priority.

I said vs Dynaudio, because these consistently seem to impress me. If they were a third of the price, I'd definitely get a pair I'm not exactly sure what they do so well, but they seem to have a signature sound that I absolutely love. I think its in the 'tightness', seamlessnesss and neutralness... I don't know I can't really describe it since I can't even put my fingers on what it is exactly... I think it somewhat comes close to the top end JMLabs...

We're definitely not in the same price range here, but being that the Ascends are difficult to audition, I'm trying to get a better idea of what I should expect. It can get dizzying sometimes trying to draw conclusions. Ex: Ref1 = amazing for 1500$!!! 340SE's just as good as if not better at 600$!! 170SE sounds (very close?) to 340SE!! Wait ok... so then... 170SE will sound very close to say Dynaudio 52SE? ([edit] Not that I think they would, because in some way they shouldn't... As they're drastically differently priced...)

Anyone has any insight on the subject?

[GirgleMirt]

The new 170SE is very close to the Onix Ref1.

Never actually heard the Ref1 But thats nice to hear!

[BradJudy]

I haven't listen to Dynaudio in a long time, but the Audience 52 (I think, could have been 42) was one of the speakers I liked when auditioning before buying Ascends. I heard them next to the B&W 600 series and definitely prefered the Dynaudio.

For reference, when auditioning before buying Ascends I also compared Paradigm Monitor series alongside KEF Q series and definitely prefered the KEFs. I nearly bought a KEF Q series package.

So, if you perfer Dynaudio Audience to B&W 600 and perfer KEF Q to Paradigm Monitor, then you might enjoy Ascends like I do. Since that was a long time ago and I've never directly compared them to Ascends, then take it all with a grain of salt.

[curtis]

Last year I had a friend come over to listen to my classic 340's before he bought Dynaudio 52's. The issue for him was the 52's played deeper than the 340's, and he was doing 2-channel with no sub.

After he got the 52's he invited me over to his place and asked me to bring my 340's to compare. We found out that his room really amplified the bass response of the speakers and he said "wow, the bass would have been enough in this room". A since we were able to actually A/B the speakers side by side this time, he was able to hear the differences more easily. It seemed the Dyns had a bit smoother/polite sound while the Ascends had a bit more detail/lively sound.

[GirgleMirt]

Hmmm!

BradJudy: Thinking back a few years, B&W 600 were not bad, but I think they lacked some of the detail of higher end speakers (ex: B&W CM series, Totem, etc), the Paradigm Monitors were impressive for their prices, but again, they didn't really hold up that well to speakers with 3 times the price which is where I ended up spending my money. The Studios, for some reason, didn't sound bad, but for music I didn't like them as much as say Monitor Audio or Totem. For some reason, vs MA, it kinda gave me the idea of "built for power" vs "built for music", I think MA was a smoother (especially the tweeter, which I wasn't crazy on the Paradigm), more refined speaker, vs Studios which just seemed a bit like a truck.. Like very solid, can go really loud, but when not played too loud, sounded a bit rough around the edges... (Not sure if that makes any sens but... thats what I wrote. )

The Kefs, Q3 I think it was I auditionned, really didn't impressed me, supposedly, they have a port plug they can use, but the shop probably didn't use it and the bass was overpowering and a also a bit muddy.. Bad combination that really didn't impress me at the time... XQ was a different matter though!

I was looking at the older posts yesterday, 170 vs 340. Some says the 340s are a bit more forward than the 170, but the choice should go with room size, I think for 20x10 the 170s would be plenty, and for the low end they'll have the sub.. Is there a difference in 'detail' for 170 vs 340? "340 have better mids", are we talking about subtle differences (I think we are) or things you can hear right off the bat? Bah anyhow, 20x10 is relatively small, I think the 170 would be better off.. If I move them to the main room which is like about 30x13, I read some say that they remain more neutral when pushed vs 340s. With sub, should be ok anyhow...

curtis: I like detail, the more the better Being that the 340s are livelier than the 170s, that might actually mean the 170 would be closer to Dynaudio? Interesting... And side by side, it didn't seem like the Ascend were overmatched, which is pretty encouraging, given that I think most speakers mentionned above (Paradigm Studio/Monitor, Kef Q, B&W 600 series) would have been vs Dynaudio, correct?

I guess what I'm primarily looking for: Detail, smoothness, clarity and seamlessness... (Seamlessness = It has to sound coherent from highs to lows, sometimes it doesn't...) Also no FR aberrations or speaker coloration... It has to be like punchy, but not punchy in an uncontrolled way, like the sound has to be 'tight'... Like some speakers seem to have a 'wild' sound or sound a bit like they're straining, where others seem 100% in control, sounds like they're playing effortlessly... And I think that pretty much describes the Dynaudio sound, as well as again the high end JMLabs, which are pretty much my current favorites. Does that sound like its describing the Ascends too? Does that make any sens to anyone?

In fact the monetary differences of the 170 vs 340 is pretty much unimportant... If the 340s give me more of the above, I'd rather get those instead, but I'm not totally sure of the exact effect of the 2nd woofer and how that would impact the above characteristics...


[edit]Wow that was long... sorry! btw, now that I think about it, I think a speaker "sounding in control" or "play effortlessly" is the main difference between high end and entry level stuff, again, does that make any sens? At all?? [edit2] Actually... Playing effortlessly vs straining, I'm pretty sure that's distortion. As distortion occurs, sounds less smooth, less real, just like the speaker was, well, straining. And very little distortion gives a very smooth sound, which would seem like the speaker is playing effortlessly. See I'm getting as I'm typing this So I want the less possible distortion!

[edit3] And looking at the Soundstage measurements, the Ascends seem to have less THD than then JM Labs mini utopia?! HUH!!! The 170s seem to have a little spike at 10k, anything more audible? Dynaudio C4 looks like I'd have expected, very low THD, Audience 40 looks pretty high...

How does the distortion of the 170SE look vs the 340SE? Anyone has some insight about distortion, its effect or how to interpret THD?

[edit: #... I lost track..] Just noticed the 340 and 170 use different tweeters, which raises the question, 340 has bigger ferrite magnet, larger chamber, its cooled... Bah.


And silly question, does the phase plugs move with the drivers or are they static? I saw on some MA that their phase plugs, instead of being attached to the magnet/frame of the speakers, were actually glued on the woofer itself! So it went back and forth as the driver was pumping. That seemed very strange, I always thought all phase plugs didn't move! Seemed more logic as it reduces the weight of the moving part of driver, but was assured by their rep that it didn't make any difference... (and yep it sounded fine none the less it just looked a bit funny IMHO )

[BradJudy]

The Kefs, Q3 I think it was I auditionned, really didn't impressed me, supposedly, they have a port plug they can use, but the shop probably didn't use it and the bass was overpowering and a also a bit muddy.. Bad combination that really didn't impress me at the time... XQ was a different matter though!

Interesting. One of the main reasons I prefered the Q to the Paradigm was that the Paradigm monitor series had boomy, muddy bass compared to the KEF Q (I listened to the Q1/3/5/7 and was leaning toward Q5s for mains). I suspect the difference between our experience was largely the rooms. The Paradigm and KEFs were righ next to each other in my demo, but both were too close to the back wall.

[curtis]

[edit3] And looking at the Soundstage measurements, the Ascends seem to have less THD than then JM Labs mini utopia?! HUH!!! The 170s seem to have a little spike at 10k, anything more audible? Dynaudio C4 looks like I'd have expected, very low THD, Audience 40 looks pretty high...

And silly question, does the phase plugs move with the drivers or are they static? I saw on some MA that their phase plugs, instead of being attached to the magnet/frame of the speakers, were actually glued on the woofer itself! So it went back and forth as the driver was pumping. That seemed very strange, I always thought all phase plugs didn't move! Seemed more logic as it reduces the weight of the moving part of driver, but was assured by their rep that it didn't make any difference... (and yep it sounded fine none the less it just looked a bit funny IMHO )

real quick here....got to get my son to a summer little league game.

Remember, the measurements at Soundstage are of the "classic" 170. I suspect distortion is much lower now.

The phase plugs do not move with the cones. If they do...they are just dust caps and not phase plugs.

[MikeS]

Yup, they are fake phase plugs. MA and B&W use them on some of their speakers.

[SteveCallas]

I spent some time comparing classic 340s to Dynaudio Audience 42s and 52. The 42s were outclassed. With the 52s, the level of detail and clarity between the two was about the same, with the 340s having a little better imaging and the 52s having a wider soundstage. I felt the bass on the 52s was a little bit unnatural or forced though. The speakers I felt most closely resembled the sonic signature of the classic 340s were the Linn Ninkas.

[GirgleMirt]

Brad: True, probably also electronics, the Kefs and Digms were at different locations, and I think the digms had a beefier amp.

Mike/Curtis: lol Thats what I thought! But... I think one of the goals of the phase plug also has to do with the way it reflects the soundwaves, and that impacts the sound, so even a dustcap with a phase plug shape would probably have that effect. But anyhow it just looked pretty silly going back and forth though

thx for dyn comparisons Alright so now the question... 170 or 340? The impression I have is that the 340SE seems to be "more" of a speaker vs 170, as in, overall... better... (better soundtage, better imaging, better mids) I'm not concerned about a bit more livelier sound.. so... which should it be...