Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: CBM-170 vs HTM-200

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    33

    Default CBM-170 vs HTM-200

    I've been considering new speakers for some time now and Ascends are near the top of my list. I noticed the moving sale that includes CBM-170s for the rear speakers. All my prior research centered on using the HTM-200s for rears.

    Can anyone speak to the differences in the two? Pros? Cons? I'd pair then with the 340's LCR.

    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    7,052

    Default Re: CBM-170 vs HTM-200

    The CBM-170SE is a bigger speaker...and plays like it. The down side is they are not as flexible in terms of mounting since they are rear ported whereas the HTM-200SE's are sealed.
    -curtis

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Juliette, GA
    Posts
    403

    Default Re: CBM-170 vs HTM-200

    Curtis did a succinct job summing up the differences. I own both and concur with his assessment.

    Tell us a little about your setup, room size, restrictions, etc. so that we may better advise.

    I'm using 340's LCR, 170s side surrounds and 200 classics as rear surrounds. I went with 200's for the rears mainly because I already owned them and because they are mounted less than 6 inches from the rear wall. They all blend seamlessly. I've played them all in a 2 channel configuration and all held their own.

    However you decide to go, I think you'll be very happy.

    Doug

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    33

    Default Re: CBM-170 vs HTM-200

    Quote Originally Posted by DougMac View Post
    Curtis did a succinct job summing up the differences. I own both and concur with his assessment.

    Tell us a little about your setup, room size, restrictions, etc. so that we may better advise.

    I'm using 340's LCR, 170s side surrounds and 200 classics as rear surrounds. I went with 200's for the rears mainly because I already owned them and because they are mounted less than 6 inches from the rear wall. They all blend seamlessly. I've played them all in a 2 channel configuration and all held their own.

    However you decide to go, I think you'll be very happy.

    Doug
    This is for a HT setup in the basement that is L shaped. It's actually a backward L with the TV and LCR speakers at the very top of the L. Seating area is 10'-7" from the TV and the surround speakers would be wall mounted just slightly behind the seating area (so about 11' to 12'?). Last year it was recommended that I use the HTM-200s as the surround but I think that was more to stay within budget. With the CBM-170s on sale + free delivery (aka...the moving sale) they are in line pricewise with what the 200s would cost so I thought I'd ask how they'd fit in. I don't at this time plan for a 7.1 setup with speakers in the rear.

    Don't know if it matters but the total size of the main-L portion is 10' wide and 21' long (again with the viewing area being 10'-7" along that 21' portion).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Juliette, GA
    Posts
    403

    Default Re: CBM-170 vs HTM-200

    Quote Originally Posted by wish View Post
    This is for a HT setup in the basement that is L shaped. It's actually a backward L with the TV and LCR speakers at the very top of the L.
    Don't know if it matters but the total size of the main-L portion is 10' wide and 21' long (again with the viewing area being 10'-7" along that 21' portion).
    That is very similar to my configuration. The main part of my "L" is 16'w x 18' d. To the left is an area that's roughly 10'w x 8'd. My seating area is 12' from the front wall, on which is painted a 120" diagonal screen.

    The only thing I see is your seating area seems to be at the halfway point in the room. From what I've read, it's better audio wise to have the seating area closer to 2/3 of the way back. I don't know if there would be a significant real world difference. A lot of other factors regarding the room have to be considered.

    The Ascends will fill up that size space big time! What sub are you considering? I think one of the Rhythmiks would be just the thing for that room.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    33

    Default Re: CBM-170 vs HTM-200

    Quote Originally Posted by DougMac View Post
    That is very similar to my configuration. The main part of my "L" is 16'w x 18' d. To the left is an area that's roughly 10'w x 8'd. My seating area is 12' from the front wall, on which is painted a 120" diagonal screen.

    The only thing I see is your seating area seems to be at the halfway point in the room. From what I've read, it's better audio wise to have the seating area closer to 2/3 of the way back. I don't know if there would be a significant real world difference. A lot of other factors regarding the room have to be considered.

    The Ascends will fill up that size space big time! What sub are you considering? I think one of the Rhythmiks would be just the thing for that room.
    The main reason the viewing distance is at about 11' is because its the recommended THX viewing distance for a 65" HDTV. I've had it there for about a year and everytime I move back I say "Nah..like it where it was." So I could move to 14' for optimal audio but I think that messes with my sweet spot for viewing.

    As for a sub I was going to hold off until I had more funds. I'm currently using a older Velodyne.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •