my take

[curtis]

Azanon...I am not disagreeing about having nice bass. People also pay thousands for good midrange and highs. The **** bass module is not worthy of thousands. My preference is that the CBM-170 alone, overall, is better sound than the **** system. Overall...not just the bass. If you feel you need the bass over the rest of the spectrum, I totally understand, but it is not my preference. If good bass is the key to your preference, I can not argue that.

FWIW, I used my CBM-170's with my sub, but if you told me I had to choose between the 170's without a sub and a **** Acoustamass system....I would the 170's any day.

Agreed with Derek. And the bass that does come with the ****, even in the common frequencies in the respective specs, are not anything like the bass from a Hsu sub.

If all you watch are action movies, then yes, a subwoofer is a necessity. But I would have to say for the majority of movies if not all, dialog is more important.

-curtis

[curtis]

I think it is fair to say that most use a sub with their 170's. There are a few that that do not have a sub.

-curtis

[Quinn]

I've run mine w/o a sub for sometime a while back and turn it off when watching movies after the kids are asleep. The sub definately adds to any music with a stand up bass, kick drum, or even piano. I don't think there is much difference between a 170 w/o sub and **** for bottom end. I'll take how much better the 170 is over its range than the extra little bit of bottom end from ****. If it was clean bass and not boomy bass I might think differently. Is it double the Hz for every octave you go up? So, that'd make about half a boomy and muddy octave difference between the two?

All that extra money for top floorstanders is for rich, clean, and fast bass not just bass extension.

[davef]

I haven't used a sub for over 6 months. In fact, I don't even have one in my "home" home theater system at this time.

If your goal is to achieve the most accurate reproduction of the full bandwidth of a movie soundtrack, a subwoofer is necessary, regardless of what speakers you are using. The soundtrack you are hearing was mixed using a subwoofer and there exists a dedicated low frequency effect channel specifically for a subwoofer. While there are floor standers that can reproduce low bass signals, the LFE channel has greater peak to peak transients (headroom) than a typical audio source. To accurately reproduce these extreme transients, you must use a subwoofer as no full range loudspeaker I have ever come across can reproduce these transients accurately.

For music, it is an entirely different matter. I would say about 1/2 of our entire customer base of CBM-170 owners use them without a subwoofer.

Azanon: regarding your thoughts> "Umm, they dont make a system without one. Granted, they call it a bass module. Still, as ive implied once, reduced bass ability (46hz), less power than a real sub, still beats no sub.... naturally."

I fully disagree. It all depends on what your listening preferences are. If you are looking for accurate sound reproduction, that "bass module" (there is a reason they do not call it a subwoofer) only detracts from accurate sound reproduction. It artificially "boosts" the mid-bass at around 60 Hz to give the perception of warmth, and, attempts to reproduce signals up to 200 Hz. Do you want vocals to be inaccurately reproduced by a box sitting on your floor? There is a reason why a subwoofer usually only reproduces frequencies up to 80 or 90 Hz.



Good Sound To You!

David Fabrikant
www.ascendacoustics.com

[davef]

Azanon, regarding your other quote> "People joke that speakers that have no highs or lows are ****. Remember, **** bass modules go lower than ascends, so..... where does that say about Ascends? I think its obvious; they need a sub"

It is both mine and many other's opinion that when that famous B*** quote is discussed, they are referring to systems that already include a subwoofer, scratch that, a "bass module".

I am unsure of what your point is. You would rather have a $1500 B*** system (that includes a bass module) than an all CBM-170 system (w/o subwoofer) that costs half that amount? You can easily improve the low end response of the Ascend system by adding an STF-1 SUBWOOFER for a total cost that will still be $500 less than the B*** system. This Ascend system will be +/- 3 dB from 35hz to 20khz. The B*** system would be +/- 10dB from 46hz to 8khz?

How would you "improve" the high frequency and midrange response of the B*** system to match (or even come close) to the Ascends? You flat out could not..... unless you replaced the entire system.

Another interesting tidbit, the bass module in question is a bandpass design. With this type of design, ALL output is being reproduced by the port. Cup your hands together to form a cone, place them to your mouth and hum or speak deeply and listen. Take your hands away, and have a listen now. Which sounds more natural to you??? Midbass frequencies being reproduced through a port lose ALL detail. Give me a quality bookshelf speaker for music AND home theater over this other system any day of the week. No comparison in my book, I like to hear everything that the director and sound engineers intended for me to hear.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however, your opinion is certainly not shared by the large majortiy of Ascend customers.





Good Sound To You!

David Fabrikant
www.ascendacoustics.com

[Lou-the-dog]

I listened to my Ascends without a sub for about a month before Hsu released my VTF3/2 and I can honestly say that with music I was more than ecstatic. Now with the sub I'd have to say that there is that extra dimension added with music and that extra WOW added with movies. Take away the movies and I could live without the sub if I had to.

Randy