Help with CBM-170 SE in comparison to Energy RC-10 or V5.1?

[billy p]

How you liking the Anthem? Do you notice a big difference with arc?

ARC is wonderful...the soundstage is more encompassing with every detail present having an airiness too it that I really liked(compared to my YPAO…prior) the overall sound appears more lifelike…at least too me. But, the real reason I decided to buy the Anthem was because I wanted to properly EQ my sub. The transition form my main and sub is pretty seamless with music the sub appears more controlled and it complements my Towers and for movies it doesn’t overpower the room like before because I had a rise at ~40hz and now I’m ruler flat below 80hz with only a slight deviation in that range…yeah I’m happy.

Re: Bill

They shipped this week and the date was supposed to be the 22nd, and then UPS changed it to the 25th. So waiting, twiddling my thumbs, wondering when the speakers will get here

My Towers arrived on a Friday and I was told around 10am that delivery would occur the following Monday...well they lied...because 4hrs later they were at my door...good thing my daughter was home to receive them...I have my fingers crossed that it will be Friday..lol.

Either way good luck and report back...Bill...

[Dread Pirate Robert]

Yeah...I was wondering the same thing...I can't see him not liking the 170's and I await his impressions. I know he favours the V5.1's being more forward in nature vs the RC10's....

However, from a recent post in the AVS forum, he likes how the V5.1 colors the sound versus having a flat frequency response. The CBM-170 SE's is about as flat as they come, much more like that of a studio monitor (in fact, even flatter than most of those) than a typical bookshelf speaker. Obviously there is more to how a speaker actually sounds than this, but then again in the near field the 170 sounds like a studio monitor to me (with more "guts" than most have for the home theater application). It certainly will be interesting to learn what cel4145 and his ears think--they may well sound different to him (apologies for speaking about you in the third-person ).

I think he'll enjoy the mid range and overall accuracy of the 170's if they're as close to the Sierras as some have suggested.

It's not quite as transparent as the Sierra-1 and its midrange is not quite as smooth, but in other aspects of accuracy and midrange detail the 170SE competes with the standard Sierra-1, at least to my ears; of course, the higher-end Sierras do everything better, including the midrange with their dedicated midrange driver.

[cel4145]

However, from a recent post in the AVS forum, he likes how the V5.1 colors the sound versus having a flat frequency response. The CBM-170 SE's is about as flat as they come, much more like that of a studio monitor (in fact, even flatter than most of those) than a typical bookshelf speaker. Obviously there is more to how a speaker actually sounds than this, but then again in the near field the 170 sounds like a studio monitor to me (with more "guts" than most have for the home theater application). It certainly will be interesting to learn what cel4145 and his ears think--they may well sound different to him (apologies for speaking about you in the third-person ).

Good point

When I said, "flat" that was a pretty quick response that could have been better composed. I was working and only had a moment, and also trying not to go through the whole active vs. passive argument because I don't think it's conclusive either way. My experience with powered monitors in the same price range was that they were a little lifeless in comparison.

That could be so many things not just the flatness of the response difference. I've been hanging out on head-fi a lot lately (I know, they are nuts over there) trying lots of headphones, amplification, and sources. I've come to believe that speaker/audio setup choice is foremost an aesthetic experience that can only partially be predicted by science and design because comparing two different speaker/amplification setups is typically like trying to compare apples and oranges. There are generalizations that can be made that help, but they are still just generalizations. Even the difference between the typical listening volume of two people can cause them to like one audio setup over another. Or the type of music. Or what audio system one has been listening to for the past six months. As an aesthetic experience, I believe that audio choice defies some of the predictability that is often imposed upon it.

Anyway, I'm excited about trying the Ascends. I recently replaced my Xonar STX sound card with an ODAC, that gives an even more transparent experience (I suspect that the Xonar had some very low level noise/distortion) when coupled with my HK 3390. Should be fun to compare them and the Veritas V5.1s.

[cel4145]

Got the CBM-170 SEs into today. Nice sound, but certainly different from the Energys. I've only compared them with the RC-10s a little. Better bass, smoother highs. For some kinds of classic rock, I like the RC-10s better because their warmth emphasizes the growl of electric guitar more. But for all other types of music, I think I'm liking the CBM-170 SEs better, particularly anything with some serious bass to it.

I'll hold off an compare the V5.1s to the CBM-170s after they've had a chance tor break in.

[billy p]

Yup... I recall having heard the Ascends for the first time was they clearly sounded different than my rc30's...then again, I was comparing them to the Sierra NrTs it was like whoa...

Looking forward to how they compare vs. the Veritas 5.1...

[cel4145]

Without a direct comparison so far (the speakers are in different rooms), I suspect I might like the V5.1s better.

But I also believe in psychological "break-in." It'll be a week or two before I try to compare them directly. I'll switch the CBM-170 SE into my main desktop setup and use them for a week or so to get comfortable with them before doing some direct comparison. That'll also give them a chance to physically break-in if there is any benefit from that.

Regardless, with my experience so far, I think the CBM/CMT series is a good choice now that the RC's are no longer available. I can't see why someone would be unhappy with them. I would also highly recommend them to someone that likes EDM, hip hop, rap, dubstep, and other bass heavy genres if one wants a 2 channel setup without a sub. They really do put out some nice, tight bass.

[Dread Pirate Robert]

Got the CBM-170 SEs into today. Nice sound, but certainly different from the Energys. I've only compared them with the RC-10s a little. Better bass, smoother highs. For some kinds of classic rock, I like the RC-10s better because their warmth emphasizes the growl of electric guitar more. But for all other types of music, I think I'm liking the CBM-170 SEs better, particularly anything with some serious bass to it.

I was hoping you'd like it, but didn't know what to expect. One thing that I didn't mention earlier was that the 170SE, even before it's broken in, doesn't require much volume to sound good, which makes it ideal for use in the near field. Of course, it can take quite a bit of power and sound just as good when played loudly, too. Its bass is definitely cleaner and better defined than that of the RC-10, at least to my ears.

I'll hold off an compare the V5.1s to the CBM-170s after they've had a chance tor break in.

Although I've listened to and worked with (as in setting up a couple of systems) the RC-10 only a little, it has always struck me as a design that has very good drivers but possibly isn't getting the most out of them. It'll be interesting to find out how the V5.1, which I understand is an updated version of the RC-10 using basically the same drivers, compares--looking forward to it.

[cel4145]

I was hoping you'd like it, but didn't know what to expect. One thing that I didn't mention earlier was that the 170SE, even before it's broken in, doesn't require much volume to sound good, which makes it ideal for use in the near field. Of course, it can take quite a bit of power and sound just as good when played loudly, too. Its bass is definitely cleaner and better defined than that of the RC-10, at least to my ears.

. . . .


Although I've listened to and worked with (as in setting up a couple of systems) the RC-10 only a little, it has always struck me as a design that has very good drivers but possibly isn't getting the most out of them. It'll be interesting to find out how the V5.1, which I understand is an updated version of the RC-10 using basically the same drivers, compares--looking forward to it.

I think the tweeter in the CBM is better, too, than in the RC-10s, and definitely the Veritas tweeter is better than the RC line. The tweeter in the RCs would occasionally render sounds a little bit strangely.

My only major concern is sub integration about the CBMs since I'm not using bass management, but trying to match the sub crossover with the roll off of the speakers. SoundStage's RC-10 measurements show a fairly steep roll off, and I'm guessing the Veritas are probably similar. Makes it pretty easy. The shallowness of the slope on the CBMs will probably make it harder.

[curtis]

I think the tweeter in the CBM is better, too, than in the RC-10s, and definitely the Veritas tweeter is better than the RC line. The tweeter in the RCs would occasionally render sounds a little bit strangely.

My only major concern is sub integration about the CBMs since I'm not using bass management, but trying to match the sub crossover with the roll off of the speakers. SoundStage's RC-10 measurements show a fairly steep roll off, and I'm guessing the Veritas are probably similar. Makes it pretty easy. The shallowness of the slope on the CBMs will probably make it harder.

The tweeter in the CBM is outstanding. In fact, SEAS will tell you it is a better tweeter than what they sell to NHT for their Classic line.

A more shallow bass roll-off should make sub integration easier for any speaker.

Also, for Soundstage measurements, the bass roll-off is inaccurate for many of the speakers they measure because it does not take into account rear port output.

[cel4145]

That's good to know about the tweeter SoundStage's measurements. Thanks for the info

As for the crossover, I have the Mirage Prestige S10 which has an 18dB/Octave slope for the crossover. Seems like a little steeper rolloff would help, but of course I'm not great at reading the graphs for slope amount (lol).