CMT-340's as rear surrounds

[curtis]

I think Clutchbrake has them all the way around.

But remember, for movies and multi-channel music, the fronts still get most of the sound, so moving from 170's to 340's is probably not that huge of step.....but sure would be nice. Also, 340's would be harder to place/mount.

I envy you guys with basements....

-curtis

[Eddie Horton]

Thanks for the info, Curtis. It probably wouldn't be necessary, but like you said, it sure would be nice!!! Come on, ClutchBrake, where ya at?

[mattepntr]

God, wouldn't it be great to have a big basement for HT?
I watch all those home improvement shows, and see those big
basement playrooms and think "if only..."

Maybe "While You Were Out" will come over and DIG me a basement.

[curtis]

My brother, his wife and kids are out visiting for a few weeks. They live in Amherst, Mass. They have a basement that they are just using for storage right now. I think I drooled when I heard that.

-curtis

[DavidD]

Wow, if I had a basement, or any room with reasonable light control, I'd be heading for front projection as fast as I could. I can't figure out how to make it work in my house, though.

[Ben_Wood]

Eddie, considering the fact that you have a VTF-3 MkII you might spell it "bassment"! [] I'm no expert on 7.1, but have you considered moving the 170s to the rear and using the new 340s as surrounds?

[ClutchBrake]

I love the 340s as surrounds... but they are way overkill in my situation. [] If your room is VERY large I can see using them but for most situations the 170s should be more than adequate.

When I first started looking into Ascend DaveF made a comment about the possibility of debuting a groundbreaking dedicated surround speaker sometime towards the end of this year. I haven't heard anything since but am holding out hope it is still in the works.

The reason I'm anxious to know is because I am finally getting around to personalizing my house and the mounting of my 340 surrounds is not exactly aesthetically pleasing. I'm sure whatever Dave might come up with for a dedicated surround would be much better.

Another reason is that I am setting up a home office/reading/listening room and would like to take my current 340 surrounds and use them to anchor my sound system in the room.

In conclusion, [], I'd say unless you are like me and enjoy overkill when you can afford it, or you have a monstrous room, stick with the 170s.

[curtis]

I think DaveF mentioned thinking about surrounds, but nothing definite.

I think a dedicated surround would imply the use of a multi-pole speaker. The use of these became poplular in the Dolby Pro-Logic days when there was no discrete information in the surrounds, thus the need to create a difused sound with multi-pole speakers. Now with discrete 5 channels, and multi-channel music, I don't think this is the case any longer although some people still like the effect.

-curtis

[ClutchBrake]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by curtis

I think a dedicated surround would imply the use of a multi-pole speaker. The use of these became poplular in the Dolby Pro-Logic days when there was no discrete information in the surrounds, thus the need to create a difused sound with multi-pole speakers. Now with discrete 5 channels, and multi-channel music, I don't think this is the case any longer although some people still like the effect.

-curtis

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Possible, but not what I was hoping for.

Let's face it, the 340 and 170 aren't exactly great for wall mounting. The 200 is great for flush wall mounting but doesn't have the extension or output of its larger brothers.

I was hoping for a surround speaker built on the 170 or 340 drivers. I'd like the extension and output of the larger speakers but in a flushmount design.

[curtis]

So maybe a direct radiator with the larger drivers that can be flush mounted? Yes...that would be nice.

-curtis