Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: CBM-170's?

  1. #1

    Default CBM-170's?

    I'm looking to move on from my current system, just tired of the same brand I have had forever. I was gonna get the CMT-340's for LCR but my budget unfortunately dropped a bit because of other expenses.
    My question is, are the CBM-170's just a smaller version of the CMT-340's? Meaning they just won't play quite as loud but basically have the same or similar sound and dynamics? Thanks for any help.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    146

    Default Re: CBM-170's?

    Quote Originally Posted by JC1 View Post
    I'm looking to move on from my current system, just tired of the same brand I have had forever. I was gonna get the CMT-340's for LCR but my budget unfortunately dropped a bit because of other expenses.
    My question is, are the CBM-170's just a smaller version of the CMT-340's? Meaning they just won't play quite as loud but basically have the same or similar sound and dynamics? Thanks for any help.
    One of them is a traditional 2 way dome and cone and the other is a D'appolito array. Even though they use the same drivers, their dispersion characteristics are quite different, and the CMT-340 is much more dynamic than the CBM-170 because the majority of sound energy is under 1 KHz and in that range mostly handled by the woofers, and the CMT-340 will have quite a bit more dynamic range available to it.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    296

    Default Re: CBM-170's?

    I've owned both and they are voiced fairly similarly. Not exactly the same, but close. The 340 can definitely play louder if that's important to you. Dynamics are related to volume, so the 340 has the advantage there as well.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Manhattan Beach, California
    Posts
    6,331

    Default Re: CBM-170's?

    Quote Originally Posted by Asliang View Post
    One of them is a traditional 2 way dome and cone and the other is a D'appolito array. Even though they use the same drivers, their dispersion characteristics are quite different, and the CMT-340 is much more dynamic than the CBM-170 because the majority of sound energy is under 1 KHz and in that range mostly handled by the woofers, and the CMT-340 will have quite a bit more dynamic range available to it.
    They are actually different, but similar.
    -curtis

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,049

    Default Re: CBM-170's?

    Quote Originally Posted by JC1 View Post
    I'm looking to move on from my current system, just tired of the same brand I have had forever. I was gonna get the CMT-340's for LCR but my budget unfortunately dropped a bit because of other expenses.
    My question is, are the CBM-170's just a smaller version of the CMT-340's? Meaning they just won't play quite as loud but basically have the same or similar sound and dynamics? Thanks for any help.
    The 340's and 170's are very similar sounding, with the 170 being a bit more accurate / neutral while the 340's are warmer and more musical, with improved dynamics. For home theater, I would definitely recommend the 340's over the 170's if they are within your budget...
    .
    .
    .
    Good Sound To You!

    David Fabrikant
    www.ascendacoustics.com

  6. #6

    Default Re: CBM-170's?

    Quote Originally Posted by davef View Post
    The 340's and 170's are very similar sounding, with the 170 being a bit more accurate / neutral while the 340's are warmer and more musical, with improved dynamics. For home theater, I would definitely recommend the 340's over the 170's if they are within your budget...
    Thanks, yeah I have thought about it and would definitely go with 340's for LCR. I can't go up to gthe big boys like the Sierra's just yet. More musical and dynamic is definitely something I would be looking for.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    1

    Default Re: CBM-170's?

    Back in 2003 when I was 19 I used the proceeds from my summer job to buy a 7.1 Ascend Classic system (3x340, 4x170, hsu vtf-2). I then proceeded to put it all in a 10x10 apartment bedroom. Yeah. lol. Six months later I moved into a house and the living room was blessed with a 5.1 setup while my bedroom got a pair of 170s.

    Point being, when I first listened to the 170s as mains I was utterly shocked by how good they sounded. I was running these off of an Aiwa mini-system and they still sounded amazing. I think I got laid one time off of the way this setup sounded playing the Beatles White Album, which was coincidentally also the first time I ever heard it. It sounded amazing, and I must state again for emphasis that aside from the 170s, this was an Aiwa mini-system.

    There were surely room acoustics involved with this determination, but I actually slightly preferred the sound of the 170s running off of the Aiwa to the 340s running off of a Harman Kardon receiver. As Dave says above, they're noticeably more accurate, with the main advantage to the 340s being bass extension (which becomes a non-issue paired with the sub). Power handling is a non-issue. Both of these can handle enough continuous power to make you feel physically traumatized. Most people have no clue what 100 watts really sounds like, let alone 200.

    This isn't meant as a knock on the 340s, at all, in any way shape or form. When the amp in the vtf-2 shit the bed a few years back, I started running them as mains, and I love them. It was with this stereo setup (pc > fiio taishan > audiosource amp-100 (it's piece of shit honestly, but amps matter far less than most people think) > 2xCMT-340 classic) that I began to realize just how bad a lot of old rock recordings are. In particular, I remember listening to Bohemian Rhapsody pretty loud and thinking it was clipping my shitty bargain amp, only to realize upon critical listening that Freddie and company were clipping the pre-amps all over that song, on vocals and guitar. I imagine if I A/Bed right now, I might prefer the 340s to the 170s just off of familiarity. They really are very similar speakers, and I think you would be happy with either.

    Personally, I would get the 170s and put the money you save toward a good sub if you don't already have one. If you want to get a 340 center later, they will match beautifully.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: CBM-170's?

    Dave, I'm interested to know - when one of your mid-tweeter (MT) speakers is sold as a center (such as the cbm-170 or sierra-1,2), is the crossover changed to compensate for any effects that might have been created by having the drivers side by side (I think I might be talking about lobing effects, but I'm pretty ignorant on this)? I have heard that this is done with MTM speakers and was wondering if it also applies to MT configurations.
    (BTW, I'm aware that the tweeter gets rotated 90degrees in this case)
    Thanks!
    Tom

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    SouthWest of Cleveland
    Posts
    1,628

    Default Re: CBM-170's?

    Quote Originally Posted by tkrae11 View Post
    Dave, I'm interested to know - when one of your mid-tweeter (MT) speakers is sold as a center (such as the cbm-170 or sierra-1,2), is the crossover changed to compensate for any effects that might have been created by having the drivers side by side (I think I might be talking about lobing effects, but I'm pretty ignorant on this)? I have heard that this is done with MTM speakers and was wondering if it also applies to MT configurations.
    (BTW, I'm aware that the tweeter gets rotated 90degrees in this case)
    Thanks!
    Tom
    From the product page descriptions, I'd conclude that only the CMT-340 center has such a feature.......the EXBAC circuit (Extended Baffle Compensation). I wonder if the Luna Duo center uses a similar circuit?
    Ed

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Somewhere in the Boston area
    Posts
    137

    Default Re: CBM-170's?

    I have the 340SE as my LR mains and could not be happier with them, awful positioning notwithstanding. They are IN a shelf, not just ON one.

    My system is a mixed use 5.1 HT/Music setup, in our family room. The L and R speakers are in a sort of tower-shaped shelves on each side of the wide screen TV. I positioned them as forward as possible to minimize interaction with the shelf itself and cut them at 80Hz through my AVR, as I have a L12 Rythmik subwoofer.

    Despite the relatively modest power of my Emotiva Fusion 8100 and the family room being open to kitchen on the left of the left front speaker and to the foyer on the right of the right speaker, the whole setup can play LOUD 😁.

    The high efficiency of the 340SE (and the 170SE, although a bit lower) combined with the benign impedance make it really easy to drive. Not surprised at all the 170 sounded good even with a mini-system (probably no more than 25-30W/ch?)

    The Fusion 8100 is capable of well over 100W/ch in stereo and a solid 80W/ch all channel driven in 5.1. Even without the sub, going above 50 out of 80 with the volume starts being too much after not long. I usually listen at a volume level of 40-45 (thus ~50%) and that is plenty loud while leaving some dynamic headroom. The 340SE have always taken in stride anything I have thrown at them, whether that be music or movies.

    Simply cannot wrong with either the 170s or 340s. Fun fact: I almost got the 170s instead of the 340s and so I spent a LOT of time researching information on the 170s. To my amazement, I did not find a single negative review from a variety of sources. Invariably anybody who owned or listened to a pair had only good things to say (obviously within the limits of their price point).

    The 340SE are going to be my speaker for a long time! The worst that I can see happening is that they would be moved to surround duty. Perhaps I'll get a Luna Duo triplet as LCR once the kids are done with college 🙂.

Posting Permissions

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