Results 1 to 7 of 7

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
    293

    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
    6,312

    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
    3,983

    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.

Posting Permissions

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