Help with Surrounds: HTM-200 or CBM-170

[Mr.Lawrence]

I currently have Sierra 1 w/Nrt for front L/C/R in a 7.2 setup.

My back surrounds are a set of old Kipslich (sp?) speakers that I want to replace.

My side surrounds are a pair of Ascend HTM-200's.

Here's where I need help, I have a spare HTM-200 that used to be part of a HT setup that included HTM-200 L/C/R.

Would it be advantageous to purchase CBM-170's for my side surrounds and move the 2 HTM-200's to the back surrounds, or just purchase 1 more HTM-200 and have both back and side surrounds the same?

Would your suggestion be the same if the front L/C/R were CMT-340 SE's? I just ordered a set to replace the Sierras.

[curtis]

The 170's will play a bit deeper. The 200's are excellent as surrounds in an HT application.

You are replacing your Sierra-1NrT's with 340's? May I ask why?

[Johnny_Mac_III]

Like Curtis said, the HTM-200s are great for HT.

I have the 340s for LCR and 200s for surrounds. They timber match very well. However, even having all the same speakers the timber can sound off with bad placement and/or the unwillingness to apply eq.

If you want to know what I think about the 200s:

http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/sho...00-SE-s-for-HT

[Mr.Lawrence]

The 170's will play a bit deeper. The 200's are excellent as surrounds in an HT application.

You are replacing your Sierra-1NrT's with 340's? May I ask why?

Hi Curtis -

I like the 200's a lot. The back and side surrounds contribute to the HT experience, but don't seem to be as important as the front 3. That's why I kept the junky Klipsch back surrounds. I just wondered if adding 170's to the side surrounds would make an audible improvement over the 200's. Lately I have been looking to get the best out of my HT and had an itch to make a change.

As to why I'm replacing the Sierra 1's... When I first learned about Ascend (probably back in 2006, i think), I bought a set of the 340's and IMO they were amazing. But in the pursuit for the best sound, I ordered the Sierra's to audition. I had them both in my space and the 340's seemed play louder than the Sierra's at a given volume as I recall. The Sierra's were warmer IMO, but did not seem as impressive with the same movie content.

I kept the Sierra's anyway, since their overall performance for music and HT seemed the best balance.

Anyway, we have since moved and my setup is only used for the HT. The only music is video concerts.

So, when the 340's arrive, I'm going to do a new comparison based on movies and our new and larger space.

While I still love music, I find that in my car and in the house the source is typically iTunes music played through via bluetooth.

If the 340's do improve the movie experience, i will look to sell the Sierra's.

[Mr.Lawrence]

Thanks for the link to your impressions. That's helpful.

[curtis]

Ahh...yes...the 340's are more efficient and more forward in their presentation compared to the Sierra-1's.

[Mr.Lawrence]

Wanted to wait until I had a couple of CMT-340 auditions before I posted...

The 340's arrived almost 2 weeks ago. I got them setup and my son and I began throwing various Blu-ray disks in the player. Well after having the Sierra-1's for roughly 8 years, I can say that I prefer the 340's for my HT. They sound amazing and are considerably louder at a given volume.

Another benefit that I did not expect, after watching a movie, my AVR is not as warm. With the Sierra's, my AVR would be quite warm.

I ordered the CBM-170's two days ago. The 170's will become my side surrounds and I will move the 200's to the rear.

An added bonus I did not expect was that I got a package discount for purchasing the 340's and the 170's. Who knew???

I'm a very satisfied Ascend Acoustics customer!!!

[Johnny_Mac_III]

Glad you like them. It's truly amazing what Dave can offer for the price.