Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: Any new higher end models on the way?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    16

    Default

    As a new member, please forgive me if this has been asked to death.

    Can I assume from the above posts that even Ascend fans don't trust a pair of 340s to achor a system without a sub? I was considering putting a system together over time, starting with 2 channel capability and moving towards full HT.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Syracuse, New York
    Posts
    1,222

    Default

    For the money, the Ascend's are excellent for two channel. When we talk about a new speaker for two channel, we're talking LOTS more money. There are always tradeoffs. When we add money to the equation, there's a few fewer tradeoffs. That's about it.
    A fuller range speaker would be better in my two channel layout. That's why I'm rooting for Dave F. to go in that direction. Even in my HT, I still listen to music about half the time. The 340's still put a smile on my face.

    David

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,867

    Default

    Hi Shrubman.... and welcome!

    Can I assume from the above posts that even Ascend fans don't trust a pair of 340s to achor a system without a sub?
    This is quite coincidental... Although I probably don't count as an Ascend fan, I was just telling another member today that I removed my subwoofer from my home system (340 mains + center).... and I am loving it, especially for home theater. In my room, which would be considered large, I am getting some impressive bass easily down to the 48 hz range with nice impact.

    I removed the sub as I was finding it too distracting. I am sure I will eventually add it back into my personal system (when I miss the real deep bass), but right now I find that without the deep bass, the frequency range that is being reproduced is more articulate..

    With the important benefit of being able to watch a movie in the evening

    While I would not label the 340 as a true "full range" speaker.... I can assure you they handle themselves quite nicely when receiving a full range signal...
    .
    .
    .
    Good Sound To You!

    David Fabrikant
    www.ascendacoustics.com

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,867

    Default

    Hey Brad

    Quote Originally Posted by BradJudy
    I know the topic of dipoles has come up before and I think that was the answer to that one as well.

    It would be interesting to see a more full range from Ascend.
    if I remember, we did talk about dipoles a while back. Strange thing is, in the past year while our sales and email inquiries have increased, the requests for dipole speakers have dramatically decreased....

    Something more full-range? Would you still use a subwoofer?

    I really hate to publicly discuss exactly what I am working on... Can I just say that I have been busy?

    Took me years to release the CBM-170.... this remarkable speaker, that would be considered at the end of its lifecycle (compared to most typical loudspeakers), sells more now than ever before... I like to do things right the first time, you know....
    .
    .
    .
    Good Sound To You!

    David Fabrikant
    www.ascendacoustics.com

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    913

    Default

    Just some good natured poking David. Truth be told (and I've said this many times before), I am more interested in a wood finished Ascend setup than new Ascend models. Although I do like the idea of floor standers for the visual appeal and convenience. I like the stands Curtis has, but the stock 340 stands aren't my thing. I know some people think I'm stuck on this issue, but it just shows that I like the sound so much that I'm not looking to improve it.

    The interest (and it's just an idle one) in more full range would be for two channel with no sub.

    I'm surprised at your comments on a sub, but I'm also coming from CBM-170s and not 340s. I think when it's dialed it in right, it sounds fantastic with a sub. I wouldn't remove mine unless I either knew the music didn't go too low, or was listening nearfield.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,867

    Default

    Hey Brad...

    I'm surprised at your comments on a sub, but I'm also coming from CBM-170s and not 340s. I think when it's dialed it in right, it sounds fantastic with a sub.
    Yup.. I am surprised by my comments as well... The 340s will play lower and with improved dynamics compared to the 170s so that might explain some of it.

    However, I can probably attribute some of what I am finding annoying about using a sub (and I have Hsu, SVS, and a host of others) is that most recording engineers are simply over-doing it on the bass. I suspect many of them feel the more bass the better, but lately I have found the bass tracks in many DVD movies annoyingly distracting, overpowering so that other detail during this bass passages are missed. Sure, turning the subwoofer to a lower volume helps, as does lowering the crossover frequency, but the proper balance is never maintained from one DVD to the next.

    I would love it if there was some form of standardization to the LFE track.

    Don't misunderstand me.. I love deep bass, but perhaps after 20 years of listening, I am finding it easier to listen without it, then with it...

    Important to remember.. Our eardrums are thin membranes that resonate with sound waves (how we hear)... Deep bass will cause much greater movement of this membrane such that if we are "hearing" deep bass signals at the same time as hearing smaller wavelengths (higher frequencies), the higher frequency translation is modulated by the larger wavelengths thus resulting in decreased detail and accuracy....

    Of course, both the CBM-170 and CMT-340 were designed to be used with a subwoofer (of which, as you noted, when paired together they will work exceptionally well) but for me, and for right now, I am just enjoying more critical listening.
    .
    .
    .
    Good Sound To You!

    David Fabrikant
    www.ascendacoustics.com

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Cashville, TN
    Posts
    5

    Red face How about on wall/in wall?

    New Member here, working on pulling the trigger. My biggest issue is surround mounting. an in wall or on wall version of either the 170 or 200 would be a WAF homerun for a lot of us I am sure!

    Waddya say David?

    bt

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Fort Smith, Arkansas
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GoDeacs94
    New Member here, working on pulling the trigger. My biggest issue is surround mounting. an in wall or on wall version of either the 170 or 200 would be a WAF homerun for a lot of us I am sure!

    Waddya say David?

    bt
    I thought you could wall mount both.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Cashville, TN
    Posts
    5

    Talking

    Mounting isn't the issue, rather a black box sticking out a foot from the side wall as you walk into a room.

    I am not saying this is a deal killer, but it is not the cleanest solution and will take a bit more "negotiation".

    bt

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Fort Smith, Arkansas
    Posts
    51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GoDeacs94
    Mounting isn't the issue, rather a black box sticking out a foot from the side wall as you walk into a room.

    I am not saying this is a deal killer, but it is not the cleanest solution and will take a bit more "negotiation".

    bt
    I see what your saying. A speaker that is made to be used as a suround speaker . That's a good idea. Not sure why they haven't thought of that yet or maybe they have.

Posting Permissions

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