340 Vs 170 (Without Sub)

[Shrubman]

Hello all,

As I attempt to put together a new 2ch audio (and to a lesser extent HT) setup, I have a question. Assuming it will be some time after I purchase my front mains that I can afford a sub, is that reason enough to go for the 340's over the 170's? I'm not clear as to whether the 340's do anything to achieve a lower frequency than the 170's. Please educate me.

[bikeman]

"I'm not clear as to whether the 340's do anything to achieve a lower frequency than the 170's."

The specifications and freq. response for the 340 and 170 found on this website show the 340 will go at least 1/3 octave lower than the 170. I'm not sure if this is what you're asking.
I have the 340M's and they will do justice to two channel w/o a sub. For HT, a sub would definitely be preferable. There is an inexpensive sub that will handle the HT duties until you can afford something better.

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/pshow...=300-632&DID=7

This is what I currently use with the 340's.

David

[Shrubman]

Thanks!

Questions:

How can two drivers of the same size go lower than a single driver of that size?

Can you verify that link? It didn't work for me.

Evan

[Shrubman]

Regarding Parts Express, I just discovered their site is down for the time being. Trying to load their home page explains this.

[Lee Bailey]

Thanks!

Questions:

How can two drivers of the same size go lower than a single driver of that size?

Can you verify that link? It didn't work for me.

Evan

They work as one much larger driver. More surface area without a wider cabinet.

[Harmon]

Thanks!

Questions:

How can two drivers of the same size go lower than a single driver of that size?

Evan

Also, a speaker with a larger cabinet will generally play lower than one with a smaller cabinet. That's one reason most floorstanders have lower extension than bookshelfs.

As for your original question, I would definitely go for the 340m's especially if not using a sub.

[Quinn]

The larger cabinet is the key.