For music only which is the better choice, 170SE or 340SE. I don't care about low end extension (will be integrating a sub) I care more about imaging and detail.
Thanks,
Dave
|
For music only which is the better choice, 170SE or 340SE. I don't care about low end extension (will be integrating a sub) I care more about imaging and detail.
Thanks,
Dave
So... you figure you're the first person to ask this question, eh?
Actually, I think the question deserves a revisit with the SE's, although I doubt many have heard both.
Thanks GarybOriginally Posted by GaryB
Although nobody on that thread had a definitive answer...thats what I would like to hear
I hate to break it to you, but there's no such thing.Originally Posted by dbart
So you saying they sound identical
C'mon guys someone must be able to tell the difference.
No, just that any differences will likely appeal to different people in different setups. Speaker preference is subjective, not objective because the largest variable in the equation is the brain of the listener (I don't mean intelligence, just how they preceive things). Given that both are now using Seas tweeters, I suspect that with a sub, the differences are more subtle than with the classic version, but I haven't heard any SE's yet, so that's just speculation.Originally Posted by dbart
I've been quite happy with my 170s (currently becoming SE's) and sub for music and movies, although I might upgrade the sub sometime.
dbart
to cut short, the difference is the same of that between a 4 cylinder and a V8 car engine.
CBM-170 L/R
CMT-340C
HTM-200 surr
STF-2 SW
Marantz SR-8400 rcvr
LG DZ-9921 DVD
Haven't heard the SEs yet only the Classics, but my overall impression is that the 340 mainly provides a bigger soundstage especially at moderate volumes.Originally Posted by dbart
The 170s however stay more neutral and controlled even at extremely high volumes.
So if you have a big room and do not blast music then get the 340s. Small to medium sized rooms you'll be fine with the 170s.