Help with CBM-170 SE in comparison to Energy RC-10 or V5.1?

[billy p]

Hey Charlie...nice write up...I wish, I could express what I hear and put into word when comparing speakers...lol. It would be nice if you became a regular here in helping others...much like you do over @ AVS.

If...I didn't say so before...welcome to the Ascend community...

Re: Bill...

[cel4145]

Thanks, Bill. I don't know that it was that insightful a write up. It was pretty short. It's like me and wine tasting. My descriptive abilities are not too good when it comes to comparing things like that. LOL

But yeah. I'll be back over here some to hang out

[curtis]

It reads like you are having fun with this...that is great. I have a good time...when I have the time...comparing speakers.

I'd be curious to know how these would compare in a system after an Audyssey EQ. Would it level out the Energys?

In my experience, you would still hear differences because there is much more to a speaker than frequency response, but it would certainly help "level" out a speaker.

[cel4145]

In my experience, you would still hear differences because there is much more to a speaker than frequency response, but it would certainly help "level" out a speaker.

Sure. For instance, I think there's enough difference in the tweeters themselves that leveling out the Energy's would still result in some differences in how the highs sound. At the same time, I also suspect that some of the attraction of the brightness of the Energy's would be lost.

Then, one of the criticisms I have read of the 170s is that they are more neutral, resulting in a flat sound that some people don't like in comparison to other speakers. Yet, it would seem that difference would probably be erased with room correction software leveling the response.

[davef]

Then, one of the criticisms I have read of the 170s is that they are more neutral, resulting in a flat sound that some people don't like in comparison to other speakers. Yet, it would seem that difference would probably be erased with room correction software leveling the response.

cel4145,

Glad to hear that you are enjoying the 170's!

Keep in mind that room correction software strives to achieve a very flat in-room response. The 170's have an extremely "flat" frequency response, which is technically the same thing as being neutral. They are the wrong speaker for someone who prefers a more colored response, but the right speaker for someone who prefers near perfect balance / accuracy. This is one of the reasons they are the speaker of choice in many research labs and college music rooms

[cel4145]

Thanks, Dave. These are great speakers. I really like the tweeter in them. I hadn't realized how much the tweeter in the Energy speakers are artificially coloring the sound. Where it really stands out is with snare drums. The snare hits sound much more realistic with the tweeter in the 170s.

And yes. My point is that if people are demoing these more colored speakers by listening to them in direct mode with no room correction, but then using them in setups where they have been corrected, that sort of erases some of the coloring benefits. And it would make more sense to go with the speakers that have a flatter response to begin with, so that the room correction software can better correct the room influence.

[davef]

Thanks, Dave. These are great speakers. I really like the tweeter in them. I hadn't realized how much the tweeter in the Energy speakers are artificially coloring the sound. Where it really stands out is with snare drums. The snare hits sound much more realistic with the tweeter in the 170s.

And yes. My point is that if people are demoing these more colored speakers by listening to them in direct mode with no room correction, but then using them in setups where they have been corrected, that sort of erases some of the coloring benefits. And it would make more sense to go with the speakers that have a flatter response to begin with, so that the room correction software can better correct the room influence.

I fully agree with this. I am a fan of room correction up to a point, but as Curtis mentioned, there is so much more to the way something sounds than frequency response alone. A flat/linear frequency response is the starting place -- from there an experienced designer must start analyzing the time domain and resonances. Even with the best room correction, the tweeter in the Energy (metal) is not going to sound the same as the tweeter in the 170's -- and that is due to differences in damping, mass, resonances, dispersion and to some degree, distortion.

Yep -- the tweeter in the 170's is exceptional. It is a fully custom design by the best engineers at SEAS. Besides our HTM-200's (same tweeter), I know of no other speaker at these price points that use a tweeter that costs nearly as much as these. Not that component cost is necessarily an indication of performance, but with a brand like SEAS, it assuredly is.

The woofer is also a fully custom design (100% me ) and is designed to have an exceptional transient response combined with very low stored energy. The moving mass is also very low for a 6.5", we lose deep bass with this design but we gain a very tight and "quick" sound.

[cel4145]

The woofer is also a fully custom design (100% me ) and is designed to have an exceptional transient response combined with very low stored energy. The moving mass is also very low for a 6.5", we lose deep bass with this design but we gain a very tight and "quick" sound.

Thanks for letting me know about that. I had wondered if I was hearing a better transient response over the Energys, or whether it was just the flatter response reproducing the musical notes more accurately (so apparently both). I recently went through the headphone trying/buying game and settled on the Grado 225i as my favorite, and largely because of their very good transient response. As soon as I started listening to the 170s, it seemed like I was getting close to that kind of sound.

Also, I have an Mirage Prestige S10 sub. Whereas with the both the Energy RC-10s and V5.1s, it always seemed a pretty good mix, I feel like the sub isn't quite responsive enough to match up with the midbass of the 170s.

[davef]

Thanks for letting me know about that. I had wondered if I was hearing a better transient response over the Energys, or whether it was just the flatter response reproducing the musical notes more accurately (so apparently both). I recently went through the headphone trying/buying game and settled on the Grado 225i as my favorite, and largely because of their very good transient response. As soon as I started listening to the 170s, it seemed like I was getting close to that kind of sound.

I believe transient accuracy is one aspect of loudspeaker design that is often overlooked or not considered as important as requency response. In my professional opinion, this is wrong -- transient accuracy is easily as important as any other performance characteristic and is an extremely important aspect of our design philosophy...

[cel4145]

I believe transient accuracy is one aspect of loudspeaker design that is often overlooked or not considered as important as requency response. In my professional opinion, this is wrong -- transient accuracy is easily as important as any other performance characteristic and is an extremely important aspect of our design philosophy...

Well, it works very well as a design philosophy. Since I use the CBM-170 SEs with my home work computer setup (I do most computer work at home), I am constantly tempted to play a song and listen when I should be working because of the clarity of the speakers

I am curious, though, how much the electronics help out here. In other words, if you have a cheap amp and poor DAC, then it would seem like you would not get the benefits of the good transient response nearly as much. Not that the HK 3390 and ODAC I have is high audiophile, but they do seem to help bring out the best in the 170s.