Which 5 speakers for HT?

[Ivory05G35]

I'm considering a speaker upgrade for my HT around May and I'm considering Ascend Speakers for the upgrade.

I know I'd get the 340 center for the center channel (obviously) but I'm wondering what to do for the Front L/R and surround L/R? I was thinking 170's for the front and 200's for the rear (for a 5.1 system). And in the future I could go with either a pair of 340's or 170's to create a 7.1 system.

I guess my question is, should I go with 4 170's or 2 170's and 2 200's? I'm interested in HT duty only as I have a stereo setup elsewhere in the house.

Thanks guys, other oppinions are very welcome. Oh, and I'll be pairing whatever I get with an Outlaw LFM-1 subwoofer.

[linecircle]

4 170's are going to be better than 2 170's and 2 200's, of course. But the cost is different, so you'll have to decide if it is worth it to you. You'll probably be very happy with whatever choice you make so...flip a coin, heads=4x170, tails=4x170. :D

Actually I don't know if others feel this way, but when you put 170s into rear surround duty, you kind of feel bad. It's such a nice and totally capable speaker, and all it ever gets to play is ambience, car noises, rain, wind, leaves ruffling, etc... poor thing. :p

[Jorge59]

For HT only, 5 HTM-200 will do the job pretty well.
You save space, they can be wall mounted and the sound is just great.

[InTheSun]

For HT only, 5 HTM-200 will do the job pretty well.
You save space, they can be wall mounted and the sound is just great.
Yeah, that's what I decided too. Even though I enjoy 5.1 hi-res music, in my room the 200s are a better fit. On the other hand, I think getting the pair of 170's was just another 80 bucks. So for me it was just about the room and in the end I went with the 200s. I just ordered today. Can't wait to have them. :)

[Ivory05G35]

I guess I'm trying to figure what to take advantage of. If I have 4 170's, there should be a seemless blend of sound. I was thinking that the HTM 200 might disperse the sound a little better in back because of the extra drivers but that they might not blend quite as good. Does that seem right?

[GaryB]

It might seem right, but in practice the blend is close enough to be thoroughly convincing. The HTM-200s, used with a good sub, are an excellent surround for any Ascend HT-only setup.

It's not wrong to go for CBM-170 surrounds, it's just that they're bulkier and harder to wall-mount, and the gains for home theater use will be marginal at best.

[Ivory05G35]

Do the 200's use different tweeters?

Is there any reason to get the 170's over the 200's?

[GaryB]

The HTM-200s use the same tweeter as the original ("Classic") CBM-170. The new CBM-170 SE has a new, improved tweeter, which is still a good sonic match to the original, and its relatively subtle benefits are unlikely to be noticed for home theater surround use.

[sensibull]

Do the 200's use different tweeters?

Yes. But they're closely timbre matched with the new tweeters in the SE models. Purists would say go with all 200s or all 170SEs but the difference will be subtle at best, likely undetectable in HT use.


Is there any reason to get the 170's over the 200's?
See this (http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?t=1619), then do a search.

[Ivory05G35]

To continue my questioning, and thanks for the replies guys, for dedicated HT duty, do I need 170's over 200's?

[GaryB]

I don't know what else to say... you don't seem to be reading the replies.

In my opinion, you won't be happy unless you get them, so by all means yes, go for the CBM-170 SE surrounds.

[Ivory05G35]

I missed that reply that said 5 HTM would work well :o , sorry about that. Thanks again for the replies, I'm very interested in these Ascend speakers...

[Charles D]

a few questions i didn't see mentioned. what is your room size and , normal listening habits ? real loud ? big room ? will you be running them as large or small ? these are all things to think about when getting your speakers.. if you have a large room and like it at referance level :eek: you might be more apt to use and or want the 170's for surrounds .

i cant say much how they compare since i dont have any yet, hopefully to be changing that soon :) these are all kinda generic questions and would prob be something to think about no matter what brand you go with.

[Ivory05G35]

They will be in a smallish room, 16x12 or so. They will be paired with an Outlaw LFM-1 sub, so they will be crossed over at 80-100 Hz. They will be used for movies about 95-97% of the time and I like my movies to be kinda loud.

Good questions

[Gov]

I have 170SE's for mains, 340SE center and 200's for surrounds. My room is about 16' x 18' open to a kitchen. I also have a Mirage S12 sub, BTW. I play my stuff pretty loud, but never at reference levels. I LOVE this set up and it has plenty of clean power! I just got my SE's yesturday and have just completed MCACC on my receiver and checked everything with my meter. I highly recommened this set up! It does not disappoint!

[Ivory05G35]

Which Pio are you using Gov?

[GaryB]

I have 170SE's for mains, 340SE center and 200's for surrounds. IMO, that is the "decathlete" Ascend setup for anything other than large rooms or ear-splitting volumes, good at everything with no real weaknesses. I wanted a small center channel for my current installation, so went with the HTM-200 instead, and overall, have not been sorry.

At some point, I will almost certainly be upgrading to CBM-170 SE mains and a CMT-340 SE center.

YMMV, of course. ;)

[Jorge59]

I found the HTM-200 to be more dynamic (sealed spkr) and have better dispersion than the CBM-170 (rear ported). This is good for movies (dialogue and special effects).

They also seem brighter to me (what, for a neutral speaker with silk tweeter, seems good to my taste). Furthermore, if your receiver is on the warmer side, I'd say - no doubt - pick the HTM-200.

Of course, the 170 has better imaging and deeper extension, what is better for music, specially 2-channel. But I guess for HT you won't benefit much from the 170 over the 200, besides spending more and dealing with a bulkier piece.

[Gov]

Which Pio are you using Gov?

1014, you using one too?

[GaryB]

I found the HTM-200 to be more dynamic (sealed spkr) and have better dispersion than the CBM-170 (rear ported). This is good for movies (dialogue and special effects).

They also seem brighter to me (what, for a neutral speaker with silk tweeter, seems good to my taste). Furthermore, if your receiver is on the warmer side, I'd say - no doubt - pick the HTM-200.

Of course, the 170 has better imaging and deeper extension, what is better for music, specially 2-channel. But I guess for HT you won't benefit much from the 170 over the 200, besides spending more and dealing with a bulkier piece.It's nice to hear someone pointing out the many virtues of this very good little speaker. Too often it's treated as the "runt" of the litter, suitable only for home theater surround use (where it excels, of course) or damned with faint praise.

[Ivory05G35]

No I don't have a Pio now, I'm currently using a Yamaha RX-V440. I'm considering the 1015tx for an upgrade though. I'm thinking it will be that or an HK cause I'm currious about Logic7 processing...

Do you enjoy your 1014?

[Jorge59]

Yes, GaryB

If I was going to set a new HT, today, I'd probably go with 5 HTM-200 (and a cheaper AVR - probably Yamaha, excellent for movies) and put the savings on a pair of CMT-340SE for another good stereo system.

[Gov]

No I don't have a Pio now, I'm currently using a Yamaha RX-V440. I'm considering the 1015tx for an upgrade though. I'm thinking it will be that or an HK cause I'm currious about Logic7 processing...

Do you enjoy your 1014?

The 1014 and 1015 are awesome receivers. They have plenty of power, realistically capable of what they are rated at. I love my receiver and have no desire to upgrade at all. I would strongly suggest getting one if you are in the market for a new receiver. I believe they compliment ANY decent speaker you hook up to it. The Ascends sound crystal clear and so detailed. My old JBL's sounded good too, but not quite as good as the Ascends!! :D

[Gov]

Yes, GaryB

If I was going to set a new HT, today, I'd probably go with 5 HTM-200 (and a cheaper AVR - probably Yamaha, excellent for movies) and put the savings on a pair of CMT-340SE for another good stereo system.

I use my 200's for surround duty. When I first got them I had them hooked up as mains for awhile to compare them to my JBL E30's. I will tell you that minus a bit of the bass the E30's had, they sounded better to my wife and I. These speakers do not get the credit they deserve!

[GaryB]

These speakers do not get the credit they deserve!Better late than never! :D

[Quinn]

I found the HTM-200 to be more dynamic (sealed spkr) and have better dispersion than the CBM-170 (rear ported). This is good for movies (dialogue and special effects).

They also seem brighter to me (what, for a neutral speaker with silk tweeter, seems good to my taste). Furthermore, if your receiver is on the warmer side, I'd say - no doubt - pick the HTM-200.

Of course, the 170 has better imaging and deeper extension, what is better for music, specially 2-channel. But I guess for HT you won't benefit much from the 170 over the 200, besides spending more and dealing with a bulkier piece.

Ascend's do not have silk tweeters. Dave does not like silk tweeters because mid and lower highs are their weakness from how delicate silk domes are.

I recently lent out my 170s from the home theater and put my 340 from my 2 channel in their place. The 340s aren't moving anywhere! Both my wife and I love the 340s in the HT.

[Jorge59]

Quinn,

Sorry for my ignorance. I thought the tweeter were silk (cause I think they are not aluminum...). Which kind is it?

Well, the comparison of HTM-200 or even the CBM-170 with CMT-340 is not fair.... price tells the distance.

[S_rangeBrew]

I use my 200's for surround duty. When I first got them I had them hooked up as mains for awhile to compare them to my JBL E30's. I will tell you that minus a bit of the bass the E30's had, they sounded better to my wife and I. These speakers do not get the credit they deserve!

I've used HTM-200's in stereo for about a year now, combined with a Pioneer 1014-TX and a Sony SAW-M40 12" Sub w/80hz x-over. They really are great sounding speakers.

My new house will be finished in the next couple of weeks, and I have to make a decision on what to fill out my system with. All HTM-200s, or 340s across the front. I like the fact that the 200s can be mounted anywhere, easily. However, the 340's and 170's cost more and are bigger for a reason, right? Many people have said they are superior to the 200s, and I believe them... I'm just not sure how *much* superior they would be in my situation. I'll probably just end up getting some of each and comparing.

But yeah, they do get treated like a bastard stepchild of the Ascend line, barely capable of even surround duty. Personally, I'm disapointed they have not got the new tweeter. I know David has said it wouldn't have made a big difference with them, but after seeing the raves about all the great features of the new tweeter, that assurance is still ringing a bit hollow to me.

[Charles D]

i have to agree with the tweeter thoughts on the 200 , personally i would be more apt to buy the 200's for surround or whatever if they had the new tweeter also. even if it really doesnt 'need' it, it would make me feel better about it :)

also if they were a little cheaper ( i know they are prob a good deal anyway ) being the "little brother" there isn't much of a price break. makes me just want the 170SE's :) but maybe thats the point , hehe

[bikeman]

I'll probably just end up getting some of each and comparing.
I did that. I encourage you to follow through on this. It was a fun experiment.



Personally, I'm disapointed they have not got the new tweeter. I know David has said it wouldn't have made a big difference with them, but after seeing the raves about all the great features of the new tweeter, that assurance is still ringing a bit hollow to me.
I've seen this in the bike business. No matter how much the engineers say it won't make a difference or the difference is so minute that it dosen't justify the increased cost, the public has just gotta have it. Let's have a guess at how long before Dave F. gives in against his better judgement. I've got January 2007.

David

[Quinn]

Quinn,

Sorry for my ignorance. I thought the tweeter were silk (cause I think they are not aluminum...). Which kind is it?



You'd need to ask Dave what the fabric is on 200's tweeter.

[Quinn]

No matter how much the engineers say it won't make a difference or the difference is so minute that it dosen't justify the increased cost, the public has just gotta have it. Let's have a guess at how long before Dave F. gives in against his better judgement. I've got January 2007.

David

Dave has posted somewhere that if there is enough demand he'll redesign the 200 with the SEAS tweeter but it would involve a price increase.

[Gov]

I have the 170SE's as mains, 340SE Center and 200's for surround. I have been listening to them for a few days now quite a bit. I have been home with a back injury. Anyway, the 200's, IMHO, can hold their own to the new SE line. I cannot hear any noticable difference between them. Maybe it is because they are doing surround duty, but I have listened with DVD-A's as well. I would not consider myself an audiophile, but I have a decent ear. Bottom line, if you are using the 200's by themselves or as surrounds with the rest of the line, don't sweat it! I really don't believe the 200 owners are missing that much. The 200, for what it is, is a GREAT loudspeaker!

[Jorge59]

I have a guess that you, experts, may judge better:

the 200's sound a bit brighter than the 170 and 340 (which are no bright at all); maybe it's just some kind of auditive illusion, cause it goes shallower in the bass range...

so, if they put this new tweeter on the 200, it might sound a little harsh and seem (subjectively) "unbalanced", even though Dave would certainly make it with all his scientific precision measurements.

besides, the increase in cost might not be worth the benefit in the highs and maybe Dave is spending his energy in extending the bass range of the speaker.