Advice on a budget!

[jargon]

Hi, i'm a newbie here as you'll probably notice.
I've done a _lot_ of research as to which speakers i'm going to pour my money into. To some, $US500-1000 might not be alot to spend on speakers, but to me, $US300 is a fairly substantial investment.
Having said that, if any of the reviews i've read are anything to go by, i'd be pretty happy about handing over the cash.
Basically i've narrowed it down to either the Ascend CBM-170 or Axiom M3ti.
Having read audioreview aswell as soundstage/goodsound/audioholics reviews i'm pretty sure i've done all I can bar actually auditioning them, which just isn't viable seeing as i'm in New Zealand. Cross referencing both this board and axiom's is as expected: The members of this are in favour of the ascend, and the members of the axiom board are in favour of... *gasp*, the axioms.
What i'd really like to know is: What sort of SPL's can I expect from the CBM-170 without distortion or other nasty anomalies...and if anyone has experience with the M3tis, input would be much appreciated also.
I don't listen to jazz or classical music, it's prodominantly rock, albeit many sub-genres of rock.
2 weeks ago I had my heart set on the M3tis as they appeared to outclass the Paradigm atom/titans, PSB alphas and though probably not in the same class, polk RT38i....

Give me some direction! :)

[Mag_Neato]

I've never heard the M3Ti, but I have heard the M60's. I own classic 170's. Other than the bass I did not feel that my 170's lacked anything compared to them. I have chased my kids from the room playing the 170's at higher than normal SPL's, crossed over to a sub at 80hz! The SE versions are supposed to have even lower distortion and could play even louder if that is what you want. I have plenty of volume for music and movies in my 13'x 18'x 8' room hooked up to a Outlaw 1050 putting out 6 channels @ 65watts each.

I do have Axiom QS-8's for surround duty and love'em! They seem to blend very well with the 170's. I would not have these if I had not been fortunate enough to win them when Axiom put on a contest to name their new inwall/onwall speakers....."Architectural Series" ;)

[sensibull]

Edit: opinion retracted after further reading.

[curtis]

First....how big is the room where you will be using the speakers? Will you be using a subwoofer.

While some believe the use of a subwoofer is necessary with the CBM-170SE's, I don't. I really think it depends on the type of music you listen to.

The M3's on the otherhand have some add emphasis in the 100hz area, which helps give the perception of more extension, but really do not have any more extension than the 170SE's. For some, the added emphasis, alleviates the want/need for a subwoofer....for others, the speaker losses its balance.

For added reference, the M22 is the speaker that better compares to the "classic" CBM-170.

[jargon]

Well, the M22 is just above my budget :/
The room where the speakers will be initially is my bedroom, which is rather small. I'd estimate it as 10X12X8'. However, from time to time, they'd be carted out into the living room which is considerably larger, even though i'm living in a flat. As for a subwoofer, initially i'd not be using a subwoofer, although in the not too distant future would be looking to add one.
Something that worried me is seeing one or two posts saying that the axioms would lose their dignity when pushed hard...
I'm a fan of loud music, but also love the quality. No cerwin vegas for me. Perhaps the axioms distort when approaching higher SPLs is because the woofer can't handle the lower frequencies yet is still trying to reproduce them. With a high pass filter on the speakers- either axiom or ascend, perhaps the overall SPL capacity would improve.
If only the ascend wasn't the ugly duckling...

[GaryB]

If only the ascend wasn't the ugly duckling...While not fine furniture, the CBMs have a very handsome, "functional" appearance and really look quite attractive on matching stands. I had concerns myself but was pleasantly surprised when I received them. My wife also has no qualms at all about their appearance in our family room. They look much better "in person" than in most photos.

The finish is also quite resistant to fingerprints, fine scratches, etc.

[Eddie]

Hi, i'm a newbie here as you'll probably notice.
I've done a _lot_ of research as to which speakers i'm going to pour my money into. To some, $US500-1000 might not be alot to spend on speakers, but to me, $US300 is a fairly substantial investment.
Having said that, if any of the reviews i've read are anything to go by, i'd be pretty happy about handing over the cash.


You might also want to look at the Wharfedale Diamond 8.2 too if you can find it down under, it's in the same price range, throws a huge soundstage and will IMHO sound better without a sub than the 170s, esp. if rock is your main staple.
Not quite as neutral and accurate as the Ascends of course, but there are other attributes as well when considering speakers. Certainly not as bright as the Axioms. They are 6 ohm 86db sensitivity speakers so will require slightly better quality current to sound their best though.

[curtis]

Eddie...what if you want the recording to sound as it was intended?

[jargon]

Thanks for the comments guys.
As for the wharfedales, i've heard alot of bad things about their newer stuff....comments along the lines which **** are receiving: poor quality of construction, cheap materials etc.
I'd love to have a speaker which is as neutral and accurate as possible. If they don't have enough bass for my taste, i'd rather have the option of adding a sub at a later point, than be stcuk with mediocre speakers j ust to have bass.
Wish I had the money to buy both, i'd be able to audition them both myself and send the ones back that seemed inferior. *sigh*

[Trench]

The finish is also quite resistant to fingerprints, fine scratches, etc.

Good point. I'm setting up my first owned place on a relative budget (loft condo in San Diego), and I'm getting my bachelor-priorities straight (great, great sound) before the someday move-in ("No way," she might say). Ascends look good to me.

[Eddie]

Eddie...what if you want the recording to sound as it was intended?

well that's the thing...HOW do we really know the artist's intentions? For all we know, the recording engineer, his headphones, and/or the studio's monitors and room acoustics might've all had their say in whatever ends up on the CD.

"To hear music as it was intended" is a great idea in theory but in practice it seems to me similar to someone claiming to have arrived at a "literal" interpretation of a religious text.

Bottom line is "whatever works best for you" IMHO, trite but true.

[bikeman]

"To hear music as it was intended" is a great idea in theory but in practice it seems to me similar to someone claiming to have arrived at a "literal" interpretation of a religious text.
Bottom line is "whatever works best for you" IMHO, trite but true.
Amen, Brother Eddie. :D

Reverend David

[Eddie]

Amen, Brother Eddie. :D

Reverend David

LOL!

[rajacat]

well that's the thing...HOW do we really know the artist's intentions? For all we know, the recording engineer, his headphones, and/or the studio's monitors and room acoustics might've all had their say in whatever ends up on the CD.

"To hear music as it was intended" is a great idea in theory but in practice it seems to me similar to someone claiming to have arrived at a "literal" interpretation of a religious text.

Bottom line is "whatever works best for you" IMHO, trite but true.

In my opinion, speaker manufactures should try to reproduce the music exactly as it was originally recorded and not try to "improve" it in any way. Of course this is an ideal which is impossible to achieve but to deliberately introduce affectations to make it more palatable to certain listeners is unethical. So the studio monitors, acoustics, extraneous noises, headphone characteristics and any other influences on upon the original recording should be reproduced as accurately as possible by any speakers that claim to be of audiophile quality. "Whatever works best for you" is trite because it ignores the artists intentions and surely the artist must give his approval to the final master after the sound engineers are finished with it.

[curtis]

I guess I should have said "What if you do not want to add or take away from the signal that is provided?" :)

In the end, I agree, it is what sounds best to the listener.

[bikeman]

In my opinion, speaker manufactures should try to reproduce the music exactly as it was originally recorded and not try to "improve" it in any way. Of course this is an ideal which is impossible to achieve but to deliberately introduce affectations to make it more palatable to certain listeners is unethical.

You'd put an awlful lot of folks out of business because you have the way and the only way. The rest are all heretics? This hobby is all about personal preferences. We don't all hear the same. Why must we all listen the same?



So the studio monitors, acoustics, extraneous noises, headphone characteristics and any other influences on upon the original recording should be reproduced as accurately as possible by any speakers that claim to be of audiophile quality. "Whatever works best for you" is trite because it ignores the artists intentions and surely the artist must give his approval to the final master after the sound engineers are finished with it.
The artist is not the one shelling out the money. If they want control after the product is complete, they don't need to sell it. Very, very few artists would be fond of that arrangement. Once we buy a copy, we can do as we wish (except make unlimited copies of our copy) with that copy. Everyone benefits. Nothing "unethical." :cool:

David

[rajacat]

David,

So are you saying that the speaker designer should not even try to reproduce the music as the artist/studio engineers intended? That might be in the tradition of the **** mass marketing people but , if I read the Ascend design philosophy correctly, my 340SE's were not designed to that criteria. This would be similar to a classical musician ignoring the composers score and just throwing in a few notes here and there because he thought that it "prettyfied" the composition. I'm not speaking in absolutes but surely there must be some coherent desigh philosopy.

[curtis]

I think what David is saying is that it is a matter of preference.

While some may want to hear what was actually recorded, there are other that enjoy changes.

There are definitely different design philosophies that emphasize this.

[rajacat]

Yeah, I guess that's true and there are people who prefer Ripple to Château Neuf de Pape...or whatever. Most artists don't want others tinkering with their creation. Why do any technical tests at all in anechoic chambers if somewhat objective criteria is not the goal?

[bikeman]

Why do any technical tests at all in anechoic chambers if somewhat objective criteria is not the goal?
Goals are diffifcult to realize without good data. Goals differ. Good data shouldn't. The anechoic chamber is data.
Any engineer will tell you it's all about compromises.

David

[curtis]

That's just it.....for some manufacturers, the goal is not accuracy.

[curtis]

What is interesting is Ascend has always seemed to strive for accuracy, and providing FR graphs of the speakers. Now after six years, it seems as though that some competitors are now following the same path. Although FR is not the whole ball of wax, it is definitely a nice trend.

[rajacat]

That's just it.....for some manufacturers, the goal is not accuracy.
I agree and I stay away from manufacturers that do not, as a goal, attempt to reproduce, as best they can, within a certain price point, the music as it was live in front of an audience or in a sound studio.

[jargon]

Looks like my thread has been hijacked :(
Anyway, i've just won a pair of Paradigm Atoms on an online auction, so i'll wait till they arrive and see if they're up to scratch. Looks like ascend won't be getting my money in the near future, regardless of whether their speakers have been designed for accuracy or not. AYBABTU.

[Eddie]

In my opinion, speaker manufactures should try to reproduce the music exactly as it was originally recorded and not try to "improve" it in any way. Of course this is an ideal which is impossible to achieve but to deliberately introduce affectations to make it more palatable to certain listeners is unethical. So the studio monitors, acoustics, extraneous noises, headphone characteristics and any other influences on upon the original recording should be reproduced as accurately as possible by any speakers that claim to be of audiophile quality. "Whatever works best for you" is trite because it ignores the artists intentions and surely the artist must give his approval to the final master after the sound engineers are finished with it.

In that case we should introduce legislation to outlaw tone controls, EQ settings, speaker placement and room treatment mods as well---any of those things could end up violating "the artist's intentions." :D

[Eddie]

Looks like my thread has been hijacked :(
Anyway, i've just won a pair of Paradigm Atoms on an online auction, so i'll wait till they arrive and see if they're up to scratch. Looks like ascend won't be getting my money in the near future, regardless of whether their speakers have been designed for accuracy or not. AYBABTU.

There's a thread on the AVS Forum where somebody did a huge 4-6 speaker in-home comparison which included the Ascends, Atoms, and Paradigm Studio speakers...that might be interesting for you.

[rajacat]

In that case we should introduce legislation to outlaw tone controls, EQ settings, speaker placement and room treatment mods as well---any of those things could end up violating "the artist's intentions." :D

I think you miss my main point. Speaker manufactures should strive to reproduces music exactly as it is "live". This is an attitude that raises the music to prominence not some perceived marketing strategy. The speaker buyer will then receive a neutral speaker which gives them a base point from which they can tweak according to room acoustics, amp characteristics, individual hearing differences and numerous other influences on the perceived sound quality.

[Eddie]

I think you miss my main point. Speaker manufactures should strive to reproduces music exactly as it is "live". This is an attitude that raises the music to prominence not some perceived marketing strategy. The speaker buyer will then receive a neutral speaker which gives them a base point from which they can tweak according to room acoustics, amp characteristics, individual hearing differences and numerous other influences on the perceived sound quality.

That's great...IN THEORY.

In reality, nobody really knows what any particular piece of music "really" sounds like LIVE, unless you are lucky enough to have been sitting 5 feet away from Norah Jones singing a capella on an unamplified piano in some little cafe somewhere.

The live music most people hear at concerts has been amplified which means both the amplification and the concert speakers can color the output. That's not even taking into account the room acoustics of the performing venue.

IMHO the only people who are even remotely qualified to judge what sounds like "the real thing" or not are professional musicians who are in close proximity to voices and instruments on a constant basis.

And there's only so much you can do to modify a speaker's sound anyways. I could play with my tone settings and speaker placement and room treatments all day long but I doubt I'd ever be able to get my Ascend 340s to sound like Cerwin Vegas for example. (Not that I'd ever WANT them to, mind you. :D )

[rajacat]

That's great...IN THEORY.

In reality, nobody really knows what any particular piece of music "really" sounds like LIVE, unless you are lucky enough to have been sitting 5 feet away from Norah Jones singing a capella on an unamplified piano in some little cafe somewhere.

The live music most people hear at concerts has been amplified which means both the amplification and the concert speakers can color the output. That's not even taking into account the room acoustics of the performing venue.

IMHO the only people who are even remotely qualified to judge what sounds like "the real thing" or not are professional musicians who are in close proximity to voices and instruments on a constant basis.

And there's only so much you can do to modify a speaker's sound anyways. I could play with my tone settings and speaker placement and room treatments all day long but I doubt I'd ever be able to get my Ascend 340s to sound like Cerwin Vegas for example. (Not that I'd ever WANT them to, mind you. :D )

Using your logic, I suppose really doesn't matter who designs the speakers because it is all subjective and there is no such thing as distortion because what may be distorted to one person might seem very acceptable to another. No such thing as a vocalists being out of key because its all subjective and we all have different ears. Why bother to tune your guitar? If it sounds good to you that's all that matters. I think it is the mission of speaker designers to bring music to the public that transmits, as closely as technicaly possible, the musicians vision. Of course, the audio designers has to make a living too.

Of course amplifiers and audience ambiance will affect the end product but aren't their influence on the CD anyway therefore more information for the speakers to reproduce?

[bikeman]

Using your logic, I suppose really doesn't matter who designs the speakers because it is all subjective and there is no such thing as distortion because what may be distorted to one person might seem very acceptable to another. No such thing as a vocalists being out of key because its all subjective and we all have different ears. Why bother to tune your guitar? If it sounds good to you that's all that matters. I think it is the mission of speaker designers to bring music to the public that transmits, as closely as technicaly possible, the musicians vision. Of course, the audio designers has to make a living too.
Of course amplifiers and audience ambiance will affect the end product but aren't their influence on the CD anyway therefore more information for the speakers to reproduce?
You're taking what Eddie is saying to the point of absurdity and then using the absurd to buttress your position. I understand what Eddie is saying and it's not what you have extrapolated.

David

[Eddie]

Using your logic, I suppose really doesn't matter who designs the speakers because it is all subjective and there is no such thing as distortion because what may be distorted to one person might seem very acceptable to another.

As David puts it, you're pushing this into the realm of absurdity but actually since we do after all live in a capitalistic economy that absurdity IS reality---meaning that if a team of monkeys working for bananas designed speakers constructed of dried grass that people were willing to top dollar for, then that's exactly what we'd have. There is no universal frame of reference---pricing and perceived quality all boils down to WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR.

And yes, many people do find some types of distortion to be pleasing---that's why tube amps and turntables are still around, let alone the continuing popularity of "warm" receivers and speakers.


No such thing as a vocalists being out of key because its all subjective and we all have different ears.

LOL you must not be familiar with Bob Dylan. He's made a career being out of key.


Of course amplifiers and audience ambiance will affect the end product but aren't their influence on the CD anyway therefore more information for the speakers to reproduce?

I'd say the speakers are only adding one more layer of coloration to the music that originally emanated from the artists and their instruments. It's just the type and extent of coloration that varies from speaker to speaker.

[Mag_Neato]

I believe there are musicians employed at Ascend, no? They would be an ideal source of reference to voice a speaker to sound live, don't you think? ;)

[rajacat]

Part of Ascend's mission statement.

"Our mission is to manufacture high quality loudspeakers that reproduce the source material as accurately as possible, whether music or a soundtrack. This demands the use of low distortion, custom designed components combined with advanced crossover ......"

[bikeman]

Part of Ascend's mission statement.
"Our mission is to manufacture high quality loudspeakers that reproduce the source material as accurately as possible, whether music or a soundtrack. This demands the use of low distortion, custom designed components combined with advanced crossover ......"
?

David

[rajacat]

That is a direct quote from Ascend's home page.

[rajacat]

<I'd say the speakers are only adding one more layer of coloration to the music that originally emanated from the artists and their instruments. It's just the type and extent of coloration that varies from speaker to speaker.>

Eddie,

I agree. Would you agree that the speaker designer should, as a goal, try to eliminate all coloration thereby leaving the buyer to alter the color from a neutral base through room acoustics, different amps, bass/ treble knobs (ugh), equalization devices, etc.. I realize that there will never be a completely neutral speaker especially when designing within certain financial and market constraints but, to me, it is an admirable goal and philosophy.

[bikeman]

That is a direct quote from Ascend's home page.
I'm aware of that. What does it have to do with your argument??

David

[curtis]

Would you agree that the speaker designer should, as a goal, try to eliminate all coloration thereby leaving the buyer to alter the color from a neutral base through room acoustics, different amps, bass/ treble knobs (ugh), equalization devices, etc.. I realize that there will never be a completely neutral speaker especially when designing within certain financial and market constraints but, to me, it is an admirable goal and philosophy.
It isn't something to agree or disagree upon.....it is a highly subjective matter. Some like added bass, some like tipped up highs, some like recessed midranges......and some like a combination of changes.

While most of us here like the sound that Ascend gives us, there others that don't.

[bikeman]

While most of us here like the sound that Ascend gives us, there others that don't.
Yup.

David

[Eddie]

Would you agree that the speaker designer should, as a goal, try to eliminate all coloration thereby leaving the buyer to alter the color from a neutral base through room acoustics, different amps, bass/ treble knobs (ugh), equalization devices, etc.. I realize that there will never be a completely neutral speaker especially when designing within certain financial and market constraints but, to me, it is an admirable goal and philosophy.


Well...yes.

Do I agree with the noble principle that Angelina Jolie should come sit on my face as soon as possible? Oh yes, absolutely! :D

[curtis]

hey, hey....this is a family forum!

[Eddie]

On a less facetious note: there are people who swear that full-range single-driver speakers, or at the very least, time/phase-aligned speakers (using a minimalistic first-order crossover) are the only speakers capable of reproducing the most accurate and realistic sound.

http://www.greenmountainaudio.com/Speakers/Europa%20Max/DesignConcept1.htm

http://www.vandersteen.com/pages/1clit.html

So lots of very differing ideas on what "accurate" sound means. I just prefer not to get too hung up on any one of them.

[Eddie]

hey, hey....this is a family forum!

woops, my bad...

Ascends, Angelina, they both begin with an "A" don't they? Funny how these things work.

[JohnnyCasaba]

LOL!!! Reminds me of that Monty Python song.

[rajacat]

Well...yes.

Do I agree with the noble principle that Angelina Jolie should come sit on my face as soon as possible? Oh yes, absolutely! :D

Not to be argumentative but I would prefer Kate Winslet sitting on my face. Hey, it's all subjective.

[curtis]

ya see! Different preferences for different folks. Personally, lately I lean towards Selma Hayek/Penelope Cruz....but unlike my speaker preference, that could change as the wind blows.

[jimsiff]

You're all missing the boat. Elisha Cuthbert or Candice Michelle (Go Daddy.com girl) would be divine. :D

[sensibull]

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Don't any of you guys watch Lost? Evangeline Lilly all the way... (shouldn't be too hard to steal her from her hobbit boyfriend) :)

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/b/bc/180px-Lost-kate.jpg

[Jonnyozero3]

Don't leave out Scarlett Johansen and Jessica Alba. They get my vote.

[rajacat]

Don't leave out Scarlett Johansen and Jessica Alba. They get my vote.

Saw Woody Allen's Match Point last night and I'll have to second the choice of Scarlett Johansen. Nice tweeters!

[JohnnyCasaba]

Saw Woody Allen's Match Point last night and I'll have to second the choice of Scarlett Johansen. Nice tweeters!


I think her's qualify for "woofer" status!

[rajacat]

:p This thread has definitely been hijacked!

[Jonnyozero3]

Hi-what? Sorry I'm distracted...

[drewface]

i have no idea what this topic is about and i'm too lazy to trace back to see where girls came up, but i'd go with jessica alba and elisha cuthbert :cool:

[Jonnyozero3]

Ahh...let's ask little miss Kim Bauer what advice she'd have for a guy on a budget...mmm....