CMT 340 Center on order - What to use for rears?

[Lizard_King]

Hello All,

I have a CMT 340 (original) Center on order I bought second hand. I am building my home system and will probably be using the Outlaw Audio 1070 AV Receiver.

I am mostly into music, 2 channel with some surround music. I plan on viewing more movies with surround then using SACD or DVD audio.

With that already stated, should I go with HTM-200 or CMT-170 for the rears?

I am looking forward to hearing your opinions.

Liz

[drewface]

depends on a couple things, such as how much room you have to mount the speakers, including how much space behind the speaker you have (170s are rear ported, so they need a little room to breathe) and... well, i guess that's the main thing... space and mounting options.

i also hear that if your primary use of the speakers is for music, the 170s are the way to go. i used to use my 170s as my mains, and i must say they did a fantastic job, and they are doing a fantastic job as surrounds now that i upgraded the mains to 340s. i listen to music using a 7-channel stereo mode on my receiver (although i only have 5 speakers...), and the 170s do an excellent job expanding the sound to fill the entire room, instead of it just coming from the front wall.

i haven't heard the 200s, but they are supposedly very good if you will be using them mainly for home theatre surround speakers or don't have the space for 170s.

[ebh]

very happy with my 200s as surrounds. of course, i use it mostly for movies and video games, but they sound fantastic with game music and are very convincing and seamless with movies, very enveloping. my wife already thinks they are too big, so 170s would have been that much bigger. i keep meaning to bring them up to the front for listening to music.

and regarding the suggestion that the 200s aren't good for surround music listening, the only reason i can think that is true is because the bass rolls off around 80hz rather than mid-50s i think for the 170s. as far as sound quality goes, the 200s are competitive with the rest of ascend's lineup imo.

so to reiterate drewface, i think it does come down to space requirements and whatnot. if you have the space and don't mind the larger 170s, for the relatively small price difference between them and the 200s, it may make sense to go with the 170s. but if you'd prefer the smaller footprint and the slightly smaller cost, the 200s are a solid speaker.

[Lizard_King]

Hi Drewface,

Thanks so much for answering my post. The HTM-200s will be easier to mount and use. I will listen to some surround music but not a lot. I love 2 channel and will go with a HSU sub. I am hopeful to go with the HTM-200 or should I go for the CBM-170? Movies will benefit from surround speakers I assume?

How much do the rear speakers mattewr when listening to DVA -Audio and SACD?

The HTM-200 shoudl give me 85% of the CMT-170?

How much do you love your CBM-170's?


depends on a couple things, such as how much room you have to mount the speakers, including how much space behind the speaker you have (170s are rear ported, so they need a little room to breathe) and... well, i guess that's the main thing... space and mounting options.

i also hear that if your primary use of the speakers is for music, the 170s are the way to go. i used to use my 170s as my mains, and i must say they did a fantastic job, and they are doing a fantastic job as surrounds now that i upgraded the mains to 340s. i listen to music using a 7-channel stereo mode on my receiver (although i only have 5 speakers...), and the 170s do an excellent job expanding the sound to fill the entire room, instead of it just coming from the front wall.

i haven't heard the 200s, but they are supposedly very good if you will be using them mainly for home theatre surround speakers or don't have the space for 170s.

[Lizard_King]

Thank you so much Ebh,

Those are my considerations so i should be happy with the 200's.

Thanks Again.


very happy with my 200s as surrounds. of course, i use it mostly for movies and video games, but they sound fantastic with game music and are very convincing and seamless with movies, very enveloping. my wife already thinks they are too big, so 170s would have been that much bigger. i keep meaning to bring them up to the front for listening to music.

and regarding the suggestion that the 200s aren't good for surround music listening, the only reason i can think that is true is because the bass rolls off around 80hz rather than mid-50s i think for the 170s. as far as sound quality goes, the 200s are competitive with the rest of ascend's lineup imo.

so to reiterate drewface, i think it does come down to space requirements and whatnot. if you have the space and don't mind the larger 170s, for the relatively small price difference between them and the 200s, it may make sense to go with the 170s. but if you'd prefer the smaller footprint and the slightly smaller cost, the 200s are a solid speaker.

[drewface]

i wasn't saying 200s are bad for multi-channel music. i'm sure they sound fantastic. seeing as i've never heard them before, like i mentioned above, i really have no say in if they're good or not. judging ascend's dedication to quality sound, i have no doubts that they will sound great for anything you throw at them.

the reason i brought up the music thing was because i have seen other people talking about them in that manner. it's probably, as you say, due to their ability to extend further into the bass frequencies of the sound spectrum. so... take my comments for what they're worth, and maybe someone with more experience with the speakers can tell you more about the differences.

edit: as for how much i love my 170s, they're probably my favorite pair of speakers i own right now. this is probably because they were my first pair of ascends, and my first pair of high-quality audiophile loudspeakers altogether. also, i really love how simple the design of the speaker is (on the outside, that is). oh yeh, they sound great, too!

[BGHD]

The HTM-200 shoudl give me 85% of the CMT-170?

I've tried both as surrounds and that sounds about right, if not more than 85%. If you're just dabbling in multichannel music, the 200s should be more than adequate. If you're hardcore into it, always sitting in the sweet spot with very discriminating ears, go with the 170s.

[audibleconnoisseur]

I would chime in that the 170's are best for music reproduction after the 340's, but before the 200's. The 200's are really good and MUCH better than any at the same price point at the store first off. I have them for my system of music and surround. I usually use them most for HT as real music should be heard in 2.1. Anyway, I like the 200's for surround but I will say that if you can hold out until Dave puts the SEAS tweeter in them... I think you would be even more satisfied with them as a more musical tool! If you have the room and the budget (reminder that they need to breath in the back), I would take the 170's since you like the music so much.

I have installed the 200's in-wall since they are closed, so you can do this as well with them - NOT with the 170's. Tough choice

[bikeman]

Anyway, I like the 200's for surround but I will say that if you can hold out until Dave puts the SEAS tweeter in them... I think you would be even more satisfied with them as a more musical tool!
Dave F. had something to say about this. I don't have time to search for the thread right now but if no one else posts it, I'll look for it tonight.

David

[Lizard_King]

Hi, thanks for replying. Music is what counts and I do not see myself listening to a ton of surround music. I will be using serious audiophile speakers as the fronts. When playing movies, the surrounds will matter and I feel the HTM-200s should be good at that.

I agree, musiuc is best 2 channel, and adding a a proper subwoofer should help out.



I've tried both as surrounds and that sounds about right, if not more than 85%. If you're just dabbling in multichannel music, the 200s should be more than adequate. If you're hardcore into it, always sitting in the sweet spot with very discriminating ears, go with the 170s.

[drewface]

why is two-channel music preferred so much to extending the sound to other sources?

i prefer to extend the sound to all the speakers. my 7-channel stereo mode takes the standard 2-channel stereo, but extends the the left channel to the left surrounds, the right channel to the right surrounds, and mixes them for the center channel. this way, it preserves the stereo imaging, but makes it feel like you're standing in the middle of the sound instead of listening to a wall.

is it just the various surround processing people are opposed to, or do you actually prefer just 2 speakers (plus a sub for some). do you fade all your music in your car to two speakers? i've always had a hard time understanding this... any insight would be very interesting to me.

[audibleconnoisseur]

I think it is a matter of taste and true reality. If the speakers are good, they will soundstage and image well and you will feel more there and as if the singer is in the room with you. The other way is about surround sound and yes being enveloped, but is is not realistic to have full surround sound when at a concert or jazz showing, etc. The singers are coming from one place during the show, in front of you!

I like the car analogy, but again, the singer is not singing behind me... it is like standing in a concert hall and facing the back or the sides, it isn't natural. That being said, what you like is what you like so you need to listen how YOU appreciate the music. You will find both kinds of people on here and as an aside, I also use 5.1 stereo at times b/c of the surround effect. However, true audiophiles will tell you that 2.1 is the best way to hear the music as it was intended!

[drewface]

fair enough. the live concert thing makes sense, although if you are close to the front at concerts, the music is so loud and generally high enough that it sounds like it is coming in from all angles.

thanks for your response, it makes a little more sense to me. i knew it was different for everyone's unique preferences, just wanted an explanation for that preference. i'll stick with my surround stereo, though :p

[leon55]

[QUOTE=Lizard_King]HI, thanks for replying. Music is what counts and I do not see myself listening to a ton of surround music. I will be using serious audiophile speakers as teh fronts.
Curious, what will your main speaker be?

[Lizard_King]

Hi,

My first choice is my buddy's Alon II Mk2 audiophile speakers. The second choice will be the Ascend CMT-340 (originals) with stands.

Tell me about your system please.



[QUOTE=Lizard_King]HI, thanks for replying. Music is what counts and I do not see myself listening to a ton of surround music. I will be using serious audiophile speakers as teh fronts.
Curious, what will your main speaker be?

[audibleconnoisseur]

So for curiosity, why the "classic" and not the "SE's?" Again this could be a matter of personal taste in sound, but I think the SE's with the newer SEAS tweeter, slightly smoother flat response and deeper extension into the 40's would be a better choice if you are considering "better" for the money. Did I miss something in this thought?

[bikeman]

So for curiosity, why the "classic" and not the "SE's?" Again this could be a matter of personal taste in sound, but I think the SE's with the newer SEAS tweeter, slightly smoother flat response and deeper extension into the 40's would be a better choice if you are considering "better" for the money. Did I miss something in this thought?
I spent a lotta time with the 340 Classics and the SE's. In my situation, the Classics held their own. What the new woofer and tweeter bring to the table is best appreciated in a large space or where the speakers are further from the LP. I keep the SE's because they went a bit lower but I didn't feel the Classics gave up much at all to the SE's in other areas. My LP is only seven feet from the 340's.

David

[Lizard_King]

Two Reasons,

1:-) Second Hand

2:-) Small listening area

I will go with an HSU sub to take care of the low end.


So for curiosity, why the "classic" and not the "SE's?" Again this could be a matter of personal taste in sound, but I think the SE's with the newer SEAS tweeter, slightly smoother flat response and deeper extension into the 40's would be a better choice if you are considering "better" for the money. Did I miss something in this thought?

[leon55]

HI, if the Alon speakers look like the Exotica, that would be a very good looking speaker! Any pictures of the ones you are thinking about, would love to see them. I have 340se's across front and 170se's for surround mounted by omnimounts, with the HSU stf-2 sub. I have a pio dvd-a, sacd player that I listen to and really like the sound over conventional dvd's now. I prefer surround to stereo, but that's just me. I also have the Hitachi 50 inch lcd projection tv that is scheduled for a new light engine Friday, hope it corrects the red cloud issue.

[Lizard_King]

Hi Leon,

How do you like the sound of the 170 and 340 speakers? I wil two choices of used speakers from my freinds. The Alon II Mk2 and a pair of Ascend 340 (classic) with stands. The Ascend are a betetr fit for my soon to Be outlaw Audio 1070 AV Receiver. The Alon are true audiophile loudspeakers with sensitivity of 87db.

I do feel getting an HSU VTF-2 MK2 should be quite a benefit, free up the reseverves and give me that nice, low end.



HI, if the Alon speakers look like the Exotica, that would be a very good looking speaker! Any pictures of the ones you are thinking about, would love to see them. I have 340se's across front and 170se's for surround mounted by omnimounts, with the HSU stf-2 sub. I have a pio dvd-a, sacd player that I listen to and really like the sound over conventional dvd's now. I prefer surround to stereo, but that's just me. I also have the Hitachi 50 inch lcd projection tv that is scheduled for a new light engine Friday, hope it corrects the red cloud issue.

[curtis]

Alon is now Nola.

I heard one of the Viper series at CES. Very different sounding than Ascends.

A sensitivity rating of 87dB...or any rating for that matter, doesn't qualify a speaker as "audiophile".....it just means it takes more power to drive.

[Lizard_King]

Hey Curtis,

The Alon 2 Mk2 is from the late 90's. My buddy owns them and will let them go to me should I decide to get them. They were upgraded to MK2 status by Carl M. himself. They are incredible, audiophile speakers that may need more power to drive them. If they are not a good match, I may get my other buddies 340 Mains (classics).

Alon is no longer, they are Nola now.


Alon is now Nola.

I heard one of the Viper series at CES. Very different sounding than Ascends.

A sensitivity rating of 87dB...or any rating for that matter, doesn't qualify a speaker as "audiophile".....it just means it takes more power to drive.

[curtis]

Hey Curtis,

The Alon 2 Mk2 is from the late 90's. My buddy owns them and wil let them go to me should I decide to get them/ They were upgraded to MK2 status by Carl M. himself. They are incredible, audiophile speakers that may need more power to drive them. If they are not a good match, I may get my other buddies 340 Mains (classcis).

Alon is no longer, they are Nola now.
If you heard them and liked them, that is all that matters.

[Lizard_King]

I have heard both of these sets of speakers. The alons are driven by VTL Compact 100 Tube amps the the 340 classics are being powered by the Sherwood Newcastle R965 beast of an AV receiver. Both are good .



If you heard them and liked them, that is all that matters.

[Quinn]

I have heard both of these sets of speakers. The alons are driven by VTL Copact 100 Tube ampos the the 340 clssics are being powered by the Sherwood Newcastle R965 beast of an AV receiver. Both are good .

I believe Curtis has the Sherwood Newcastle P965 pre/pro in his system.

[Lizard_King]

The Sherwoord Newcastle R965 is a behemoth and wondersul sounding yet tough to operate AV receiver.

Curtis, is you do use the separtaes, what can you say about their performance?



I believe Curtis has the Sherwood Newcastle P965 pre/pro in his system.

[curtis]

I do use the P-965 pre/pro, but I do not use the Sherwood/Newcastle amp.

I think the pre/pro is great for the money, and Sherwood/Newcastle has been great with firmware upgrades.

[Lizard_King]

Hi Curtis,

How are you doing? My buddy has the R965 receiver. The unit sounds great yet it is a project to use. Mu buddy has almost not idea how to use the features. I did hook up his PC via a long USB cable so he can listen to music. I did suggest he get a Audiophile sound card and use a Digital Audio coax too.

I now have my 340 Center and today I order the HSU VTF-2 Mk2 subwoofer. In a fee weeks I plan on ordering the HTM-200 speakers with the omni mounts and speaker cable.

Looking forward to getting this system up and running and hearing the surround through the Ascend speakers.



I do use the P-965 pre/pro, but I do not use the Sherwood/Newcastle amp.

I think the pre/pro is great for the money, and Sherwood/Newcastle has been great with firmware upgrades.