a (very) brief 170SE vs. 200 comparison

[ebh]

the thread on 170SEs vs. 200s for surrounds finally got me to put my 200s upfront for a little informal listening. this was not even pseudo-scientific testing (no level matching other than my ears, no flipping back and forth, etc during the song), just for fun. the only change i made was upping the crossover to 100 for the 200s (xover at 80 for the 170s), otherwise there was definitely a hole that made them sound a bit hollow.

i only got through 2 songs before a neighbor knocked on the door and complained (i've gotten plenty of wall knocks before, but this is the first time that's happened with someone actually coming to the door :eek: ). first i played lyle lovett's LA County, just b/c I know that song and album are well produced and would sound good on most systems. i thought the 200s sounded really good. maybe a bit more recessed sound ovearall than the 170s, but they also had a good energy and punchiness at times that i liked even better than the 170s. they also imaged really well. i thought vocals excelled especially on the 200s. the 170s on this song were also stellar. a bit brighter at times, a bit more integrated feeling (harmonies really melded). there are times where high piano notes add atmosphere, and i thought the 170s were much more convincing in that department. the 200s sounded muffled in the highs while the 170s really produced the feel of a piano well.

the second song was the pixies bone machine. this is a rockin' song with male/female vocals, and strong guitar, bass and drums. i really liked the 200s for guitar sound. electric guitar just sounded a bit crunchier than the 170s, tho it recessed the vocals a bit in comparison. but throughout the song there is persistent cymbal work on the drums, and the 200s sounded somewhat muffled and lacked distinction in comparison to the 170s on that front. again, you could really hear and feel the cymbal crash on the 170s more realistically. the screams during the song also sounded much more visceral on the 170s than the 200s.

my conclusion? the 200s are really good speakers, and i'd probably be happy with them as mains. i think their mid-range is excellent, sometimes better than the 170s. they have a nice punchiness. however, the 170s are more detailed and especially excelled in the upper ranges. there were definitely times where i preferred the sound of the 200s, though overall i like the 170s more. of course i would have liked to have listened to a lot more songs, but don't want to upset the neighbors.

on a related note, my brother had sent me pre-release mp3s of the new arcade fire album. i finally got mine from amazon and ripped it to flac. usually i segregate my mp3s and flac tracks, but wanted to see how they compared on my system. the mp3s were 160kb and since i didn't do the ripping i can't vouch for how good they were. however, i definitely felt the flac tracks sounded a lot better. more presence and body, fuller sound. especially noticible, and surprising to me, was that i felt like the mp3s did not image as well as the flac files. again, totally unscientific, but at least partially confirmed that it's worth it (to me) to rip to flac.

[drewface]

did you have a sub on when you were comparing the 170s to the 200s, or did you just run them alone? i find it interesting that the mid sections sounded better on the 200s at times. the 170s are a fairly bright speaker, though...

nice comparison. it was a good read.

[Lizard_King]

Thanks for this!!!!! Now I feel wonderful since I ordered the HTM-200's to be used as Rears.


I appreciate your evaluation and look forward to more if you have the time to compare?




the thread on 170SEs vs. 200s for surrounds finally got me to put my 200s upfront for a little informal listening. this was not even pseudo-scientific testing (no level matching other than my ears, no flipping back and forth, etc during the song), just for fun. the only change i made was upping the crossover to 100 for the 200s (xover at 80 for the 170s), otherwise there was definitely a hole that made them sound a bit hollow.

i only got through 2 songs before a neighbor knocked on the door and complained (i've gotten plenty of wall knocks before, but this is the first time that's happened with someone actually coming to the door :eek: ). first i played lyle lovett's LA County, just b/c I know that song and album are well produced and would sound good on most systems. i thought the 200s sounded really good. maybe a bit more recessed sound ovearall than the 170s, but they also had a good energy and punchiness at times that i liked even better than the 170s. they also imaged really well. i thought vocals excelled especially on the 200s. the 170s on this song were also stellar. a bit brighter at times, a bit more integrated feeling (harmonies really melded). there are times where high piano notes add atmosphere, and i thought the 170s were much more convincing in that department. the 200s sounded muffled in the highs while the 170s really produced the feel of a piano well.

the second song was the pixies bone machine. this is a rockin' song with male/female vocals, and strong guitar, bass and drums. i really liked the 200s for guitar sound. electric guitar just sounded a bit crunchier than the 170s, tho it recessed the vocals a bit in comparison. but throughout the song there is persistent cymbal work on the drums, and the 200s sounded somewhat muffled and lacked distinction in comparison to the 170s on that front. again, you could really hear and feel the cymbal crash on the 170s more realistically. the screams during the song also sounded much more visceral on the 170s than the 200s.

my conclusion? the 200s are really good speakers, and i'd probably be happy with them as mains. i think their mid-range is excellent, sometimes better than the 170s. they have a nice punchiness. however, the 170s are more detailed and especially excelled in the upper ranges. there were definitely times where i preferred the sound of the 200s, though overall i like the 170s more. of course i would have liked to have listened to a lot more songs, but don't want to upset the neighbors.

on a related note, my brother had sent me pre-release mp3s of the new arcade fire album. i finally got mine from amazon and ripped it to flac. usually i segregate my mp3s and flac tracks, but wanted to see how they compared on my system. the mp3s were 160kb and since i didn't do the ripping i can't vouch for how good they were. however, i definitely felt the flac tracks sounded a lot better. more presence and body, fuller sound. especially noticible, and surprising to me, was that i felt like the mp3s did not image as well as the flac files. again, totally unscientific, but at least partially confirmed that it's worth it (to me) to rip to flac.

[ebh]

yeah, i had a sub on--rocket ufw-10. crossed over at 80 with the SEs, 100 with the 200s. didn't do any extra calibration with the sub other than what i had done when integrating it with the 170s when i first got it. i bet the 170s would have stolen the show if i played only the speakers.

again, these were quick impressions in an unscientific test, so you probably shouldn't read too much in. it was weird, because overall i felt the 170s had much more presence while the 200s seemed to hold back, but there were times the 200s just punched through.

[spunky721]

on a related note, my brother had sent me pre-release mp3s of the new arcade fire album. i finally got mine from amazon and ripped it to flac. usually i segregate my mp3s and flac tracks, but wanted to see how they compared on my system. the mp3s were 160kb and since i didn't do the ripping i can't vouch for how good they were. however, i definitely felt the flac tracks sounded a lot better. more presence and body, fuller sound. especially noticible, and surprising to me, was that i felt like the mp3s did not image as well as the flac files. again, totally unscientific, but at least partially confirmed that it's worth it (to me) to rip to flac.

I had the same experience with the Damien Rice - O CD. I couldn't believe the fullness and body difference between the CD and the MP3s I had. What do you think of the Arcade Fire disc? I feel it's kind of hit or miss. I prefer Funeral.

[curtis]

MP3 is a lossy format, but FLAC is lossless. When you rip anything to MP3, you lose something. With FLAC you do not.

[ebh]

MP3 is a lossy format, but FLAC is lossless. When you rip anything to MP3, you lose something. With FLAC you do not.

obviously this is true, but often you hear people saying that mp3 or some other lossy format is so close you can't really tell the difference. i have seen waterfall charts showing that certain high frequencies are just cut off, but didn't know what that would sound like in real life and for whatever reason never compared them directly. mp3 is pretty good--one album of mp3s is often the same size as one flac track. but listening through something more than an ipod, i perceived a definite advantage to flac. i was glad to finally put to rest the idea that mp3s were "just as good" for most applications. i'll still use them on my ipod, but know i'd be missing out playing mp3s through my ascends.

[curtis]

I used to think MP3's were good enough, especially for background music, but now....no way.

For my iPod, like you, I still use MP3.

[audibleconnoisseur]

Few questions

1) Were you using 170 classics or 170 SE's?
2) How do you get or rip flac files instead of mp3? - you have peaked my interest
3) I have the 340SE mains + ctr and 200's as surrounds and this setup is quite good. I can see how the 200's are not a revealing if you are comparing to the SE's. For one, they don't have the SEAS tweeter in them as the SE's do which makes for a huge difference. For two, the 170 has a larger woofer and cabinet size so they would be better for more full bodied music. I would still pit the 200's against any similar speaker in price or size with an 80Hz bottom and would think they would come out in the upper 80% - 100% of "better" every time.
4) How do you like your sub and are you considering an upgrade any time soon?

[ebh]

Few questions

1) Were you using 170 classics or 170 SE's?
170SEs. the new tweeter may have been part of the advantage, tho i'm no speaker designer, so i don't really know.


2) How do you get or rip flac files instead of mp3? - you have peaked my interest
a little program called EAC (http://www.exactaudiocopy.de/) (exact audio copy) plus the FLAC (http://flac.sourceforge.net/) codec. there are some tutorials online that show how to get it all working. it's a lossless compression. i stream tracks from a computer to my setup with a squeezebox over wifi.


3) I have the 340SE mains + ctr and 200's as surrounds and this setup is quite good. I can see how the 200's are not a revealing if you are comparing to the SE's. For one, they don't have the SEAS tweeter in them as the SE's do which makes for a huge difference. For two, the 170 has a larger woofer and cabinet size so they would be better for more full bodied music. I would still pit the 200's against any similar speaker in price or size with an 80Hz bottom and would think they would come out in the upper 80% - 100% of "better" every time.
someday i'd love to try some 340s up front just to see the difference with the 170s. for my surround purposes, which are mostly surround effects in movies and tv shows, as well as the very occasional concert dvd the 200s fit my needs very well. if i ever upgraded to the 340s up front and had a lot more room i'd probably try moving the 170s to surrounds and put the 200s in the back, but then again, i might set up the 170s in another part of the house.

the 200s put out tons of sound for such a little speaker. they (plus the sub) were the ones playing when i incurred the neighbor's wrath.

4)
How do you like your sub and are you considering an upgrade any time soon?

i like it pretty well. i think it integrates nicely with my speakers. unfortunately i haven't really had the opportunity to compare many subs so i can't say whether an svs or hsu would do just as good or better of a job. it also does a pretty good job with movies--obviously it doesn't pressurize the room, and doesnt go that low, but it still makes explosions and things sound pretty intense.

as for upgrading, yes i am definitely considering it soon (next 6-9 months). probably a rythmik 12" (maybe 15") diy kit. i really like what people do building big sono subs, but i can't see doing that for anything other than a dedicated HT room. if i ever own a house, and if that house ever is setup properly for it, i'd love to build an infinite baffle. until then the subwoofer is going to have to stay relatively small.


What do you think of the Arcade Fire disc? I feel it's kind of hit or miss. I prefer Funeral.

i think it's fairly solid. i agree funeral was the better effort, but that is such a good album, it would be really hard to top. i like some of the hearkening back to bruce springsteen in the music, and totally get into the organ on intervention. but this album doesn't have the tautness that kept you going from one track to the next that funeral did. edit: i'll also add that while they have never been great lyricists, i much prefer the songs that are a bit more metaphorical (like intervention) versus direct (windowsill). the band is all about energy and passion, and i feel like that drops off on this album sometimes.

[audibleconnoisseur]

So can I get these programs and make an iTunes file like this or no? What kinds of music can I make lossless? I want the best sound from downloads (leagal) for my stereo and speakers!

[curtis]

So can I get these programs and make an iTunes file like this or no? What kinds of music can I make lossless? I want the best sound from downloads (leagal) for my stereo and speakers!
If you own the CD, and don't give others the files, it is legal. You can make turn any sound into a lossless file.

iTunes does not support FLAC, but it does support Apple Lossless.

[ebh]

it won't help you with downloaded music, legal or not. unfortunately, no store that i know of (that sells at all mainstream music) sell flac or wav tracks. you could for whatever reason flac an mp3, but there would be no point, since the mp3 already lost some of the data. flac is only useful for ripping CDs.

it's the tragedy of DRM that to get real music we have to always buy CDs. there are many great CDs out there, but I'd be a lot happier if I could get a la carte downloads of unprotected flac files. there's a lot of music out there where i like a song or three, but have no use for a whole album. i refuse to buy from the itunes store. i wish emusic (which sells unprotected mp3s) would do FLAC files as well, even for a slightly higher cost.

[blindcat7]

Hi Audible,

You can't convert lossy files to lossless and get back all that is lost. Once it is thrown out to make the lossy file, it is gone. You can convert CDs, full quality WAV files, or other lossless files to FLAC, if they sell Apple lossless files at iTunes you can convert those, but they are already lossless.

As an aside to those who like FLAC and wish they could use them on their iPod or other portable, you should look at www.rockbox.org it is an open source projece alternate firmware for ipods and several other players. It adds FLAC support. I am looking at it because most portables are not exactly blind accessible and Rock Box has the ability to add text to speech for most of the players it is compatible with.

BTW my first post here. Loving my own Ascends, 340 SEs, 340SE C, and 170SEs for surrounds. Right now only have my dish network working, but that alone has been amazing. Watched Return of the Jedi on HBO and played around between PL II and Neo6 and was amazed. Even just watching the news is a different experience. Can't wait to get the Oppo and PS3 working.

Regards,

Chris


So can I get these programs and make an iTunes file like this or no? What kinds of music can I make lossless? I want the best sound from downloads (leagal) for my stereo and speakers!

[Classpro]

I want to comment on the MP3 v FLAC business.

There are unquestionably differences between lossy mp3s and loss-less. However, I have never been able to tell the difference between EAC created lame APS MP3s and lossless, played through excellent and same equipment, unless I am told to listen for a particular artifact. In ordinary music listening, both sound excellent.

There are some very important caveats to what I've said: (1) aps lame rips are fairly high bitrate. Low bit rate MP3s can sound terrible. (2) MP3s made at high speed (not secure mode EAC) can have all kinds of problems, including skips, pops, etc. (3) you have to play through the same equipment. If you play the mp3s through the crappy analog out of an ipod, and the cd through a better quality CD player, you're not comparing apples to apples.

Now I admit that if you are really well trained in listening for artifacts, you may be able to tell the difference between lossless and APS in a proper comparison. But most people can't, and even the people who can admit that there is very, very little difference.

The one big problem I have with mp3 is gaps. The only way I can play gapless is on a computer. We need more gapless options.