Can the Ascend 170SE be Improved?

[jvillas]

No doubt any loudspeaker can be improved. But, the 170s have set such a such a high benchmark, that other speaker manufacturers have taken aim,and are trying to produce loudspeakers with similar sound at a competative price.


Can the 170s be improved? To my ears I'm not so sure, perhaps they can be tweaked here and there, but I'm talking very minor adjustments nothing major. These kind of tweaks I'm guessing would have very little impact if any on the final cost.

I mean how do you make a speaker with a a very clear and open sound more clear.and more open?

A speaker with great mid and high detail, more detailed?

A speaker with a nice defined and tight bass, even tighter?

A speaker that is able to reproduce vocals in a natural , and effortless way,more natural, more effortless?

I Wonder.

I would see any major changes as constituting an entirely new product,and of course higher cost at every level production through to retail.

I am new here and have only been a 170 owner for a month, but man am I impressed with these speakers.

I have not heard the 200s, nor the 340s so my perspective is somewhat narrow. I can say this though in the current review in Affordable Audio I felt that much of what was said to describe the sound of the 340s could have easily be said of the 170s.

I guess I'm just wondering where Ascend Acoustics is heading in the future in an extremely competative and pressured environment.

[Quinn]

You can do those thing but that takes even more expensive drivers and tweeters.

[curtis]

You are also possibly tweaking to your tastes, which may not be someone elses.

[jvillas]

You are also possibly tweaking to your tastes, which may not be someone elses.


This would be inevitable. My only tools are my ears, and perhaps some other speakers for comparison. Nothing objective.

[curtis]

and, our ears change over time.

I think it is interesting in the interview of Dave he mentions trying to remove all "voicing" from his speakers.

[jvillas]

and, our ears change over time.

I think it is interesting in the interview of Dave he mentions trying to remove all "voicing" from his speakers.


Yes, I find his statements here to be one of the big challenges to designing a neutral and accurate loudspeaker. A loudspeaker that brings no attention to its self, but just simply disappears. Throughout the interview it is so very clear that Dave's standards are the absolute highest,and he is pursuing an ideal. I suspect this is what drives him. He is most similar to an Artist.

[audibleconnoisseur]

I own the 340SE, not the CBM170 so with that said and considering the topic... is it possible or even feasible if one were to create a speaker where it has two larger drivers but one of the two would act similar to the 170 or 340 does now with clean and quick punch but the other (of the same size) would be able to provide more of a ringing style bass like you would find in a lot of today's rap music? Not sure if possible but would provide a speaker that could have the best of both worlds, a clean and precise punch for tighter and more controlled bass and one that reverbs better for longer drawn out humm style bass. Any thoughts? I assume it is tough to have one woofer do both and many speakers I have heard do either one or the other well but rarely both. Can you help make an ignorant man.... norant!? ;)

[curtis]

The "ringing style bass"....would it be in the source signal? If so, then the speaker should attempt to reproduce it, if not, it shouldn't.

If the information is in the signal, then a system should reproduce it. Now, reproducing it accurately or with "something added" is a matter of taste.

[audibleconnoisseur]

When I tested the 340SE v/s the M22v2, I noted that the M22 seemed it may be a better option for rap b/c of this reverb style bass capability. Maybe I should better put my 340's to another test but I felt that day that the M22's held the bass a little longer for rap - not that this was a better or worse thing, just an observation. Maybe I will go back and try again to see how mine do now that they are broken in well. I have been using my sub ever since so I have not attempted the bass with them as much.

[curtis]

When I tested the 340SE v/s the M22v2, I noted that the M22 seemed it may be a better option for rap b/c of this reverb style bass capability. Maybe I should better put my 340's to another test but I felt that day that the M22's held the bass a little longer for rap - not that this was a better or worse thing, just an observation. Maybe I will go back and try again to see how mine do now that they are broken in well. I have been using my sub ever since so I have not attempted the bass with them as much.
It all goes back to the signal....is the reverb suppose to be there, or is it something the M22 adds?

[audibleconnoisseur]

I am not sure and that is what I am wondering if anyone or Dave can expound upon.

[BradJudy]

Hmmm...that type of bass is usually low enough that you should not be playing it back on either 340s or M22s, but sending it to a sub.

Back to the topic. Asking if the 170 can be improved is effectively asking if we consider it to be the overall best speaker we've heard - price no option. There are some obvious areas of potential improvement that would make it a different type of speaker (like going full range). Even if we limit it to the realm of monitor/bookshelf speakers, I think there are other speakers out there that do some things better, but at higher prices.

In my opinion, there are some that resolve details better, 'disappear' better (naturally the room influences this a lot), look nicer, etc. For example, the Eben bookshelves were nice, VMPS 626R's are nice when tweaked properly. I'd like to hear the bookshelf versions of some bigger speakers I've enjoyed like Pioneer/TAD, Zu, etc.

The engineering question usually becomes an issue of trade-offs. Could the 170 be improved without sacrificing its current capability? If so, what happens to the price? Knowing David and the product line, the recent change to the 170SE was a well thought-out improvement that balanced these factors. He mentioned the many iterations of tweeters and speakers that he worked on before settling on the designs for the SE models.

It would be interesting to see/hear both a full range Ascend speaker as well as a 170 that was designed with a different target budget (maybe $1k/pair). It would be interesting to hear David's thoughts on whether increasing the 170 budget would make a significant difference in design choices.

[Mag_Neato]

Obviously, if David would choose a higher price point, more refinement would be possible. Nicer cabinets, drivers, X-overs, etc.

Take Outlaw's new 1K entry. It will be interesting to hear reviews once these hit owner's hands. Aside from the fancier cabintry, I suspect bass extension to be the biggest difference. With a sub that equals itself out somewhat.

Would it make sense to attempt to improve the 170 into a higher price range when the 340 is already there?

[Dread Pirate Robert]

No doubt any loudspeaker can be improved. But, the 170s have set such a such a high benchmark, that other speaker manufacturers have taken aim,and are trying to produce loudspeakers with similar sound at a competative price.

Can the 170s be improved?

The original 170 has already been improved upon, and while the measurements available on the website currently set the state of the art for this class of loudspeaker, obviously it's still not perfect. That said, how close to perfect it has to be in pragmatic terms is another matter, and at least in my view, it's just about there. If I ever replace my 170s, it would be because I need more output for some reason (e.g. larger room), although I'm not generally into high output.


To my ears I'm not so sure, perhaps they can be tweaked here and there, but I'm talking very minor adjustments nothing major. These kind of tweaks I'm guessing would have very little impact if any on the final cost.

It's hard to say what minor tweaks would result in an improvement, as opposed to something that is merely different. For example, the dispersal pattern could be tweaked to suit certain applications better, but it would not necessarily be an overall improvement. Obviously, changing the "coloration" of the frequency response would be unacceptable if it were to be done for anything other than to achieve an even flatter response or perhaps to compensate for psychoacoustic effects that we do not currently understand well enough (i.e. making the speaker sound more neutral to more people by adjusting where the slight but inevitable peaks and dips occur).


I mean how do you make a speaker with a a very clear and open sound more clear.and more open?

The thing is, I'm not sure exactly why certain speakers sound more "open" or even more "clear" than others. There are some obvious reasons, but among roughly comparable speakers, there are audible differences that do not always correspond to the measurements for everybody. For instance, I don't know why most Polk Audio speakers sound so "smooth" to some people (including me) but so "bright" to many others. The human auditory system is complex, obviously, and there is much variation. When in doubt, I just go with whatever is the most measurably accurate speaker that doesn't hurt my ears (or my pocketbook), and certainly for those here, Ascends fit the bill. If any tweaks are to be made to the speakers, they should improve its accuracy first and foremost (extension, efficiency, and other aspects are important, but not at the expense of accuracy).


A speaker with great mid and high detail, more detailed?

A speaker with a nice defined and tight bass, even tighter?

A speaker that is able to reproduce vocals in a natural , and effortless way,more natural, more effortless?

I Wonder.

The only thing I wonder about is whether there is a point in making the speakers better than the monitors used to master the audio source! It is certainly possible to argue that the ideal would be to own the same monitors or try to match them as closely as possible, but let's face it, the mix engineers all hear things a bit differently from each other and everyone else, and will generally choose from among several or more different makes and models of monitors. There is no perfect, all-encompassing answer to this question--in realistic terms, the best scenario is that studio monitors should all strive for accuracy, and so should the speakers we use at home. Additionally, it's not just about monitors but microphones, as well, so let's just keep it simple and say that no speaker can ever be too accurate.

Admittedly, I am a novice to hi-fi, but the preceding is what having high fidelity means, right? While we're on the subject, I'm not sure when or why people began using the term "high end audio" instead, but this seems very suspicious to me--it sounds like a way to justify the existence of certain outrageously-priced but measurably inaccurate equipment when true hi-fi can be achieved, within the limits of the state of the art, for a much more reasonable cost. I'm not saying that all costly equipment is not worthwhile by any means, but the point is that with the new terminology, all one has to do (besides being lucky) is overprice one's product line and market the heck out of it in order to be "high end" (fidelity, we hardly knew ye!). :rolleyes:


I am new here and have only been a 170 owner for a month, but man am I impressed with these speakers.

Same here--I love my 170s! :D And while I've always been a picky type of person with an attention for detail, I've suddenly become an extremely critical listener since getting my Ascends. Previously, I didn't care all that much about the source of the audio signal (even though I could usually pick out differences in ABX testing), but now that I can clearly and easily hear everything I believe I'm capable of hearing, every little flaw and limitation of source material has become apparent and an annoyance! I'll get used to this (I want the truth and I can handle it), just like I had to in terms of video when I got an HDTV set, but these speakers have awakened a latent obsession of finding good sources of audio. Coming directly from the decidedly low-fi series of speakers I've owned my whole life, this has been nothing short of a revelation. I have heard and been impressed by excellent speakers before, but it's different when one uses such equipment on a daily basis.


I guess I'm just wondering where Ascend Acoustics is heading in the future in an extremely competative and pressured environment.

I wouldn't hazard to guess, except to state the obvious regarding larger systems with more output and comparable accuracy. It would be interesting to know how many professionals might be using 170s, although it seems that self-powered monitors are the norm in that field. On that note, perhaps adding a built-in amplifier (e.g. "Class T" delta-sigma) with a variety of line-level inputs (e.g. RCA, balanced XLR, balanced/unbalanced TRS jack, stereo mini) would help open up both the professional and computer audio markets.


Yes, I find his statements here to be one of the big challenges to designing a neutral and accurate loudspeaker. A loudspeaker that brings no attention to its self, but just simply disappears. Throughout the interview it is so very clear that Dave's standards are the absolute highest,and he is pursuing an ideal. I suspect this is what drives him. He is most similar to an Artist.

I know what you're getting at, but it's kind of paradoxical that the ultimate goal of this combination of art and technology is the utter lack of its own aesthetic, which in turn reveals the truth about the art and technology that flows through and out of it. Now, other speakers that have a certain "sound" or "make everything sound good"--that's art for sure, but it's not a type of art in which I am personally interested. :)


The "ringing style bass"....would it be in the source signal? If so, then the speaker should attempt to reproduce it, if not, it shouldn't.

Exactly--reproducing what is in the source accurately (nothing more, nothing less) is the goal. I would argue furthermore that adjustments based on individual taste should be done through EQ rather than selecting a certain model of speaker.


When I tested the 340SE v/s the M22v2, I noted that the M22 seemed it may be a better option for rap b/c of this reverb style bass capability. Maybe I should better put my 340's to another test but I felt that day that the M22's held the bass a little longer for rap - not that this was a better or worse thing, just an observation. Maybe I will go back and try again to see how mine do now that they are broken in well. I have been using my sub ever since so I have not attempted the bass with them as much.

Well, I for one don't know how these songs are supposed to sound. If the mixers used neutral monitors, then it's probable that the songs are supposed to sound more or less like they do through your 340s. It's also possible that the mixers used some precompensation for more bass-heavy speakers or used such speakers themselves, but unless you ask the people involved, there is no way of knowing. That's why I usually don't bother to worry about such things and insist on accuracy in reproduction. If I would really like for certain songs or types of music to have a certain coloration, then I would make temporary adjustments to the equalization.

For the record, I always listen to music flat, but use a modest "house curve" for movies. It is painful in a sense to violate my own principles with the latter, but I listen to movies at such a low volume compared to reference (-17 dB) that a flat response really would violate the intentions of filmmakers with regard to the lowest frequencies (mostly handled by the subwoofer). I guess we don't live in a perfect world, so I've tried with pretty good success to approximate the cinema experience at a lower volume (although I chose not to add all of the distortion, chewing gum on the floor, or a chair-kicking device--more "compromises" to the cinema experience ;) ).

Note that this is an example of being familiar with what a source is supposed to sound like, and applying minimal EQ to achieve that experience in practical terms (reference level is just too loud for me)--the ideal of using accurate speakers still applies.

[BradJudy]

Would it make sense to attempt to improve the 170 into a higher price range when the 340 is already there?

The current 340 just extends the same design to a format that allows for a bit more SPL (from dual woofers) and physically matches the common center channel layout.

I suspect (but don't know) that if DaveF was simply making a better 170, without demand for a specific configuration like MTM, he might not have designed something like the 340. How about it Dave?

Besides, the 340 is still under $600/pair, so it would be interesting to see where either design would go with a larger budget.

[curtis]

Besides, the 340 is still under $600/pair, so it would be interesting to see where either design would go with a larger budget.
I have always wondered what Dave could do with larger budget since first getting Ascends. I also wonder what kind of market there would be for such a product.

[Quinn]

I have always wondered what Dave could do with larger budget since first getting Ascends. I also wonder what kind of market there would be for such a product.


From the responses in this thread there seems to be a market for an Ascend offering priced above the 340SE.

[curtis]

From the responses in this thread there seems to be a market for an Ascend offering priced above the 340SE.
I am sure there is "a" market for something more expensive...in fact I would not doubt that I would be in it. :)

I just wonder how large of a market.

[bikeman]

From the responses in this thread there seems to be a market for an Ascend offering priced above the 340SE.
I don't agree. At least not until late Fall. :D

David

[drewface]

I am sure there is "a" market for something more expensive...in fact I would not doubt that I would be in it. :)

I just wonder how large of a market.
one thing to keep in mind about this "new" market is there are people out there who see the price of the current ascends and think there is no way a speaker at that price level could give them what they want. having a higher price tag on a product would reach out to that group who likes to boast about how much they spent on their equipment regardless of the quality, however large or small they may be. sort of a sad state of affairs, but you can't deny it.

[Sam1000]

My wallet would be lighter too.


I am sure there is "a" market for something more expensive...in fact I would not doubt that I would be in it. :)

I just wonder how large of a market.

[davef]

Great thread and I am happy to contribute where appropriate!


Can the 170s be improved? To my ears I'm not so sure, perhaps they can be tweaked here and there, but I'm talking very minor adjustments nothing major. These kind of tweaks I'm guessing would have very little impact if any on the final cost.

This really depends on what area of performance you would want to improve. It would be important to define "performance" so I will base my responses on objective performance based on my design goals, which would be accuracy. If we were to keep costs the same, improvement in what area would mean a sacrifice in something else.

Take for example, bass response. I can improve bass response by offering deeper extension but this would come at a cost of sacrificing efficiency. This would mean either a heavier woofer cone or a compensation circuit in the crossover of which both options would sacrifice woofer dome degree of woofer detail.

I think what has made the 170 (and 170SE) such a huge success with remarkable longevity is the balance we have managed to achieve between price and performance, and the balance achieved in regards to all levels of performance -- accuracy, distortion, efficiency, output capability (all measurable aspects)

The same level of balance, with slight improvements to all characterstics was the goal when designing the 340 series.


It would be interesting to hear David's thoughts on whether increasing the 170 budget would make a significant difference in design choices.

Some great points in your posts Brad! I will say this, yes -- there is always room for improvement. The 170 SE uses exceptionally good drivers considering the price point of the speaker -- there are better drivers out there, no question about it, but the costs do become prohibitve.

Can I build a more accurate ("better") performing bookshelf pair of loudspeakers at that $1000 price point Brad mentioned -- Yes, absolutely.


I suspect (but don't know) that if DaveF was simply making a better 170, without demand for a specific configuration like MTM, he might not have designed something like the 340. How about it Dave?

The demand for the 340 was not really demand for a "better" loudspeaker, more of customers requesting a speaker that would be more appropriate for larger rooms (more output before distortion/compression). I took the opportunity to make minor improvements to many of the characters that made the 170 such a success, yet keep that critical level of balance. The MTM design was chosen because in a larger room you will get less overall room interaction compared to a TMM because of the controlled vertical dispersion of the MTM design (less floor and ceiling effects).

Hope this answers some questions!

[Dread Pirate Robert]

Asking if the 170 can be improved is effectively asking if we consider it to be the overall best speaker we've heard - price no option.

This is admittedly a nitpick, but even the best speaker ever made (whatever that happens to be) can be improved upon, given no limit on cost--carbon nanotube woofers, anyone? ;) I think it's obvious that the 170 exists in an interesting market niche between other high-value competitors who compromised a bit more and the next step up in performance, which entails an even larger step up in price (assuming one gets their money's worth). Granted, this could be said about many products of any kind, but for those looking for a highly refined bookshelf speaker (with which they intend to use a subwoofer) for well under $1000/pair, the 170 is an ideal fit, especially for those who favor a design that puts as much of its cost into its functional components as possible rather than its outward appearance.

In other words, the 170's price and performance in both relative and absolute terms are right at the point where even discriminating cheapskates like me can convince themselves that yes they can spring for something this good without feeling all guilty about it. ;)


Obviously, if David would choose a higher price point, more refinement would be possible. Nicer cabinets, drivers, X-overs, etc.

Regarding cabinetry, I like the current business model of offering a baseline cabinet finish and fancier options for an additional charge. This could be expanded from the current offerings in order to increase the size of the potential market, as aesthetics are important to many people, but personally, I quite like how the basic 170 looks as it is (not that this really matters): functional and elegant in its own understated, boxy way. With the grill off, one can show off the funky polygel woofer, and with the grill on, it looks a lot like the M&K S-150, actually--go figure. ;) While a fancier cabinet might match my wooden furniture and storage cabinets better, it would clash with my other A/V components, so from my perspective, what would be the point?


one thing to keep in mind about this "new" market is there are people out there who see the price of the current ascends and think there is no way a speaker at that price level could give them what they want. having a higher price tag on a product would reach out to that group who likes to boast about how much they spent on their equipment regardless of the quality, however large or small they may be. sort of a sad state of affairs, but you can't deny it.

Well, there are those who buy Dahlton speakers and brag about the "bargain" they got from those nice young men in the white van, and then there are those who paid $200 for them but claim to have paid the full $2500. :D Seriously, though, it has been demonstrated that the items that get all of the attention in an antique store are the ones that are obviously way overpriced; put a smaller price tag on the very same item, and people wouldn't give it the time of day (or ask in the case of an antique clock). It's a combination of prestige (outward perception) and perceived value (inward perception) that attract certain types of people to products with "high end" prices (regardless of whether they are of similarly high quality).


Great thread and I am happy to contribute where appropriate!

Thanks for chiming in! I think I've learned more about speaker design in this one forum than everywhere else combined. :)


Take for example, bass response. I can improve bass response by offering deeper extension but this would come at a cost of sacrificing efficiency. This would mean either a heavier woofer cone or a compensation circuit in the crossover of which both options would sacrifice woofer dome degree of woofer detail.

There are always tradeoffs involved in highly optimized designs at a given level of technology, of course, but maybe some folks are really wondering whether there is still some room for improvement based on improved technology for a minimal increase in cost, if any. To take one example, was this the case for the revised "polygel" woofer used in the Signature Editions of the 170 and 340? I realize it's kind of silly to ask, because the 170 is just about as optimized as it can be, given its constraints, and one can't always predict how and when such discoveries are made.

[jvillas]

Regarding cabinetry, I like the current business model of offering a baseline cabinet finish and fancier options for an additional charge. This could be expanded from the current offerings in order to increase the size of the potential market, as aesthetics are important to many people,


I agree. I purchased my 6 weeks old Ascend 170s through Audiogon from a gentleman who said he was selling them because he wanted more of a selection in finish. This, as he was doing a mod on the crossover of his s-ls speakers in an attempt to get greater output, and a more open sound from the tweeters,a sound similar to the Ascends.

I have often noticed that people especially couples will purchase speakers when it has passed the sound and furniture test. Sound quality often gives in to eye candy. I see nothing wrong here,the decision is utilitarian, and fits into an esthetic value.

Audiophiles are simply the opposite.