Center channel help: 170SE or 340SE?

[YOTR]

I am finishing up my 3.1 setup in our living room and have decided on a pair of 170SE bookshelfs for my left and right speakers. I am struggling with the center though as I have noticed some people posting that they just got a third 170SE for that duty. I have also read were people are pairing the 170SE's with a 340SE center channel. Any advice? We have a small living room but I still want to be able to hear the dialogue with movies/shows. Is the 340SE overkill with a pair of 170's? I am pairing the speakers with a Yamaha receiver and an Outlaw Audio LFM-1 Compact subwoofer (basically a HSU STF-2).

Thanks in advance!

[curtis]

The 170SE is fine as a center.

Many people use the 340SE for aesthetics reasons as opposed to performance.

[YOTR]

The 170SE is fine as a center.

Many people use the 340SE for aesthetics reasons as opposed to performance.



Thanks for the response. I am currently selling my Energy setup because they simply are to big for our living room. My center is huge which is why I was wondering if I would take a performance hit by using a third 170SE for the center. I don't mind spending the extra money for the 340SE but I do like the fact that the 170SE is smaller.

[DougMac]

I think 170's across the front will be fine since you have a small living room and a subwoofer, especially if you listen at moderate volume levels.

I have both 170's (surrounds) and 340's (L/C/R) and I'm pleased with them. Even though the volume in the surrounds is rarely at the same level as the fronts, the 170's have no trouble keeping up with them even when I've got it cranked. I haven't complared, but I think a difference in dialog between the two would be better described as subtle instead of dramatic.

[YOTR]

I think 170's across the front will be fine since you have a small living room and a subwoofer, especially if you listen at moderate volume levels.

I have both 170's (surrounds) and 340's (L/C/R) and I'm pleased with them. Even though the volume in the surrounds is rarely at the same level as the fronts, the 170's have no trouble keeping up with them even when I've got it cranked. I haven't complared, but I think a difference in dialog between the two would be better described as subtle instead of dramatic.

Do you think I would have any issues cranking the 170's up if I ever want to listen to music or a movie? I will have a sub but hope that I can still turn them up past a moderate level if I want to.

[DougMac]

Do you think I would have any issues cranking the 170's up if I ever want to listen to music or a movie? I will have a sub but hope that I can still turn them up past a moderate level if I want to.
Every once in a while I'll crank my home theater system to just this side of uncomfortable. The 170's take it in stride. When I was building the HT, I'd listen to music on the 170's in the unfinished part of the basement, roughly 1000 sq. ft. They had no problem played LOUD.

My home theater room is approximately 16x20x9, with an 8x10 anteroom area on the left side. How big is your living room?

[YOTR]

Every once in a while I'll crank my home theater system to just this side of uncomfortable. The 170's take it in stride. When I was building the HT, I'd listen to music on the 170's in the unfinished part of the basement, roughly 1000 sq. ft. They had no problem played LOUD.

My home theater room is approximately 16x20x9, with an 8x10 anteroom area on the left side. How big is your living room?

Mine is about 10X15. The left side opens up into our dining room. It really is a small space. I am still debating on going with a 340se center versus another 170se. It would be nice to save the money but I also don't want to compromise. I did call Ascend yesterday and the nice person told me that quite a few people just use another 170 for the center and that the performance would still be great. It sounds like they will change the speaker grill (and logo) on the 170 in case I wanted to lay it on it's side. I would probably just keep the 170 vertically though so it really wouldn't matter much. I think it would look okay with 3 170's in the front but I can't quite picture it. I know the 340 is a more traditional center channel but it is quite large. The 170 would be a foot tall (which I believe would fit under my wall mounted Kuro) but quite a bit shorter when it comes to width.

I actually almost jumped on a deal yesterday for some Energy RC Mini's. I realized though that even though they have high wife appeal, they simply wouldn't be able to compare to the ascends and I worried I wouldn't be able to turn them up very loud.

[DougMac]

Even if you turned a 170 on its side, the 340 would be shorter (9" vs 7.5"). It actually might blend in with your wall mounted Kuro better.

You mentioned your Energy center was huge. Was it much bigger than a 340? As I recall, the size of the Energy center is motivating the change. The specs for the Energy C-C100 shows the 340 as a little longer and taller.

I still think that in th size room you have that a 170 center will be more than adequate. Is there a chance you can go 5.1 or 7.1 in the future? You could apply the difference towards some HTM 200 SE's for your surrounds. Heck, if size is the motivating factor, with the sub you have I could make a case on going all HTM 200's. I tested them upstairs in our great room and they actually blended better with my sub than my Boston Acoustics CR 9's. I turned them up LOUD and they held their own.

5.1 or 7.1 really does make a difference. Movies are terrific, they do far more than use the surrounds for localized audio cues. Many movies use the surrounds for the music as well, kind of "curving" the soundstage around you. Even football on TV is more immersive, they put crowd noise all around you, helping you feel like you're sitting at the game.

[YOTR]

Even if you turned a 170 on its side, the 340 would be shorter (9" vs 7.5"). It actually might blend in with your wall mounted Kuro better.

You mentioned your Energy center was huge. Was it much bigger than a 340? As I recall, the size of the Energy center is motivating the change. The specs for the Energy C-C100 shows the 340 as a little longer and taller.

I still think that in th size room you have that a 170 center will be more than adequate. Is there a chance you can go 5.1 or 7.1 in the future? You could apply the difference towards some HTM 200 SE's for your surrounds. Heck, if size is the motivating factor, with the sub you have I could make a case on going all HTM 200's. I tested them upstairs in our great room and they actually blended better with my sub than my Boston Acoustics CR 9's. I turned them up LOUD and they held their own.

5.1 or 7.1 really does make a difference. Movies are terrific, they do far more than use the surrounds for localized audio cues. Many movies use the surrounds for the music as well, kind of "curving" the soundstage around you. Even football on TV is more immersive, they put crowd noise all around you, helping you feel like you're sitting at the game.


Sorry, I actually meant that the 170 would be shorter in width compared to the 340se.

I had a pair of Energy RC-30 tower speakers before and a RC-LCR center. I believe the specs are very close compared to the 340se (the 340se is a couple of inches longer).

I highly doubt I would ever go 5.1. I have a two story house and the access in the cealing is very difficult if not impossible (already tried). Plus with little kids, 3.1 is easier. I know 5.1 is better but I am perfectly happy with 3.1 to be honest. It's still way better than my old soundbar setup :).

I hadn't even thought about the HTM-200se's because I thought they wouldn't be powerful enough for a 3.1 setup.

I guess it comes down to ascestics with the center situation. I agree with you that I think the 170 would be more than enough for a center. From what I have read it's a power little bookshelf. Yes it would be good to save a little over $100 and go with the 170 but I am left wondering about the 340. I do think that 3 170's would look good vertically (finally found a picture on the forums). as long as I can fit the center standing up. Decisions, decisions :).

[DougMac]

Yes it would be good to save a little over $100 and go with the 170 but I am left wondering about the 340.
You keep arguing for the 340. Just get it and you won't have to wonder! ;)

[YOTR]

You keep arguing for the 340. Just get it and you won't have to wonder! ;)

Yeah you are probably right. I guess I am trying to save some money. At the same time though, what's $100 more if I get piece of mind (and not having to wonder down the road if I should have purchased the 340). I think my main worry was that the 340 would overpower the 170's. From what I have read though and especially in this thread, that is not the case. I am dead set on the 170's for my left and right front because I want a cleaner non-tower look (even though I technically still have to use speaker stands). I am a little concerned about the speakers getting knocked off the stands but maybe I could use some sticky tack on the bottom of the speakers.

Do you have any recommendations for stands? I would prefer to keep it cheap and I also have hardwood floors. I saw the ones that ascends offers but I can't tell if they can be put on hardwood floors without the spikes. Plus I was trying to stay in the $75 range at most for two stands.

[DougMac]

Do you have any recommendations for stands? I would prefer to keep it cheap and I also have hardwood floors. I saw the ones that ascends offers but I can't tell if they can be put on hardwood floors without the spikes. Plus I was trying to stay in the $75 range at most for two stands.
I don't have any speakers on floor stands so I can't make a personal recommendation.

The Ascend stands have two features that I think make them worth considering. First, they have a bracket that attaches to the stand and the speaker, creating a solid unit. Secondly, they can be filled with sand, making them far less likely to be tipped over by the errant rug rat.

I imagine you can use rubber feet instead of the spikes.

Don't go out for lunch for a month and you'll make up the difference between the $75 you want to spend and the cost of the Ascend stands.

[YOTR]

I don't have any speakers on floor stands so I can't make a personal recommendation.

The Ascend stands have two features that I think make them worth considering. First, they have a bracket that attaches to the stand and the speaker, creating a solid unit. Secondly, they can be filled with sand, making them far less likely to be tipped over by the errant rug rat.

I imagine you can use rubber feet instead of the spikes.

Don't go out for lunch for a month and you'll make up the difference between the $75 you want to spend and the cost of the Ascend stands.

I believe that's only on the 340 stands correct? The SP-30 stands that they recommend for the 170's don't have a locking mechanism. I wish they did as I like those pedestals. I believe the 170's are two wide for the pedestals though plus they are only 24" tall (I believe Ascend recommends a 28"-31" stand for the 170's).

[DougMac]

I believe that's only on the 340 stands correct?
Yep, my bad.

[YOTR]

Yep, my bad.

No problem. I wanted to be sure. I am not a fan of the SP-30's so I guess I will try and fine another brand.