Help with CBM-170 SE in comparison to Energy RC-10 or V5.1?

[cel4145]

I'm using Energy RC-10s and Veritas V5.1s in two different computer desktop systems in the house, and I'm toying with getting the CBM-170 SE for something different and getting rid of one of the Energy sets. Can anyone offer any comments on tonal differences and detail/clarity comparisons to either (or both) of the Energys? Imaging is not that important to me since these are for nearfield use on either side of dual 23" monitors.

Thanks for any thoughts!

[Dread Pirate Robert]

Although I have not compared them side-by-side in the same environment, I've installed some RC-10s for others, and it sounds sufficiently different from the CBM-170 SE (which I use in my own home theater) for me to comment (with a grain of salt). In the broadest terms, to my ear it's obviously a warmer and more "polite" speaker than the 170SE--mellower in the treble and upper midrange (but still fairly detailed), a bit fuller-sounding in the mid-bass region, and rather "laid-back" overall. The 170SE is more neutral and balanced in every way--it's a more accurate and perhaps more resolving speaker (or at least it makes details more apparent), but this doesn't necessarily mean that it sounds "better" to everybody. Relatively speaking, its bass output will sound leaner but tighter, and overall it will sound brighter and more "forward" than the RC-10. In addition, the 170SE seems better at filling the room with sound, so to speak (and I have a huge room)--it's not a "shy" speaker for its class in any respect, in my opinion. Personally, I love the 170SE because it does what I ask of it, and very well. The RC-10 is also a high-quality, nice-sounding speaker for its class, but it colors the sound a lot more.

[cel4145]

Thanks. That's helpful. I'm mainly just interested in trying a different sound, and my sense even before what you said is that the CBM-170 SE would provide that. More curiosity than expecting an upgrade because most likely my individual tastes will determine which I like better, and that's hard to predict until you actually hear them.

[cel4145]

After I wrote that last message, I thought, "Why don't I just order a pair and see what they sound like." LOL

Got my order placed. Will hear them sometime next week.

[bilesteve]

Since I have the Energy V5.1s, I would be interested in the results of your listening test.

[cel4145]

Sure. If I don't post back in a couple of weeks, feel free to nudge me with a PM. :D

[curtis]

After I wrote that last message, I thought, "Why don't I just order a pair and see what they sound like." LOL

Got my order placed. Will hear them sometime next week.
Have they shown up?

[billy p]

Yeah...I was wondering the same thing...I can't see him not liking the 170's and I await his impressions. I know he favours the V5.1's being more forward in nature vs the RC10's....I think he'll enjoy the mid range and overall accuracy of the 170's if they're as close to the Sierras as some have suggested.

Come on Charlie....we're waiting...lol

Re: Bill...:)

[JustABrah]

Yeah...I was wondering the same thing...I can't see him not liking the 170's and I await his impressions. I know he favours the V5.1's being more forward in nature vs the RC10's....I think he'll enjoy the mid range and overall accuracy of the 170's if they're as close to the Sierras as some have suggested.

Come on Charlie....we're waiting...lol

Re: Bill...:)

How you liking the Anthem? Do you notice a big difference with arc?

[cel4145]

They shipped this week and the date was supposed to be the 22nd, and then UPS changed it to the 25th. So waiting, twiddling my thumbs, wondering when the speakers will get here :)

[billy p]

How you liking the Anthem? Do you notice a big difference with arc?

ARC is wonderful...the soundstage is more encompassing with every detail present having an airiness too it that I really liked(compared to my YPAO…prior) the overall sound appears more lifelike…at least too me. But, the real reason I decided to buy the Anthem was because I wanted to properly EQ my sub. The transition form my main and sub is pretty seamless with music the sub appears more controlled and it complements my Towers and for movies it doesn’t overpower the room like before because I had a rise at ~40hz and now I’m ruler flat below 80hz with only a slight deviation in that range…yeah I’m happy.

Re: Bill



They shipped this week and the date was supposed to be the 22nd, and then UPS changed it to the 25th. So waiting, twiddling my thumbs, wondering when the speakers will get here :)

My Towers arrived on a Friday and I was told around 10am that delivery would occur the following Monday...well they lied...because 4hrs later they were at my door...good thing my daughter was home to receive them...I have my fingers crossed that it will be Friday..lol:).

Either way good luck and report back...Bill...:D

[Dread Pirate Robert]

Yeah...I was wondering the same thing...I can't see him not liking the 170's and I await his impressions. I know he favours the V5.1's being more forward in nature vs the RC10's....

However, from a recent post in the AVS forum, he likes how the V5.1 colors the sound versus having a flat frequency response. The CBM-170 SE's is about as flat as they come, much more like that of a studio monitor (in fact, even flatter than most of those) than a typical bookshelf speaker. Obviously there is more to how a speaker actually sounds than this, but then again in the near field the 170 sounds like a studio monitor to me (with more "guts" than most have for the home theater application). It certainly will be interesting to learn what cel4145 and his ears think--they may well sound different to him (apologies for speaking about you in the third-person ;)).


I think he'll enjoy the mid range and overall accuracy of the 170's if they're as close to the Sierras as some have suggested.

It's not quite as transparent as the Sierra-1 and its midrange is not quite as smooth, but in other aspects of accuracy and midrange detail the 170SE competes with the standard Sierra-1, at least to my ears; of course, the higher-end Sierras do everything better, including the midrange with their dedicated midrange driver.

[cel4145]

However, from a recent post in the AVS forum, he likes how the V5.1 colors the sound versus having a flat frequency response. The CBM-170 SE's is about as flat as they come, much more like that of a studio monitor (in fact, even flatter than most of those) than a typical bookshelf speaker. Obviously there is more to how a speaker actually sounds than this, but then again in the near field the 170 sounds like a studio monitor to me (with more "guts" than most have for the home theater application). It certainly will be interesting to learn what cel4145 and his ears think--they may well sound different to him (apologies for speaking about you in the third-person ;)).

Good point :)

When I said, "flat" that was a pretty quick response that could have been better composed. I was working and only had a moment, and also trying not to go through the whole active vs. passive argument because I don't think it's conclusive either way. My experience with powered monitors in the same price range was that they were a little lifeless in comparison.

That could be so many things not just the flatness of the response difference. I've been hanging out on head-fi a lot lately (I know, they are nuts over there) trying lots of headphones, amplification, and sources. I've come to believe that speaker/audio setup choice is foremost an aesthetic experience that can only partially be predicted by science and design because comparing two different speaker/amplification setups is typically like trying to compare apples and oranges. There are generalizations that can be made that help, but they are still just generalizations. Even the difference between the typical listening volume of two people can cause them to like one audio setup over another. Or the type of music. Or what audio system one has been listening to for the past six months. As an aesthetic experience, I believe that audio choice defies some of the predictability that is often imposed upon it.

Anyway, I'm excited about trying the Ascends. I recently replaced my Xonar STX sound card with an ODAC, that gives an even more transparent experience (I suspect that the Xonar had some very low level noise/distortion) when coupled with my HK 3390. Should be fun to compare them and the Veritas V5.1s.

[cel4145]

Got the CBM-170 SEs into today. Nice sound, but certainly different from the Energys. I've only compared them with the RC-10s a little. Better bass, smoother highs. For some kinds of classic rock, I like the RC-10s better because their warmth emphasizes the growl of electric guitar more. But for all other types of music, I think I'm liking the CBM-170 SEs better, particularly anything with some serious bass to it.

I'll hold off an compare the V5.1s to the CBM-170s after they've had a chance tor break in.

[billy p]

Yup... I recall having heard the Ascends for the first time was they clearly sounded different than my rc30's...then again, I was comparing them to the Sierra NrTs it was like whoa...:cool:

Looking forward to how they compare vs. the Veritas 5.1...:)

[cel4145]

Without a direct comparison so far (the speakers are in different rooms), I suspect I might like the V5.1s better.

But I also believe in psychological "break-in." It'll be a week or two before I try to compare them directly. I'll switch the CBM-170 SE into my main desktop setup and use them for a week or so to get comfortable with them before doing some direct comparison. That'll also give them a chance to physically break-in if there is any benefit from that.

Regardless, with my experience so far, I think the CBM/CMT series is a good choice now that the RC's are no longer available. I can't see why someone would be unhappy with them. I would also highly recommend them to someone that likes EDM, hip hop, rap, dubstep, and other bass heavy genres if one wants a 2 channel setup without a sub. They really do put out some nice, tight bass.

[Dread Pirate Robert]

Got the CBM-170 SEs into today. Nice sound, but certainly different from the Energys. I've only compared them with the RC-10s a little. Better bass, smoother highs. For some kinds of classic rock, I like the RC-10s better because their warmth emphasizes the growl of electric guitar more. But for all other types of music, I think I'm liking the CBM-170 SEs better, particularly anything with some serious bass to it.

I was hoping you'd like it, but didn't know what to expect. :) One thing that I didn't mention earlier was that the 170SE, even before it's broken in, doesn't require much volume to sound good, which makes it ideal for use in the near field. Of course, it can take quite a bit of power and sound just as good when played loudly, too. Its bass is definitely cleaner and better defined than that of the RC-10, at least to my ears.


I'll hold off an compare the V5.1s to the CBM-170s after they've had a chance tor break in.

Although I've listened to and worked with (as in setting up a couple of systems) the RC-10 only a little, it has always struck me as a design that has very good drivers but possibly isn't getting the most out of them. It'll be interesting to find out how the V5.1, which I understand is an updated version of the RC-10 using basically the same drivers, compares--looking forward to it. :cool:

[cel4145]

I was hoping you'd like it, but didn't know what to expect. :) One thing that I didn't mention earlier was that the 170SE, even before it's broken in, doesn't require much volume to sound good, which makes it ideal for use in the near field. Of course, it can take quite a bit of power and sound just as good when played loudly, too. Its bass is definitely cleaner and better defined than that of the RC-10, at least to my ears.

. . . .


Although I've listened to and worked with (as in setting up a couple of systems) the RC-10 only a little, it has always struck me as a design that has very good drivers but possibly isn't getting the most out of them. It'll be interesting to find out how the V5.1, which I understand is an updated version of the RC-10 using basically the same drivers, compares--looking forward to it. :cool:

I think the tweeter in the CBM is better, too, than in the RC-10s, and definitely the Veritas tweeter is better than the RC line. The tweeter in the RCs would occasionally render sounds a little bit strangely.

My only major concern is sub integration about the CBMs since I'm not using bass management, but trying to match the sub crossover with the roll off of the speakers. SoundStage's RC-10 measurements show a fairly steep roll off, and I'm guessing the Veritas are probably similar. Makes it pretty easy. The shallowness of the slope on the CBMs will probably make it harder.

[curtis]

I think the tweeter in the CBM is better, too, than in the RC-10s, and definitely the Veritas tweeter is better than the RC line. The tweeter in the RCs would occasionally render sounds a little bit strangely.

My only major concern is sub integration about the CBMs since I'm not using bass management, but trying to match the sub crossover with the roll off of the speakers. SoundStage's RC-10 measurements show a fairly steep roll off, and I'm guessing the Veritas are probably similar. Makes it pretty easy. The shallowness of the slope on the CBMs will probably make it harder.
The tweeter in the CBM is outstanding. In fact, SEAS will tell you it is a better tweeter than what they sell to NHT for their Classic line.

A more shallow bass roll-off should make sub integration easier for any speaker.

Also, for Soundstage measurements, the bass roll-off is inaccurate for many of the speakers they measure because it does not take into account rear port output.

[cel4145]

That's good to know about the tweeter SoundStage's measurements. Thanks for the info :)

As for the crossover, I have the Mirage Prestige S10 which has an 18dB/Octave slope for the crossover. Seems like a little steeper rolloff would help, but of course I'm not great at reading the graphs for slope amount (lol).

[curtis]

Are you sending the full signal to the sub and the speakers? Or does the signal go to the sub and then the speakers?

[cel4145]

The Mirage Prestige S10 only has a single LFE input. So that goes to the HK 3390, which has no bass management.

[curtis]

The Mirage Prestige S10 only has a single LFE input. So that goes to the HK 3390, which has no bass management.
Got it.

Do you have any way to take measurements in your room?

[cel4145]

I could take measurements with my SPL meter, but not really worried about that. My chair is maybe 16" from the subwoofer. I can tweak it by ear until I get it where I want it. Just saying before that a little more slope might make the crossover transition smoother, but I'm not worried about it.

[cel4145]

After listening now for a few days, I have to say I'm very happy with the sound of the 170s, enough that if I didn't ever hook up the V5.1s to compare them, I don't think I would miss them.

Not saying that the 170s are necessarily better overall, because the change to a new sound is often part of the difference in the pleasure of the listening experience. But one thing I definitely do like is the better bass output. I have been running them with my sub turned off, and a very large majority of the time, I don't miss the sub.

[curtis]

I could take measurements with my SPL meter, but not really worried about that. My chair is maybe 16" from the subwoofer. I can tweak it by ear until I get it where I want it. Just saying before that a little more slope might make the crossover transition smoother, but I'm not worried about it.
Taking measurements would help to make sure that there is a flat response in the crossover area.

[cel4145]

Taking measurements would help to make sure that there is a flat response in the crossover area.

No doubt, but I'm going to end up setting it wherever it sounds best to me :)

[curtis]

No doubt, but I'm going to end up setting it wherever it sounds best to me :)
Got it!

[hearing specialist]

Heh there 4145, i'm right there with you. I too enjoy listening without subs and explore the range and lower extension of any capable design. To me its very interesting how our auditory perceptions and auditory realizations are triggered. We love to have deep extension with our mains even though majority of signal is center channel, and then on top of that we use a crossover point of say 80hz for LFE signal but still expect and sometimes demand our L and R's to dig deep when we want them to. I super enjoy turning center off and subs off leaving surrounds active and full signal going to the L and R and exploring accurate sound and extension with the wifey and daughter. My .02...

[cel4145]

So I did a little bit of A/B testing with the 170s and the V5.1s, no sub. HK 3390 with ODAC, so no room correction, no EQing.

The Ascends do have the edge on midbass, sometimes coming across more powerfully than the Energys, or at other times, simply a little better defined in their response.

Because of their exaggerated highs, the Energy has an advantage with vocals in some songs. Although it's not always the boosted highs that are doing it. In The Allman Brothers' Midnight Rider, the vocals on the V5.1s overshadow the guitar, which sounds subdued in comparison to the guitar with the 170s. Gregg Allman's voice is the wrong timbre to benefit from the increased treble. Must be hearing the reduced mid response that shows in this measurement (http://www.hometheater.com/content/energy-veritas-v-51-speaker-system-ht-labs-measures). I actually prefer the 170s in this instance.

I'd be curious to know how these would compare in a system after an Audyssey EQ. Would it level out the Energys?

And so far, I could be happy with either one. Too close to call. Good thing I don't have to choose. One pair will go in another room in the house where they won't get used as much, and I can switch them back and forth as I want. What I'll do now is just use the Ascends for a few days, and then switch back to the Energys for a few days, and then back again, and see what I think.

[billy p]

Hey Charlie...nice write up...I wish, I could express what I hear and put into word when comparing speakers...lol:o. It would be nice if you became a regular here in helping others...much like you do over @ AVS. :)

If...I didn't say so before...welcome to the Ascend community...

Re: Bill...:D

[cel4145]

Thanks, Bill. I don't know that it was that insightful a write up. It was pretty short. It's like me and wine tasting. My descriptive abilities are not too good when it comes to comparing things like that. LOL

But yeah. I'll be back over here some to hang out :)

[curtis]

It reads like you are having fun with this...that is great. I have a good time...when I have the time...comparing speakers.



I'd be curious to know how these would compare in a system after an Audyssey EQ. Would it level out the Energys?
In my experience, you would still hear differences because there is much more to a speaker than frequency response, but it would certainly help "level" out a speaker.

[cel4145]

In my experience, you would still hear differences because there is much more to a speaker than frequency response, but it would certainly help "level" out a speaker.

Sure. For instance, I think there's enough difference in the tweeters themselves that leveling out the Energy's would still result in some differences in how the highs sound. At the same time, I also suspect that some of the attraction of the brightness of the Energy's would be lost.

Then, one of the criticisms I have read of the 170s is that they are more neutral, resulting in a flat sound that some people don't like in comparison to other speakers. Yet, it would seem that difference would probably be erased with room correction software leveling the response.

[davef]

Then, one of the criticisms I have read of the 170s is that they are more neutral, resulting in a flat sound that some people don't like in comparison to other speakers. Yet, it would seem that difference would probably be erased with room correction software leveling the response.

cel4145,

Glad to hear that you are enjoying the 170's!

Keep in mind that room correction software strives to achieve a very flat in-room response. The 170's have an extremely "flat" frequency response, which is technically the same thing as being neutral. They are the wrong speaker for someone who prefers a more colored response, but the right speaker for someone who prefers near perfect balance / accuracy. This is one of the reasons they are the speaker of choice in many research labs and college music rooms :)

[cel4145]

Thanks, Dave. These are great speakers. I really like the tweeter in them. I hadn't realized how much the tweeter in the Energy speakers are artificially coloring the sound. Where it really stands out is with snare drums. The snare hits sound much more realistic with the tweeter in the 170s.

And yes. My point is that if people are demoing these more colored speakers by listening to them in direct mode with no room correction, but then using them in setups where they have been corrected, that sort of erases some of the coloring benefits. And it would make more sense to go with the speakers that have a flatter response to begin with, so that the room correction software can better correct the room influence.

[davef]

Thanks, Dave. These are great speakers. I really like the tweeter in them. I hadn't realized how much the tweeter in the Energy speakers are artificially coloring the sound. Where it really stands out is with snare drums. The snare hits sound much more realistic with the tweeter in the 170s.

And yes. My point is that if people are demoing these more colored speakers by listening to them in direct mode with no room correction, but then using them in setups where they have been corrected, that sort of erases some of the coloring benefits. And it would make more sense to go with the speakers that have a flatter response to begin with, so that the room correction software can better correct the room influence.

I fully agree with this. I am a fan of room correction up to a point, but as Curtis mentioned, there is so much more to the way something sounds than frequency response alone. A flat/linear frequency response is the starting place -- from there an experienced designer must start analyzing the time domain and resonances. Even with the best room correction, the tweeter in the Energy (metal) is not going to sound the same as the tweeter in the 170's -- and that is due to differences in damping, mass, resonances, dispersion and to some degree, distortion.

Yep -- the tweeter in the 170's is exceptional. It is a fully custom design by the best engineers at SEAS. Besides our HTM-200's (same tweeter), I know of no other speaker at these price points that use a tweeter that costs nearly as much as these. Not that component cost is necessarily an indication of performance, but with a brand like SEAS, it assuredly is.

The woofer is also a fully custom design (100% me :) ) and is designed to have an exceptional transient response combined with very low stored energy. The moving mass is also very low for a 6.5", we lose deep bass with this design but we gain a very tight and "quick" sound.

[cel4145]

The woofer is also a fully custom design (100% me :) ) and is designed to have an exceptional transient response combined with very low stored energy. The moving mass is also very low for a 6.5", we lose deep bass with this design but we gain a very tight and "quick" sound.

Thanks for letting me know about that. I had wondered if I was hearing a better transient response over the Energys, or whether it was just the flatter response reproducing the musical notes more accurately (so apparently both). I recently went through the headphone trying/buying game and settled on the Grado 225i as my favorite, and largely because of their very good transient response. As soon as I started listening to the 170s, it seemed like I was getting close to that kind of sound.

Also, I have an Mirage Prestige S10 sub. Whereas with the both the Energy RC-10s and V5.1s, it always seemed a pretty good mix, I feel like the sub isn't quite responsive enough to match up with the midbass of the 170s.

[davef]

Thanks for letting me know about that. I had wondered if I was hearing a better transient response over the Energys, or whether it was just the flatter response reproducing the musical notes more accurately (so apparently both). I recently went through the headphone trying/buying game and settled on the Grado 225i as my favorite, and largely because of their very good transient response. As soon as I started listening to the 170s, it seemed like I was getting close to that kind of sound.

I believe transient accuracy is one aspect of loudspeaker design that is often overlooked or not considered as important as requency response. In my professional opinion, this is wrong -- transient accuracy is easily as important as any other performance characteristic and is an extremely important aspect of our design philosophy...

[cel4145]

I believe transient accuracy is one aspect of loudspeaker design that is often overlooked or not considered as important as requency response. In my professional opinion, this is wrong -- transient accuracy is easily as important as any other performance characteristic and is an extremely important aspect of our design philosophy...

Well, it works very well as a design philosophy. Since I use the CBM-170 SEs with my home work computer setup (I do most computer work at home), I am constantly tempted to play a song and listen when I should be working because of the clarity of the speakers :D

I am curious, though, how much the electronics help out here. In other words, if you have a cheap amp and poor DAC, then it would seem like you would not get the benefits of the good transient response nearly as much. Not that the HK 3390 and ODAC I have is high audiophile, but they do seem to help bring out the best in the 170s.

[davef]

I am curious, though, how much the electronics help out here. In other words, if you have a cheap amp and poor DAC, then it would seem like you would not get the benefits of the good transient response nearly as much. Not that the HK 3390 and ODAC I have is high audiophile, but they do seem to help bring out the best in the 170s.

Hi cel,

Transient accuracy for sound reproduction should be nearly perfect with any amplification device, since electrons travel MUCH faster than sound...