Polk or Ascends suggestion for HT (sell me on the Ascends!)

[JJ_D]

Hi New here.

I am looking for advise as to my next purchase.

I am in the process of building a HT setup for a 22x17 room about 3600 cubic feet. I have a Pioneer sc 1522-k receiver I will be using. I currently own a set of polk Monitor 65ts and a cs20 center that I bought on a whim. I am using them as my comparison as they are all I realy have to judge.
I did get a chance to hear a set of cms-340's with a cms-340 SE center. But, I only heard one song and medium volume out of a Denon 23xx. I had a hard time really telling much of a difference SQ wise as they sounded similar. The Ascend's might have been a tiny bit clearer? The polks I can crank to about full volume with my receiver and they still are relatively clear and I can hear the vocals just fine. Also the polks have more bass but thats understandable as they are larger and have an additional driver.

With this being a strictly HT setup ( also some video game playing) I want to have good definition and the ability to turn it up loud if needed.

My question is do you think the Ascends would out perform the Polks for HT use (clearer dialog)? and Would have I been more impressed if I heard the Cmt-340SE over the older 340?

If I went with Ascends I would probaly do the 340se for front stage and 4 HTM-200se for the rears. Havent picked a sub out yet but Ive narrowed it down to a few in my price range (800 ish) SVS, HSU or maybe a Rythmik

I appreciate any advice you guys would have.

[Asliang]

I would say yes, the Ascends are lot more neutral, Polks are a bit of a warmer speaker and their sweet-spot is smaller.

[DougMac]

Hi New here.

If I went with Ascends I would probaly do the 340se for front stage and 4 HTM-200se for the rears. Havent picked a sub out yet but Ive narrowed it down to a few in my price range (800 ish) SVS, HSU or maybe a Rythmik

I appreciate any advice you guys would have.
First, welcome to the Ascend forum!

The nice thing about Ascend is that everyone is respectful of other products.

I suggest you seriously consider an audition. Do you just have the Polks L/R? If you need center and surrounds, I strongly suggest you go with a unified setup like you would get with your proposed Ascend package. Similar voicing is very important.

My Ascend package is similar to what you propose. I have 340s L/C/R, 170s side surround and HTM 200s for rear. From my experience, all 200s for surrounds will be fine.

I have an SVS PB12-NSD subwoofer that teams well with the Ascends. I bought it before Ascend and Rhythmik had partnered. If I was in the market, I'd get a Rhythmik.

Best of luck with your choice. If you go with Ascend, I think you'll be amazed. I have a friend who bought the most expensive Klipsch from Best Buy thinking she'd have the cat's meow in home theater audio. She came over and watched a movie. Her response was: "Now I have serious speaker envy!"

[Remonster]

I own a full Polk RTiA home theater and a pair of Ascend Sierra-1s that I use as my computer speakers. The two front towers I have in my Polk system (RTi A7) are being sold for a little more than the Sierra-1s (I paid a lot more for them years ago when I got them) but I think in every way the Sierra-1 is a superior speaker. I had my Sierra-1s in my home theater for about a month and thought they had a much wider, deeper soundstage. My Polks have decent imaging and a fairly wide sweet spot (with the grills off, the grills make them beam like crazy) but the Sierras are in an entirely different league. The only area where the Sierra-1 fell short for my home theater use was the midbass. Because I have the stand-mount Sierras, floor-bounce cancellation was a major problem in my room and I was getting a major dip in output from 100-200Hz. Towers get around this problem by having more woofers placed close to the floor so I decided to keep my Polk system until I have enough money to replace it with an Ascend home theater.

So, with all that rambling out of the way, I think Ascend's speakers are far superior to anything Polk offers and personally I prefer towers to stand-mounts for home theater because you end up with a much more powerful midbass and lower midrange. I have a HSU VTF2-Mk3 sub in my theater and an SVS SB-1000 in my computer setup. Both companies make fantastic subs, I have a hard time deciding which one I like more but for home theater you obviously want a big ported sub.

[JJ_D]

I own a full Polk RTiA home theater and a pair of Ascend Sierra-1s that I use as my computer speakers. The two front towers I have in my Polk system (RTi A7) are being sold for a little more than the Sierra-1s (I paid a lot more for them years ago when I got them) but I think in every way the Sierra-1 is a superior speaker. I had my Sierra-1s in my home theater for about a month and thought they had a much wider, deeper soundstage. My Polks have decent imaging and a fairly wide sweet spot (with the grills off, the grills make them beam like crazy) but the Sierras are in an entirely different league. The only area where the Sierra-1 fell short for my home theater use was the midbass. Because I have the stand-mount Sierras, floor-bounce cancellation was a major problem in my room and I was getting a major dip in output from 100-200Hz. Towers get around this problem by having more woofers placed close to the floor so I decided to keep my Polk system until I have enough money to replace it with an Ascend home theater.

So, with all that rambling out of the way, I think Ascend's speakers are far superior to anything Polk offers and personally I prefer towers to stand-mounts for home theater because you end up with a much more powerful midbass and lower midrange. I have a HSU VTF2-Mk3 sub in my theater and an SVS SB-1000 in my computer setup. Both companies make fantastic subs, I have a hard time deciding which one I like more but for home theater you obviously want a big ported sub.

Thanks you guys for the reply. I very much appreciate your comparison as finding those two speakers in the same place to compare is not a common occurance.

I took the first step and sold off my Polks. I had a matching F/l/c set, so no I have no excuse not to buy a new front stage.

I found locally someone selling a cms-340 SE C with two old Cms-340
Non SE. They are asking $400. Do you think that's a good deal? I could just buy the center if I warned probably for $150. I would want ascends for the rest of the setup so I would get 4 170s or maybe 4 200s. I have heard people use 3 standard SE. I don't have a projector so not sure if that would be a great idea.

[DougMac]

I found locally someone selling a cms-340 SE C with two old Cms-340
Non SE. They are asking $400. Do you think that's a good deal? I could just buy the center if I warned probably for $150. I would want ascends for the rest of the setup so I would get 4 170s or maybe 4 200s. I have heard people use 3 standard SE. I don't have a projector so not sure if that would be a great idea.
I think that's a good price if the speakers are in good condition. I hope Dave or someone describes the difference between classic 340's and SE 340's. IIRC, there was an improvement in both the tweeter and woofer, giving better mid bass and cleaner highs.

You could buy these and see if you like Ascends. If you wanted to go a different direction or upgrade, you could get what you paid for.

That's similar to what I did. I bought a pair of used 200 classics just to check the Ascend sound. I was very impressed and ordered 340s for the front and 170s for side surrounds. The 200s are back surrounds, the 6 and 7 in my 7.1 system.

BTW, the 200s are amazing. I compared them to my Boston Acoustics CR9, a full sized bookshelf speaker with 8" woofers. When both were paired with a sub, I actually felt the 200s sounded better and were able to play loud without breaking a sweat.

[JJ_D]

I think that's a good price if the speakers are in good condition. I hope Dave or someone describes the difference between classic 340's and SE 340's. IIRC, there was an improvement in both the tweeter and woofer, giving better mid bass and cleaner highs.

You could buy these and see if you like Ascends. If you wanted to go a different direction or upgrade, you could get what you paid for.

That's similar to what I did. I bought a pair of used 200 classics just to check the Ascend sound. I was very impressed and ordered 340s for the front and 170s for side surrounds. The 200s are back surrounds, the 6 and 7 in my 7.1 system.

BTW, the 200s are amazing. I compared them to my Boston Acoustics CR9, a full sized bookshelf speaker with 8" woofers. When both were paired with a sub, I actually felt the 200s sounded better and were able to play loud without breaking a sweat.

Thanks for the advice Doug. Clean highs is really the name of the game for me, maybe I will start out with the used set and upgrade to the 340 SE's, then move the old 340s to surround duty and get a pair of 200s for 6,7 channel. Throw a 15" sub or two in the mix and I should be good to go. I am moving into a new house this week, once my move is over and done with I can start playing around with speaker setups.

Do you think going with ascend 340 stands is worth the price, or could I get away with regular bookshelve stands that are the same height?

[DougMac]

Do you think going with ascend 340 stands is worth the price, or could I get away with regular bookshelve stands that are the same height?
I went with a different approach. I have a proscenium around my screen and I mounted TV stands on either side. This allowed me more flexibility in postioning my subwoofer.

Three things would make me consider the Ascend stands over a generic bookshelf stand:

1. Looks - they blend seamlessly with the 340s
2. Secure mounting - they are made to mate with the 340s and the connecting plate integrates the two
3. Stability - You can fill them with sand to make them more stable. This may also help reduce resonance in the stand.

[JJ_D]

I went with a different approach. I have a proscenium around my screen and I mounted TV stands on either side. This allowed me more flexibility in postioning my subwoofer.

Three things would make me consider the Ascend stands over a generic bookshelf stand:

1. Looks - they blend seamlessly with the 340s
2. Secure mounting - they are made to mate with the 340s and the connecting plate integrates the two
3. Stability - You can fill them with sand to make them more stable. This may also help reduce resonance in the stand.

Sounds good, I will get the stands for the front stage.