HTM-200 or CBM-170 for "closed" shelf?

[MusicHead]

Hello everyone, new here. I am shopping for new bookshelf speakers for main L/R application and I have several constraints:

- Have only about 12" in height available
- About the same or 13" at the most in depth
- The shelf where each speaker would go is actually a cube, open only at the front

Anyone cringing yet? :-)

The speakers would be paired to a sub, most likely a Rythmik L12 or a SVS SB-2000 (leaning toward the L12).

I am more interested in a good set-up for 2-channel music, not really picky about HT.

A pair of HTM-200 seems a no brainer, being just 11" tall and reaching low enough to be crossed at the usual 80Hz.

Hower, I may have to put the woofer in the right back corner of the room, to the right of the listening position. I worry a little about localization, having to cross at 80Hz.

Enters the CBM-170, still okay at 12" and with greater low range extension. Plus they are a tad more efficient and, at least judging from the universally good reviews, even better overall than the HTM-200. However, they are back-ported, not very good considering the close space in which the speakers would operate.

My questions to you knowleadgeable folks out there are:

- How bad would it be for the CBM-170 low range to work in a closed space with only 2-3" of "air" at the back and all sides of the shelf but the front closed? The front is about 13" wide, so there would be 3-4" of open space at the side of each speaker.
- Just to play it safe, would it make sense to plug the port or doing so would alter the sensitivity and the frequency response and its slope so much that it would make it close to those of the HTM-200?

Also, considering that I would cross the CBM-170 higher than its -3dB point, isn't there a frequency at which the effect of the port would be minimized anyway, even if I do not plug it? If the integration with the sub is satisfactory I wouldn't run the speaker full range even with music.

I would appreciate any comments and suggestions, particularly from people who have tried or currently use the CBM-170 in a setup similar to mine.

Of course I would not mind if DaveF himself chimed in :-)

Thanks in advance and my apologies for the long winded post.

[DougMac]

I'll quote one of my posts from 2009:
"I'm using HTM-200 classics for back surround, but before installing them in my HT, I tested them in a two channel setup with the SVS subwoofer. I compared them to my 2 channel mains, some Boston Acoustics LR9's that have an 8" woofer. I found the 200's actually integrated better with the sub. I cranked them hard and they were able to handle it with no signs of distress."

I'll add that this was in a great room 30' wide x 40' long x 24' high. I couldn't believe the 200's would be able to play as clean and loud as they did. Dave posted in the same thread that the 200 SE's were designed so that you could use an 80hz crossover.

Not long after that post 6 years ago, I finished my dedicated home theater and have been living with 340's as mains, 170's as side surrounds and 200's as rear surrounds. I am still amazed at how good they all sound and it's a treat when friends come over and hear the system for the first time.

I think you would be happy with either the 200's or the 170's. I probably would give a slight nod to the 200's given your circumstances. I hope Dave responds to address your thoughts regarding the port issue.

[MusicHead]

Thanks DougMac,

continuing to search the forums I found this thread, where DavidF answers the question about plugging the port:

http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showthread.php?5995-Running-CBM-170s-as-acoustic-suspension

The short version is "No, do not do it"...

That leaves the other two questions:

- I would never run the CBM-170 "full-range" anyway, but always with the sub, therefore, is there a crossover frequency that would minimize the effect of the port, thus making the speakers more suitable to be used in my "closed" bookshelf?
- Assuming it makes sense to do the above, would that make the sound and sensitivity of the CBM-170 so similar to those of the HTM-200 that I could just get the latter and be done with it?

The price and size difference between the two is so small that if the CBM-170 is a better speaker overall, I'd rather get them, provided they can perform well in my situation.

[DougMac]

I own both and I think both are fine speakers. I think that if you were to use them standalone, the 170's go a little deeper and would be preferable. If you hand off the low frequencies to a good subwoofer, I think their performance differences diminish. Even if the 170 had a slight edge in other setups, I think that edge pretty much disappears with the constraints you face.

All Ascend speakers are similarly voiced. When multichannel content pans sounds from front to back, I don't notice any timbre change as content is handed off from the 200's to the 170's to the 340's. When I auditioned the Sierras at the Ascend corporate office, I listened to their 340's as a point of reference. I was struck by how well they were timbre matched and also how well the 340's sounded in comparison. Keep in mind that the 200's and 170's use very similar tweeters.

I hope others offer their opinion, especially Curtis or Dave.

What kind of music do you play? How loud do you play it? What size is the room where they will be used? Unless you play heavy metal at insanely loud levels in a huge room, I think the 200's will be up to the task.

[curtis]

Keep in mind that the 200's and 170's use very similar tweeters.

I hope others offer their opinion, especially Curtis or Dave.
I actually think they both use the same tweeter.

I currently use HTM-200SE's for surrounds with my Sierra-2 mains...I am very happy with their performance.

[DougMac]

I actually think they both use the same tweeter.

I currently use HTM-200SE's for surrounds with my Sierra-2 mains...I am very happy with their performance.
I suspected as much about the tweeters, but didn't want to presume.

Thanks for responding.

[MusicHead]

Doug, thanks for your insight and especially for sharing your experience. Choosing a speaker is as much a matter of personal preferences as it is a matter of performance, but in this case I am interested in the relative difference between two similar speakers.

I forgot to mention the size of the room, sorry. It is our family room, 17x13x8, with the speakers on one of the long walls. However, that wall has two openings, one of each side, to the left of the left speaker and to the right of the right speaker. Although the room is not "sealed", the sound from the speakers is projected toward the close end of the room.

I listen to pretty much any kind of music BUT Heavy Metal and Hip-Hop :-) I like to listen at levels that have impact, but not ear splitting levels. My amp is a Emotiva Fusion 8100, rated at a very honest 5x80W or 2x110W. My current mains are an old set of Cambridge Soundworks New Ensemble II, run full range, I have no sub currently. Despite the low efficiency of the CSW speakers (if I remember correctly around 85dB), I have never run out of steam with the Fusion. Same thing with my previous AVR, a NAD T-752 with very similar power specs.

The several dB of higher efficiency of the HTM-200 make me think that I should not have a problem even with them, even more so since I am planning to run them always with the sub active, even for music.

As I mentioned, my "dilemma" between the 200s and the 170s is not about power handling, but rather about getting the best speaker of the two.

So far, everything seems to be pointing to minimal differences between the two when run with a sub and crossed in the 80Hz region. Would sure appreciate if David would chime in with his qualified opinion about my specific case.

What I am more curious about is how the rear port would behave in function of the crossover point, considering the enclosed space in which the 170 would work in my case. Assuming that a "sweet spot" exists, the main advantage of the 170 would be a lower crossover point to minimize chances of localization. If even the 170 has to be crossed around 80Hz to avoid negative interaction of the port with the enclose space, then I am not sure that the larger midbass of the 170 would provide any major advantage over the smaller dual midbass of the 200.

[MusicHead]

Curtis, thanks for your reply, we were writing at the same time. Yes, I did know the 200 and 170 use the same tweeter. It is mentioned somewhere on the web site.

That is why my questions are about the midbass range and all the implications related to sealed vs. ported, integration with the sub and my horrendous location for the mains...

I need to convince my wife to get new furnitures. Should not be too difficult.... :D

[curtis]

I suspected as much about the tweeters, but didn't want to presume.

Thanks for responding.
I actually had to dig into the product pages to be sure. :)

[DougMac]

Doug, thanks for your insight and especially for sharing your experience. Choosing a speaker is as much a matter of personal preferences as it is a matter of performance, but in this case I am interested in the relative difference between two similar speakers.

I don't think I have much more to add to help you decide between the two. I feel your pain on making a decision, however. I spent 8 months before and during building my home theater trying to decide on every component, especially speakers. I auditioned speakers as best I could, which is getting harder and harder to do with the decline in decent brick and mortar audio stores. Even under the best of circumstances, a live audition at the audio store only gives you a vague idea of how the speakers will sound at home. This helped me take the leap of faith and go internet direct, I decision I haven't regretted for a moment.

Good luck!

[curtis]

Curtis, thanks for your reply, we were writing at the same time. Yes, I did know the 200 and 170 use the same tweeter. It is mentioned somewhere on the web site.

That is why my questions are about the midbass range and all the implications related to sealed vs. ported, integration with the sub and my horrendous location for the mains...

I need to convince my wife to get new furnitures. Should not be too difficult.... :D
I actually had CBM-170SE's as surrounds for a long time in a 7.1 configuration.

About 3-4 years ago, I did some changes in the house...new floors, paint, etc....and went to HTM-200SE's and 5.1 for aesthetic reasons...I was ready to take a hit on the overall sound, but was pleasantly surprised and happy with how it all turned out.

[monkuboy]

I had the same debate when trying to decide on what surrounds to use with Sierra 2's across the front. Curtis said he was happy with the 200's. The person who sold me his 170's said he preferred the 200's and that is why he sold me the 170's. But I must say, the 170's are excellent and I am very happy with them. The only thing I would point out is they look sort of awkward to me because they are so big, including depth-wise. But sound-wise, I don't think you could go wrong with either choice. No regrets on choosing the 170's and I bet I would feel the same about the 200's if I had gotten those instead.

[MusicHead]

Thanks everyone again, I will have to ultimately call the shot, but I appreciate all of the insights. Is anyone using the HTM-200 as the mains and/or have compared them to the CBM-170 with 2-ch music?

[MusicHead]

Just wanted to report I decided to go with the CBM-170 for my mains. Prior to posting here I had sent an email to Ascend and Dave himself graciously replied. Since then we have exchanged a couple of emails and he confirmed what I thought. Crossing the CMB-170 with the sub at 80Hz is high enough to reduce the effect of the port, which is tuned at 58Hz, provided there is at least one inch of clearance in the back. Since I will have at least two if not three inches and I am not planning in running the 170s without sub anyway, I will be fine even in my weird bookshelf situation.

Now I just need to get a business trip out of the way and place the orders for sub and speakers so that they get home when I do!! :D

Any idea how long does it typically take to get a pair of CBM-170 delivered?