CMT-340s or Sierra 1s?

[Belows]

I’ve owned three CBM-170s as L,R, and C in my home theater since either 2002 or 2003 and have loved them to death, literally. I’ve upgraded the TV (multiple times), receiver (multiple times), and even bought a house with a bigger and better home theater space since then but the one constant has always been those wonderful speakers. So now I’m looking to retire the CBM-170s to the bedroom and bring in a new set of fronts, and am considering either the CMT-340s or the Sierra 1s.

The thing that appeals to me about the 340s is that their construction is quite similar to that of my beloved 170s, with essentially the same woofer and tweeter design and MDF cabinet material. When I originally bought my 170s it was prior to the SE upgrade and the CMT-340s weren’t even offered yet. I expect I’ll like the 340s even better than the 170s, although it’s hard to imagine liking anything better at this point. However, since the new home theater space is larger I think the second woofer and larger cabinet dimensions of the 340s will be a definite plus.

The thing that appeals to me about the Sierra 1s are that they are quite possibly even better than the 340s. But the thing that concerns me about them is that due to their different drivers and cabinet material they will sound significantly “different” than the 170s that I’ve lived with for more than 15 years and loved. I know different isn’t necessarily bad, but when you’ve listened to a set of excellent speakers for such a long time they tend to become your reference.

So I’m hoping there are some members who have owned and listened to both the 340s and the Sierra 1s and can give me some input on their characteristics and differences. Looking forward to another 15+ years out of whichever ones I settle on.

[Asliang]

I prefer the Sierra 1, I feel it throws a bigger image. Bass response also seemed better in terms of slam but I think they have similar extension. I don't think you would regret the Sierra 1 at all, although it's less sensitive than the CMT-340s so you would need a bit more power to drive them.

[picasso]

I’ve owned three CBM-170s as L,R, and C in my home theater since either 2002 or 2003 and have loved them to death, literally. I’ve upgraded the TV (multiple times), receiver (multiple times), and even bought a house with a bigger and better home theater space since then but the one constant has always been those wonderful speakers. So now I’m looking to retire the CBM-170s to the bedroom and bring in a new set of fronts, and am considering either the CMT-340s or the Sierra 1s.

The thing that appeals to me about the 340s is that their construction is quite similar to that of my beloved 170s, with essentially the same woofer and tweeter design and MDF cabinet material. When I originally bought my 170s it was prior to the SE upgrade and the CMT-340s weren’t even offered yet. I expect I’ll like the 340s even better than the 170s, although it’s hard to imagine liking anything better at this point. However, since the new home theater space is larger I think the second woofer and larger cabinet dimensions of the 340s will be a definite plus.

The thing that appeals to me about the Sierra 1s are that they are quite possibly even better than the 340s. But the thing that concerns me about them is that due to their different drivers and cabinet material they will sound significantly “different” than the 170s that I’ve lived with for more than 15 years and loved. I know different isn’t necessarily bad, but when you’ve listened to a set of excellent speakers for such a long time they tend to become your reference.

So I’m hoping there are some members who have owned and listened to both the 340s and the Sierra 1s and can give me some input on their characteristics and differences. Looking forward to another 15+ years out of whichever ones I settle on.

I've owned the original 170's since inception (early adopter), then upgraded to the 340's (still use the 340C as my center speaker, and now own Sierra 2's for my L+R and the 170's as my rears. Quite honestly, you can't go wrong with either purchase but since Ascend offers a free return policy, try them both and pick what you like best after an in-home audition.

[bcg27]

The current sale on B stock Sierra 1s for under $700 for the pair is pretty incredible. I would go for that in a heartbeat. There is a definite step up in the looks department for the Sierra line as well IMO.

Disclaimer: I haven't heard the 340s but am a happy Sierra 1 owner for the last 9 years.

[mikesiskav]

I've owned both the 340se and the Sierra-1 in the past (now own the Sierra-2). The 340se is a great speaker and may have a slight advantage on maximum output but the Sierra-1 is better in pretty much every other way.

[MichaelG]

I have owned 340SE’s and Sierra 1’s. The 340’s are very good but the Sierra’s are better. In addition, Sierra’s can be upgraded to NRT’s or Sierra 2’s in the future! Both great upgrades.

[Belows]

I've owned the original 170's since inception (early adopter), then upgraded to the 340's (still use the 340C as my center speaker, and now own Sierra 2's for my L+R and the 170's as my rears. Quite honestly, you can't go wrong with either purchase but since Ascend offers a free return policy, try them both and pick what you like best after an in-home audition.
That’s an excellent suggestion. Not sure why I didn’t think of it but that’s what I will do. Thanks!

[Intrepid]

That’s an excellent suggestion. Not sure why I didn’t think of it but that’s what I will do. Thanks!

Late to the thread but what did you end up choosing?

[MDinno]

What about as a center channel? Is the Sierra still better?

[natetg57]

I would say so. I haven't heard the 340 but I started with Sierra 1s across the front. I would describe the sound as very refined and clean. The highs are a bit rolled off but if that doesn't bother you than they will sound amazing. To me, comparable to much more expensive speakers.

[choirbass]

I upgraded from the 340s to the Sierra-2s, so it’s not an exact comparison. I will say tho that the bass is what stuck out immediately, a definite improvement.

[notaniceboy]

I upgraded from the 340s to the Sierra-2s, so it’s not an exact comparison. I will say tho that the bass is what stuck out immediately, a definite improvement.


I own the the 340's with a pair of SVS SB1000 subwoofer, so I don't need the extra bass, but I wonder if the Sierra 2 would be and improvement in any other regard to justify the investment?

[choirbass]

Nothing that stuck out, but for sub free usage they’re awesome, they’re supposedly even better than the Sierra-1s. The RAAL tweeters are better even if I didn’t notice any difference.

The Sierra-1 and 2 are flat down to 40hz so setting the sub crossover that low may make a noticeable difference.

[RicardoJoa]

If you are getting them new, I would take the sierra 2ex. The upper bass is incredible and makes it sound fuller with bigger scale .

[natetg57]

I own the the 340's with a pair of SVS SB1000 subwoofer, so I don't need the extra bass, but I wonder if the Sierra 2 would be and improvement in any other regard to justify the investment?

I went from Sierra 1s, to 2s, to 2EX. The Raal tweeter for me was a HUGE upgrade. I love the extra airiness and detail especially on good recordings. Not a subtle improvement, imo.

[choirbass]

It must be something about my sound quality or something, because for the years that I’ve owned the Sierra-2, Ive never heard that. It’s why I’ve decided I’m going to go for the NrT Sierra Towers instead of RAAL, too much money for something I’m not going to hear.

[SunByrne]

I own the the 340's with a pair of SVS SB1000 subwoofer, so I don't need the extra bass, but I wonder if the Sierra 2 would be and improvement in any other regard to justify the investment?

I would skip the S2 and go to the S2EX. The 2EX is substantially better than the 2 and only about $200 more.

And yes, the difference between the S2EX and the 340 is monstrous. But they cost 3x more, so it'd better be.

[SunByrne]

I went from Sierra 1s, to 2s, to 2EX. The Raal tweeter for me was a HUGE upgrade. I love the extra airiness and detail especially on good recordings. Not a subtle improvement, imo.

I did S1 to S1NrT to S2 to S2EX. I have since then bought another pair of S1s, which I upgraded with my NrT parts left over from the S2 upgrade, and and pair of S1 cabinets, which house my original S1 parts from my first S1s back in like 2009. So I have S1s, S1 NrTs, and S2EXs all in different places.

The S1 to S1NrT upgrade is a nice step for me but it's not for everyone and I can certainly see how, for some people, it might not be worth it. Love the extra sizzle relative to the base S1 but it makes the speaker brighter overall, which not everyone wants.

S1 NrT to S2 is a very big step. The RAAL tweeter is a game-changer; the S2 is just in another class relative to either version of the S1. The air and the high-end clarity is just not to be missed.

However, since the 2EX came out, and it's pretty close to the same price as the S2, I can't in good conscience recommend the S2 anymore. As much as I was impressed by the S2 woofer, the woofer in the 2EX is just stunning; the bass extension is ludicrous for a bookshelf speaker and the additional mid clarity alone is worth the ~$200. (If you're buying new.)

The fact that you can upgrade from S1s to S2EXs for only $538 is also amazing. What I'd recommend for people on a bit of a budget is to save up to buy S1s, and then you can upgrade to S2EXs later for really not all that much more.

[choirbass]

I second going for the Sierra-1 to Sierra-2 EX upgrade.