Brand new 170s - Comparison - Admittedly Not Much Compeition YET

But, I'm now here to report on the Ascends, although understand that their competition wasn't all that great, yet.

First, I got into my system and made certain that I had everything wired in phase, because frankly, I had never done it before.

Then, I hooked the 170s up as my fronts and turned off my sub. I listened to just the Ascends in 2 channel (well not really because I left my center channel on) and compared it to my old Rock Solids and BAs. (Well Edster, thanks for saying the old BA rears wouldn't measure up -that was the understatement of this century.)

WOW!!! The Ascends simply sounded incredibly neutral with clear highs and a great midrange. The BAs were incredibly outlclassed (now in fairness they were $100-$150/pair speakers 10 years ago.) I never realized how BAD these BA rears were.

Next, I A/Bed the Ascends and the Rock Solids (which I believe were an entry level B & W that I paid about $400 for the pair - 10 years ago.) The Rock Solids still sounded pretty good in comparison BUT they were muddier in the midrange and they were "bright" isn't exactly the right word, maybe slightly tinny. Piano sounded like piano but not quite right and violins sounded a little too "stringy" and steel guitar just didn't sound like steel guitar and horms kinda blended together. BUT, given their age and all, they sounded OK. I listened to classical, jazz, several different rock groups and an orchestral/choir collection.

Then, I added the BK sub to the mix and it filled in the low incredibly well. (I kept the fronts as "small" in the Denon 3803 so most of the bass was coming from the MK at that point.) I should add, though, I could live with the 170s without the sub BUT you would clearly be missing a fair amount of the music.

Then, I listened to the same pieces of music comparing the RSs and the 170s and the difference in musical quality was even more obvious, the Ascends just reproduced the music better/more crisply, especially with the bass filled in by the MK.

Later in the evening, I decided to put the Rock Solids in the rears and put on LOTR - Two Towers. In the scene at Helm's Deep, which I have purposely watched 3-4 in the last week so I could compare, there's a scene where Vigo is talking to a young man and playing with his sword while they're waiting for the Orcs, Kury - whatever they are, and ever so faintly I began to hear the footsteps in the background. This was probably a good 10-15 seconds before I'd heard them before.

Later, I brought my wife in and replayed that scene. She noticed it immediately and said, "I've never heard that before!!!!."

Anyway, she promptly sat down, told me restart the movie and we watched it in its entirety. I'm a little hard of hearing on highs especially, and lately I've had to use subtitles to catch all the dialogue in movies. She asked if I needed to turn on the subtitles about a 1/3 of the way through and I had not had any problem hearing the dialogue. There's that crisp, clear high again AND I know it wasn't the dang, Polk center because it's been there all along.

Anyway, I know this is too long and it was probably only 4-5 hours of listening total BUT I was incredibly impressed with the Ascends so far. AND, James at Ascend said "wait until you get 20-30 hours on these speakers before you judge them because they start getting broken in, the sound improves even more."

WOW is all I can say so far. Thanks all.

still a nice review, David

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakulis

I'm a little hard of hearing on highs especially, and lately I've had to use subtitles to catch all the dialogue in movies. She asked if I needed to turn on the subtitles about a 1/3 of the way through and I had not had any problem hearing the dialogue. There's that crisp, clear high again AND I know it wasn't the dang, Polk center because it's been there all along.

Anyway, I know this is too long and it was probably only 4-5 hours of listening total BUT I was incredibly impressed with the Ascends so far. AND, James at Ascend said "wait until you get 20-30 hours on these speakers before you judge them because they start getting broken in, the sound improves even more."

WOW is all I can say so far. Thanks all.

---

Wait till you add a 340C. Dialogue will take on a whole new meaning.
James and I respectfully disagree on break-in. The only thing that improves is our enjoyment. Welcome to the club.

David

Bikeman, Dave and/or James,

OK, I'm impressed to say the least. I played around a little more last night and the joy continued. So, I've got a question based upon aesthetics (mostly wife imposed at this point), involving the 170s vs. the 340s.

The front speakers have to fit in a HT enclosure that my wife purchased to "hide" the TV, stereo equipment and speakers. For some reason, this "hiding" does not apply to the rears, mostly because I explained that either the speakers could sit on end tables (her choice) or I would buy speaker stands. Consequently, the size of the rears is not as important.

So, actually I guess I've got 2 questions. First, how do the 170s compare sound wise to the 340s (I'm already committed to the 340C center)?

If the sound is substantially better in the 340s, can I use the 340s as rears for the time being and will that mess up the sound quality of the system?
(My HT set up is likely to change because we are contemplating the purchase of a plasma or DLP screen that will get rid of the center section of the HT enclosure so I could move the 340s to the front below the plasma TV. So, is that a possibility or will the 170s more than provide me the audio nirvana I seek. (OK, that was more than two questions, so sue me.) :)

If I may...

I too had that question, so I tried them both out, and wound up keeping both. I chose to put the 340's across the front because it was important to match the soundfield across the front plane. Also, since music is very important to me (at this point only stereo), I wanted the 340 mains to be my primary music speakers because of the following reasons.

The 170's impressed me so completely in terms of their dead-on neutrality. I was stunned by their accuracy and clarity. Simple. The 340's do not sound as neutral. They definitely have their exaggerations and their dips across the FR range, though not as much as others I've auditioned or owned. To be more specific, I found them to be more 'musical' than the 170's because I prefered the sound that they made. They seemed more 'warm' and 'rich'... (dontcha just love those terms?). They are brilliant and clean, but de-accentuate the clinical coolness of the 170s. The 340's are not as seemingly accurate as the 170's, but are more 'listenable' (to me) for music for long periods.

To me, the 340 - 170 surround combination amazes me on a continual basis. I just got an Auralex SubDude yesterday and re-tuned my system.... again...! I put on some 'reference' discs and was again transfixed by how good it all sounds.

Being that it's my ears and my accoustically crippled listening environment... YMMV. ;) But I hope this helps.

Cheers.

shane

OK guys,

Now, I've listened to BAs - the VR series, some Klipsch and Infinitys and some high end JBLs. (These were all bookshelves - some costing as much as 3 times the Ascends.) I felt like the 170s were still equals, if not superior to, everything I previewed. So, I've decided to buy the rears and center.

SO, the question remains, do I purchase 340s and use them as rears for now? OR, do I go for perfect speaker and timbre matching by going with the 170s all around and the 340C center.

James and/or David - I'd love to have you weigh in here and give me some insight as to the pros and cons of using the 340s as rears in the short term - probably for a year or so - until I can talk the wife into a plasma or DLP HDTV.

You should post that first paragraph (immediately above) on ecoustics if you haven't already.

Pretty impressive

Don

Don,

I posted something similar in my thread on Ascends, Axioms, Paradigms, etc. and I thought about sticking it in yours as well BUT I hate to overkill the subject. I'm really hung up on whether to get the 340s and use them as rears for the time being or just stick with the 170s all around and the 340c center. I'm waiting for some feedback BUT I've decided to pull the trigger and just go with Ascends all around.

I started this whole experience with upgrading my receiver from a 12-15 year old Denon to a used Denon 3803, figured it had most of what was in the 3905 and the uplink video for almost half of a new or B stock Denon 3805. We were so impressed with the immediate improvement in sound and Art suggested upgrading speakers as further improvement. So, here I am and I'm ready to take the next step, SOON!!!! We'll see whether anyone here has the answer AND, if not, I'll probably just buy the 170s and 340c and I suspect I'll be very happy with that BUT I thought if the 340s are a huge improvement - I can afford them now and I get the package discount on top of it, even it they sit in the rear for a year or so, WHY NOT DO IT NOW? (I'm still waiting for someone who's tried it, liked it, hated it, recommends it, won't recommend it, etc. and why?)

I would think the 340s would work fine as surrounds and then you could one day have 340 mains.

I think I have read comparisons of the 340s vs. the 170s on this board. Occasionally material sounded better on the 170s, but overall the 340s are better and won't break the bank - fitting your prerequisites I think.

I am still a noob - but I don't see any reason not to use the 340s as surrounds until you can have three 340s across the front.

I started my journey with a sacd player, then new speakers (foolishly believing consumer reports that all receivers pretty much sound the same and the big difference was in the speakers).

Well, after sacd player and Axiom M22s an Onkyo was in order to replace the Sony yard sale item I had.

Maybe the bigger difference is in the speakers, I don't know. But the receiver made a big difference, as did the speakers.

Maybe one day I will upgrade to a denon. How much difference from an Onkyo 501?

Don,

We went from the old Denon with 85 wpc on the front and 25 or 35 wpc on the other 5.1 HT speakers. I had the thing so rear-biased it was pitiful and the rears were still almost invisible on any 5 channel music or HT. I was hooking up the new Denon and having trouble with the video but running the 5.1 sound with the old speakers and my wife walked in, sat down and said, "you're keeping that thing." I told her if the video was really a problem, then it was going back. Fortunately, new connectors cured the video. I thiink at that point, I could have sold her on a new Denon 3805 BUT I doubt the additional 10 wpc would be worth it, especially after hearing the new speakers. So, I know your pain. :)

I paid $440 for a Denon 2805 online - sold it because i won and set up the 3803 and Art, Edster and others recommended the 3803 over the 2805 it 100wpc - true watts though

I paid 450, including shipping for the used 3803 - 110 wpc;
I think a b stock 3805 could be had for around $600 - 120 wpc.

yikes

Maybe I should be happy with my onkyo. It was recommended as being fine for a $150 (reconditioned) receiver. About $300 new.

Wattage is supposed to be 80 watts per channel stereo I think, and 50w in 5.1 or 6.1 if I remember correctly. 0.08 thd I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakulis

Don,

I posted something similar in my thread on Ascends, Axioms, Paradigms, etc. and I thought about sticking it in yours as well BUT I hate to overkill the subject. I'm really hung up on whether to get the 340s and use them as rears for the time being or just stick with the 170s all around and the 340c center. I'm waiting for some feedback BUT I've decided to pull the trigger and just go with Ascends all around.

I started this whole experience with upgrading my receiver from a 12-15 year old Denon to a used Denon 3803, figured it had most of what was in the 3905 and the uplink video for almost half of a new or B stock Denon 3805. We were so impressed with the immediate improvement in sound and Art suggested upgrading speakers as further improvement. So, here I am and I'm ready to take the next step, SOON!!!! We'll see whether anyone here has the answer AND, if not, I'll probably just buy the 170s and 340c and I suspect I'll be very happy with that BUT I thought if the 340s are a huge improvement - I can afford them now and I get the package discount on top of it, even it they sit in the rear for a year or so, WHY NOT DO IT NOW? (I'm still waiting for someone who's tried it, liked it, hated it, recommends it, won't recommend it, etc. and why?)

---

This is a tough call. I'll let others talk about the differences between the 170 and 340, but I think having the 340's as rears with 170 mains is overkill. Now if you knew you would be able to switch em in the near future (couple months), I would say go for it. But it sounds like that could be some time to come.

Don,

I had an Onkyo before the last Denon and I thought it was a very serviceable receiver. I do believe that Onkyo, Pioneer and some others are fairly "liberal" in rating their receivers' power. I think that Denon, Marantz and most of the mid to upper level separates are much better in giving you actual wpc.

I think you would notice a difference with the 3803, but frankly, I can't tell you how much unless you A/Bed the two next to each other. I think good speakers is a better "upgrade" after you've got a pretty decent receiver or amp. I'm sure that in the next two years, I'll pick up an amp to drive my fronts, that's another reason I'm considering the 340s. BUT, I almost convinced just to save some cash and go with 170s around. I went back and read one of Edster's comments on the 170s sound and I think that they'll work just fine.

Moreover, Johnny kind of makes an important point that they will likely overpower the 170 fronts and I really am looking to match up the system. I'm waiting to hear from Dave F. and see what he thinks. thanks, Dave.

I am still off topic but here are the measurements for my onkyo from sound and vision magazine:

ONKYO TX-SR501
Mfgr Claims: 65w x 6 0.08%
Actual measurements: watts=47 thd=0.06/0.06% 4 ohms, Noise=-70.8 dB

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Holl...1/ratevsac.htm

So I guess I actually have 47 watts per channel.

DENON AVR-3801
Mfgr: 105w x7 0.05%
Actual: 92w (85x6) 0.039% -75.0 dB

Does this mean anything to anyone?

:eek: Don,

It means your receiver has approximately 25% less power than Onkyo says BUT your THD is actually better. (My original math was a little off - "Math is hard" says Barbie.) So, you have pretty darn clear power, which was consistent with my opinion of my old Onkyo.

I'm not a huge fan of power for power's sake. I'll take clean power with little distortion and give up some wpc BUT I think that many of the mid to upper end manufacturers are doing a better job generally of providing cleaner power.

What did they have to say about the 3803, 3805 and 2805? Since I'm staying off topic here - it's my string, right? :eek:

P.S. - I looked and they didn't say anything about them as the reviews are too old.

So, in my small room, my weak but clean receiver is ok?

Thanks

Don

My apologies to the millions reading this thread and now restless by my off topic-ness on someone else's thread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donkelly

So, in my small room, my weak but clean receiver is ok?

---

More than OK. I have an Onkyo Stereo receiver (8011) in my study that's rated at 40 watts per channel. I can't come close to maxing it out (clipping).

David

Don and David,

I'm with David on this one. I'll take the clean power. I don't think I've ever listened to a receiver, including my old Onkyo at full out power. Of course, the speakers I could afford then would have exploded probably if I had. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dakulis

Moreover, Johnny kind of makes an important point that they will likely overpower the 170 fronts and I really am looking to match up the system. I'm waiting to hear from Dave F. and see what he thinks. thanks, Dave.

---

I did not mean the 340's would overpower the 170's. Properly calibrated, the 340's should work well as surrounds. Maybe it is my frugal nature, I just would not pay the extra for the 340's to only be used as surrounds in a system with 170's as mains. If or when you have the room for 340 mains, buy em and sell off the 170's (they seem to hold their value well) or move em to the back for 7.1.

Sold on ebay tonight (6-27-05)

Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 Bookshelf speakers - mint NR
Final price: $282.00

Certainly seem to hold their value pretty well.

If it was $282 plus shipping...I think I would have went for a new pair.

It was plus shipping. ups or fed ex.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=5783782586

were you buying or selling?

neither buyer nor seller, really

I just bought some for $250 from a local guy and then I finally saw this listing pop up on ebay - so I bid $150. My thinking: if no one else saw them - what a great price! I could resell them on audiogon or have four 170s for my stereo if I liked them better than the Axiom M22s I have.

But, I was pretty certain someone else would outbid me. I just wanted to see the final price to compare with the deal I got.

Sometimes things that are good get sold for too much on ebay I think.

OK guys,

Enough with talking about buying Ascends on eBay. I ordered the rears (CBM -170s) and a 340c center as I think that Johnny is right for now. These will sound great and I can either go to 7.1 when I get a new HDTV or I can sell one set of 170s and buy 340s for fronts.

Now to get back on topic, I've had the Ascends for about 2 weeks now. I've played 2 channel music, PLII music, HT in several different modes and they are just incredibly clean and neutral. I am getting excited about the 340c and the two new fronts and I will move my old Rock Solids and old receiver down stairs for 2 channel duty. The BA rears and Polk center will go on eBay to make somebody else happy, crazy or whatever.

I cannot imagine the improvement in my sound for the cost of a refurbished Denon 3803 and 2 new speakers. CAN'T WAIT FOR THE REST!!!!

OK,

I have now had the (4) 170s and the 340C for about a month. These speakers are fantastic. The sound quality is tremendous and I recently had a chance to A/B them against a very good, similarly priced set of speakers from a new manufacturer here in Washington State. The Ascends more than held their own and I decided to keep the set.

Moreover, I recently added a Denon 2200 universal DVD, SACD, DVD-A player and the sound quality on CDs and DVDs improved again. The soundstaging and fullness of the music is incredible and I haven't even added analog connections yet to go with my digital Coax cable. I'll probably do that tonight.

Anyway, Ascend, David and James, all I can say is "WOW". These speakers are incredible at this price point and they hold their own against speakers costing 2-3 times as much. I just wish that I could give you an audio comparison of the before and after on this system with these speakers.

My wife does not believe that there's a movie theater in town that has sound as good as she gets at home. All of this and I haven't balanced the system, yet or figured out exactly how I want my rears to face to get the best HT sound effects. If anyone in the Spokane area ever wants to hear the Ascends, email and I'll arrange a listen. Thanks guys, Dave