difference in using 200's and 170's in surrounds

[curtis]

Michael,

I was using the HTM-200 for surrounds before I got the CMT-340's, then I moved my CBM-170's to surrounds.

For HT I don't think you will be missing anything. They blended well and worked great! And ofcourse easier to mount.

-curtis

[BradJudy]

Having had both as rears, I'll echo what DF generally says about the two. If you're doing multichannel audio (DVD-A or SACD) a good amount of the time, go for the CBM. If you're mainly movies and/or two channel audio, the HTMs work great. After using both and now having DVD-A/SACD I totally agree with the statements.

[michaeld]

I was going to ask this question as well.

One thing bothers me about the HTM-200's; the 4-inch midbass. Kinda puny...even with my surrounds set to "small", my receiver still passes 100Hz-up to the surrounds...I'd be afraid of bottoming the little 4-inchers out. This is a serious concern of mine...not being a smart butt.

Comments?

[curtis]

100hz and above is fine for the HTM-200.

-curtis

[MRose]

I think that is enough for me to at least try the 200's out as soon as I get my room in a semi ready state (the next couple of months of working/waiting will be torture). Of course, if it looks like the 170's will fit without too much trouble, I'll 'just' do the simple solution of getting a set of 340's and moving the 170's to the rear.

The next question is whether anyone has tried the 200's horizontally mounted for surrounds. Anyone?