Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 SE vs Arx A1b - Page 3

MTM with a few 6.5" xbl2's would be nice. I'm sure the A5's fill out most spaces well already though

Yeah EMP does discount stuff sometimes, but it definitely gets the ball rolling, people talking, etc. Could be a good business strategy or a bad one. Being under RBH they've gotta know how to build a speaker and run a company well though. Valid point about the resale value, but with the trail period you can figure out if you like them or not...so you shouldn't need to put them up for sale for awhile anyways.


EMP's trail period is like Aperion.....30-day in-home trial and if you don't like them THEY/THE COMPANY will pay return shipping.

Not exactly the same tweeter, but pretty close.

If you read some of the customer and pro reviews, imaging of the 170's is a strong point (actually more of an Ascend trait), being able to pinpoint sounds throughout the soundstage. Doesn't seem like that is coming through with this audition.

His feelings about the recessed midrange on the ARX reflect what I have heard before with XBL^2 woofers.

The Arx woofer isn't too small for HT. With the XBL2/Splitgap you gain increased excursion while lowering distortion and can have much lower distortion than other drivers. The Arx woofer is on par with most of the 6.5" woofers in its class, Ascend, Axiom, EMP, Paradigm, ect.

I would say the motor is larger and more powerful than alot of 6" woofers.

From his discription, it sounds like the ascend is a better speaker. I dont know, but i dont think word like restraint, dialogue is not well heard is good for a speaker.
Anyhow, grab sound of your favourite cds and see how they hold with music.

Another comparison would be great. In the end it will benefit you the most, but I'm sure the A1b's aren't too expensive if you needed to return them (or the cbm's) as they're smaller speakers.

I've never heard xbl^2 woofers into the midrange, but I've heard a few actual subwoofers that utilize xbl^2 and they didn't like to play very high at all. I wonder why that is?

If the imaging really is a strong suit of the Ascends then I think placement or something might have been off. Reflections perhaps? Not sure if he used the same exact location to test both, etc. Hopefully he can chime in again

scale also tips the other direction as he describes the Ascends as "mids and highs are clear and slightly emphasized". Maybe we'll get a Stage 5 soon

Shipping for the A1b is about $20-22.

I've read that XBL2 can work better in the tweeter and midrange even more than in subwoofers. Creative has a new XBL tweeter and wide band midrange out right now thats received good reviews. Some in car audio don't like the xbl2 subwoofers and have made the comment that theres just not enough bass from them. Which I take as the tech cuts down on distortion which alot of people like that textured sound.

Actually I don't think either one is going to outperform the other. I think this is more preference over strong points and weak points. Kind of like how some think Klipsch is good sounding and they just love them while others describe them as ear destroying bright and headache causing after a few minutes. Restrained also can mean easier to listen to for longer periods. Setup could be an issue for the weak dialogue and the same could be said as to why the Ascends don't have the imaging like the Arx.

Ah yes.....there are LOOTS of people out there that prefer the sound of higher distortion over lower distortion speakers. "Dry sounding" or "lifeless" as they call it.

My, have I started a tsunami of more questions and inquiries..................

Both speakers have been demoed on the same D stands in the same position ( ~1 foot in front of TV level, 9-10 feet apart, and 7-8 feet away from listening position - both stands ~2 feet from lateral walls and ~ 1-2 feet away from large entertainment cabinets).

The Arx speakers can definitely handle HT - the bass coming out of this speaker is wonderful and multilayered ( anyone else with these speakers who has listened to "The Dark Knght Rises" should pipe up and agree!!).

The Ascends have a nice wall of sound/ wave of sound.......difficult to describe in other terms..........it is not fatiguing, but it IS different from the Arxs in this respect.

Anyway, I've been at work all day ( you remember work, don't you ) and have to audition for a community play later this evening, so I will not have a chance to listen any today until LATER..........will post more when I've had an opportunity to listen some more.........

You can send an Email to Jon Lane or customer service with your zip code and they could tell you exactly how much shipping costs are.

When you purchase Arx you get about 6-8 different options for shipping all with real time shipping quotes.

I have no issues with what you've already stated....last summer when I had some speakers for a in home demo...it was purdy easy to distinguish the Sierras form the others 2 speakers I had in home. These 2 being in the same price point will make thing more difficult...so, try moving them & different placements with each speaker & use a wide variety of music(fwiw...I though my Ascends really shined with acoustic guitar)& movies....but most of all remember to enjoy the experience and have fun.

Good luck in your decision...Bill....
Edited by Billy p - 1/7/13 at 5:07pm

I helped Jon develop the A5's and might be able to talk him into a bigger tower.

I have personally observed a conservative excursion of 10mm one-way on the 5.25" XBL2 splitgap midwoofers. No strain or compression at that level, either. They are amazing little devices. I'll add that X-mech is higher than 10mm one way as I have never bottomed an Arx midwoofer *knock on wood*.

Also, the A5's are rated very conservatively at 92dB. If Jon rated like most B&M companies do, they would be 93-93.5dB @ 1w/1m. They are also a very easy load to drive.

XBL2 reduces distortion in measurable ways and also flattens the response into the midrange, requiring a very simple crossover. The driver's natural response is basically unaltered into the midrange. That's why its patented...and it ain't cheap to license it, either.
Edited by BufordTJustice - 1/7/13 at 6:53pm

This is my video of some Arx A3 towers. You're just not gonna find this level of low distortion, power handling, output, and raw clean excursion anywhere else at this price point. All Arx products use the same midwoofer. The A5 has 3 of them.

I played them for over an HOUR like this. My ears literally hurt.


https://vimeo.com/20716328
Edited by BufordTJustice - 1/7/13 at 7:04pm

I recommend classic rock like Led Zeppelin or the Rolling Stones or the Beatles or AC/DC as a litmus test for midrange clarity vice harshness. The Zep's "Mothership" remaster is particularly revealing on what is harsh and what is not. You'll find that a quality speaker won't change its tonal character as the volume increases on material like this (or any material). That's the test for me on midrange listenability vs clarity. There is a balance and these balances often have much to do with listener preference. I've found that what is pleasing to one can be noise to another. Keep what YOU like best. Trust your ears.

I have an extensive collection of ALL OF THE ABOVE.........should make for some interesting comparisons soon

To add some levity, the drawbacks to XBL2 are high inductance and low sensitivity. It is physics, you don't get anything for free, and any engineer will tell you there are tradeoffs.

That said, it is an excellent design, and like with any design, you take advantage of its strengths...as should be the goal of any engineer, and in the case of the ARX, they seem to have strong bass.

Apparently there is a tweeter that uses XBL2. I would like to hear it.

True. The SplitGap motor allows 12mm one-way peak linear excursion, or about an inch peak to peak.

On request I can add some technical details how SplitGap works. The technicals aside, the A1b's design aims at maximizing the inherent SplitGap strengths and extending them across the speaker's bandwidth. This probably makes the A1b (and other Arx models) suitable for a higher than average dynamic envelope, especially using good gear and sources where the payoffs expand. Padgman1, your report is quite consistent with what we've been told and is insightful. This owes to technology but it owes as much or more to design. As I've been saying for some time, out of half a dozen flat responses from any one collection of two drivers, maybe one of them will really click sonically.

The best classic rock productions can be very helpful for exploring studio technique and artist intent. Pink Floyd's classic The Wall has those characteristic, searing lead guitar solos, which when done right can be heard at virtually any level and remain just below the threshold of irritation - you can almost count the harmonics going by. Likewise, great recordings of great pop vocalists should hold the voice image together across the entire dynamic envelope, and in the best case, actually continue to delineate location in all three dimensions. The speaker should never throw them all at you so that the effect is lost and you instinctively turn down the level. Multi-track technique should arrange vocalists in distinct places, which is only possible when the dynamics do not fall apart at level. Of course, acoustic sources present an entirely new world to explore.

As I understand your use of "midrange clarity vice harshness", it's a test for dynamic integrity, and dynamic integrity is an important factor of realism. In a market of commodity product and numbers racing, I have to say that Arx may not be for everyone. This is an interesting thread for a designer to read (with only a little misinformation.)

Nice work, Padgman1. (The port plugs are in the air and should arrive tomorrow or so.)
Edited by Jon Lane - 1/8/13 at 5:07am

The A1b has a smaller 5.25" midwoofer but the two designs under test could still have similar bass physics. Since the SplitGap motor's behavior is evident in ways not related to sheer low frequency displacement, converting the A1b to a shallow slope acoustic suspension alignment by stopping the bass reflex ports may aid integrating a subwoofer. I'm sure others will discuss the A1b used this way from time to time. We also talk about it in the setup guide.

Yeah except for the two copper shorting rings employed in the Arx motor. The BL distortion is reduced by 40% over a std (overhung). Even a naked XBL2 motor still has lower inductance than many cheap standard designs.

I'll also add that the Arx midwoofer is essentially a modified under-hung design, which is why it is called XBL2/SplitGap. The coil never leaves the gap within the linear excursion limits that Jon stated.

EDIT: If high inductance were a certain quality of XBL2, it would certainly NOT be used for a tweeter by CSS.
http://creativesound.ca/details.php?model=LD25X

& Test report of the LD25X:
http://creativesound.ca/pdf/JBLD25X.pdf
Edited by BufordTJustice - 1/8/13 at 8:08am

Quite simply, yes.

It's not that simple.


It won't nullify the reduced distortion in the midbass provided by the Splitgap motor. It would nullify any output gains the Arx has, however.

Do you think that distortion is audible though....?

I HATE not being able to hear the Arx A5's, Ascends, etc. I wish there was an Oklahoma GTG lol

With no sarcasm, the Arx motor has measured at between 20% and 40% less distortion than a std motor. That would certainly be in the audible range, especially at increased volume levels. Since distortion measurements for drivers and speakers are rarely taken at reference output levels, they typically only capture distortion at low output levels. One of the biggest advantages of SplitGap/XBL2 is that it maintains its lower distortion at greatly elevated output levels...so as the voicecoil starts to traverse the twin gaps at high excursion levels, it retains its flat BL curve and greatly reduced distortion. Most drivers of the overhung (std) design exhibit greatly increased distortion as cone excursion increases coupled with reduced motor force (BL) as the VC gets further from its neutral position (centered on the gap). So, distortion figures for most speakers are useless unless they are obtained at realistic program levels....since that is how they will be typically heard. ESPECIALLY for smaller bookshelf speakers since they will need to be pushed harder to obtain the same volume as a tower.

EDIT: The 6.5" diameter Ascend woofer has greater sensitivity due to it's greater overall surface area vice the Arx, but my point is that a subwoofer would not necessarily negate the distortion advantages presented by the SplitGap/XBL2 Arx midwoofer even if it did level the playing field with regard to out put (and I don't see why it wouldn't put them on even footing as to output).
Edited by BufordTJustice - 1/8/13 at 9:41am