or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Ascend SE Owner's Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ascend SE Owner's Thread - Page 118

post #3511 of 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Another thing about laying a 170 on its side is that it's not a huge difference to upright....they're not all that particularly rectangular, they're most square to begin with anyways.

I see your point, but in many home theaters every inch counts when it comes to speaker placement, especially with regard to the center, and the 170 on its side shaves off three inches of height. On the other hand, 9 inches is still pretty tall for a center, which is probably one reason, aside from being so well known as a bookshelf speaker, the 170 is overlooked as a center (that and no references to this on its own webpage).
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

I use my 170s as surrounds and they're oriented upside down, as well as slightly angled downward, as they're elevated above ear level.

My 170 surrounds are mounted quite high (no choice, really) on the back wall that most of my seats (a sofa) are up against, and while there is some lateral distance, the angle between the speakers and the viewers is greater than I'd like it to be. I used to mount them upside-down and angled downward like you do, but now I believe that I'm getting noticeably better results from laying them on their sides (on wall-mounted shelves) with the tweeters away from the wall and toward the viewers; the surround speakers are mounted slightly behind the seats, so they're also toed outward toward the viewers. They had always worked well before, but I think that they work even a bit better now, and with some of the modern movie soundtracks and multichannel music, it's not that difficult to tell.
post #3512 of 3912
Hello Ascend family, I love the stout performance of the 170's! What's awesome about all Ascend designs is that accuracy prevails and performance is never compromised. Love those 170's! Seven of them for HT with 2 Rythmik 15's would rock!
post #3513 of 3912
Now that a few people have mentioned it...I can see where someone might think the 170 SE is slightly boxy at time. I think its a victim of its own outstanding bass given the size and expense of the unit.

The cabinet while well made...in heavy bass use could make the speaker...slightly boxy. I have seen that. I have the cross over at 80 now. Although its hard...we all have to remember that these are 350 dollars for the set....not 800 plus.
post #3514 of 3912
So I'm looking at buying speakers for my theater room which is 12'Wx22'Lx7'H that is all walled in except for the doorway. I have a 106" screen and a Sherwood/Newcastle R-972 receiver. My sub is one I made from Parts Express using a 12" subwoofer http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=295-464 and a SA-240 plate amplifier http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=300-804 in a sealed inclosure. The room is also carpeted. How would the CMT-340 SE and matching center compare to these,
Polk Monitor 75T, Klipsch WF-35 or MartinLogan Motion 12's?
post #3515 of 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtenn View Post

So I'm looking at buying speakers for my theater room which is 12'Wx22'Lx7'H that is all walled in except for the doorway. I have a 106" screen and a Sherwood/Newcastle R-972 receiver. My sub is one I made from Parts Express using a 12" subwoofer http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=295-464 and a SA-240 plate amplifier http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?partnumber=300-804 in a sealed inclosure. The room is also carpeted. How would the CMT-340 SE and matching center compare to these,
Polk Monitor 75T, Klipsch WF-35 or MartinLogan Motion 12's?


Are you in my house? My room is 12W x 22L and 8''H. I have a 65 inch Panny VT50.

So we are somewhat apples for apples. I am currently using the 170SE as mains and they fill the room up easily. I can only think that you would be more than fine with the 340.

I will doing a full review of the 170 SE soon. The 340 is basically the same sound as the 170 SE... I dontthink you will be disappointed.

I have not done A/B comparisons to your above speakers. I have heard the Klipsch and the ML 12' though...I have not heard Polk.

Klipsch -- First, let me say I am not a Klipsch hater. I liked them and I almost bought the reference series for my HT. Anything below the reference line though...tends to lack too much texture and detail...and be too foreward. Now I tend to like foreward but not this much. So ...the icon line is not a worthy competitor to the 340...in my opinion) Please note...there are going to be people that disagree and hear things different from me...this is my .02.

Motion 12... Well I did like them. 340 is going to have more bass. I would say that they are a tad crisper than the 340. 340 produces a fuller soundstage (by far) and although the imaging isn't quite as good as the ML...the over all experience is much better. The mids are fuller and the bass is more. I would give the 340 not as big as win as in the Icon's but they win by a good margin.

Again..have to pass on the polk comparisons. Hope it helps ya...if you have specific questions let me know. If you live near Philly give me a PM and I can let you hear the 170's ...give you a great idea of what the 340 will sound like. If you have more questions...shoot me a PM too!

I read about your sub...but honestly a little punch up to 80 hz is good. I didn't get the depth of that punch with the ML 12 as I did with the 170....I am sure the 340 is more.
post #3516 of 3912
I'm just curious as to how the 340's sound since they are 2-ways where the other 3 I mentioned are 3-ways having a dedicated mid range driver.
post #3517 of 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtenn View Post

I'm just curious as to how the 340's sound since they are 2-ways where the other 3 I mentioned are 3-ways having a dedicated mid range driver.

A 3 way is not inherently better than a 2 way design. There are other factors to consider, such as the quality of the drivers and the overall design of the speakers. The Klipsch Reference and Polk RTi are the speaker lines that are more comparable in class to the Ascend CBM/CMT series. So do you want a lower class of speaker with a 3 way design, or a higher class with a 2 way?

My experience with Polk LSi/Monitors (essentially the same speaker lines from Polk) is that the Ascends have a more accurate, detailed response.
post #3518 of 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

Apparently, Ascend Acoustics has suggested 50 hours for break-in.

What exactly happens during the break-in period? I have not seen a clear statement of the physics behind what changes during a break-in period.

~~~
post #3519 of 3912
Think of it like clothing... Everything starts out new and good..but as you wear it you break in the clothes to your body. The stuff materials used in speakers (paper, kevlar, etc) all move...and when they move back and forth from being played...break in..giving the music a smoother characteristic...and the dynamic range loosens up some at the top and bottom.

We are not talking night and day usually...but some. Response becomes quicker from the speakers..as they get "broken in" because they move easier over back and forth...

Anyway...that is how I understand break in...
post #3520 of 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newbie01 View Post

Think of it like clothing... Everything starts out new and good..but as you wear it you break in the clothes to your body. The stuff materials used in speakers (paper, kevlar, etc) all move...and when they move back and forth from being played...break in..giving the music a smoother characteristic...and the dynamic range loosens up some at the top and bottom.

We are not talking night and day usually...but some. Response becomes quicker from the speakers..as they get "broken in" because they move easier over back and forth...

Anyway...that is how I understand break in...

Agreed. Except unlike clothes, a very large majority of the break-in will probably happen during the first 30 to 40 hours or so. Even though they will continue to break-in slowly over the rest of the life of the speakers, you won't be able to notice. Any perceived break-in beyond that short period is very likely psychological.

Here are two documents which provide more detail:

http://www.gr-research.com/burnin.htm
http://www.gr-research.com/myths.htm
post #3521 of 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtenn View Post

I'm just curious as to how the 340's sound since they are 2-ways where the other 3 I mentioned are 3-ways having a dedicated mid range driver.

Are you sure about the Polk Monitor 75T and the Klipsch WF-35 in this regard?

Described as a "four-way" by Polk, reading between the lines the 75T appears to be a 3-way with two midwoofers crossed over to the "subwoofers" at a rather low frequency, so I think its design is more like the 340's with a couple of additional woofers for the low end. While this must help its sound quality and increase its bass capability, it doesn't necessarily raise the 75T up to the sound quality of the 340 (a large step, in my opinion).

As for the WF-35, there is nothing I see in its specs that indicates that it's a 3-way. It appears to be a 2-way with three midwoofers, at least judging from its specs on the Klipsch website. And as with the 75T, it's in a lower class regarding sound quality than the 340, no offense intended to those who own them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

A 3 way is not inherently better than a 2 way design. There are other factors to consider, such as the quality of the drivers and the overall design of the speakers.

That's right, and having fewer drivers generally allows you to spend more on each--which would come out on top depends on the overall designs of the speakers being compared, as well as many other factors. For their price class, the Ascend SE series, for example, has a really great midrange despite being only 2-way designs because their tweeters are well designed to operate down into the upper midrange, and their midwoofers are very light for their size, thanks to the "polygel" composite cone material that is used, allowing for quick midrange transients and decent bass at the same time (and with fairly high efficiency). And of course their overall designs are extremely competent and sound, within the limits of their price class. Speakers of lesser general quality could come closer to their midrange performance if they used true dedicated midrange drivers, but that would push their cost up and maybe not improve the rest of the frequency spectrum very much.

Moving up to the Sierra-1 (for illustrative purposes), its higher price tag allows for more advanced motor structures that are more costly to manufacture, but of course reduce distortion and improve sound quality. For this series, the cone material is a mineral-polypropylene compound (with varying proportions used) that may not be as "fancy" or "advanced" as the polygel, but is extremely versatile in terms of adjusting its physical properties, allowing for a high degree of optimization according to use. So it's not always just the material, but how you use it that counts, and obviously the true dedicated midrange driver in the Sierra Tower and Horizon takes their midrange to the next level. I wouldn't necessarily expect the same of the Polk Monitor or Klipsch Icon series, even if they did have true midrange drivers (not sure about the latter).
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

The Klipsch Reference and Polk RTi are the speaker lines that are more comparable in class to the Ascend CBM/CMT series. So do you want a lower class of speaker with a 3 way design, or a higher class with a 2 way?

While they're generally more comparable, the quality of the RTi series' midrange on its 2-way speakers really leaves something to be desired, in my opinion. And I don't loathe the RTi series like some folks do, by the way--I actually kind of like how they sound overall, very "lively" in some ways that impressed me when I first started getting into hi-fi audio. But now I'd take the superior accuracy, consistency, and midrange quality of the Ascend SE series over them any day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

My experience with Polk LSi/Monitors (essentially the same speaker lines from Polk) is that the Ascends have a more accurate, detailed response.

I think you meant TSi, as opposed to LSi. The LSi series are higher-end and very nice speakers, in my opinion, although they color the sound more than I can personally tolerate these days for their price tag.
Edited by Robert Cook - 3/9/13 at 1:29pm
post #3522 of 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

Bought another one?

So you must be wondering right now how the Sierra Towers with the RAAL tweeter would compare with the Philharmonic 2's you ordered wink.gif

Yeah... Some guy 15 miles from me had a 170 SE C for sale on ebay... Still with box and everything..he just never used it as he was listening to music only at this point.

So for 55 bucks and a trip this Sunday I will pick it up. I am still trying to figure out the 170 SE but couldn't pass up that deal.

And yes... I am very very very curious to hear Ascend with Raal vs. my soon to be Phil 2. It would be an excellent shoot out.

I am sure everyone looking for a Raal tweeter knows there are only a few places to go.. Salk, Ascend and Phil's... I am sure there are a few others but those are the major contenders.
post #3523 of 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newbie01 View Post

Think of it like clothing... Everything starts out new and good..but as you wear it you break in the clothes to your body. The stuff materials used in speakers (paper, kevlar, etc) all move...and when they move back and forth from being played...break in..giving the music a smoother characteristic...and the dynamic range loosens up some at the top and bottom.

We are not talking night and day usually...but some. Response becomes quicker from the speakers..as they get "broken in" because they move easier over back and forth...

The vast majority of the audible changes that occur during break-in--if not all of them--are due to the suspension materials reaching the level of compliance for which the speakers were designed. New materials from factory-fresh speakers are a bit stiff (some more than others), and therefore take time to "break in" before the speakers fully sound like they are supposed to. In my experience, the Ascend SE series speakers don't change all that much during break in (although it is noticeable), but some speakers (particularly smaller ones, at least from what I've seen) sound quite different in bass performance and dynamics before they're broken in. It's not quite the same as an automobile motor breaking in, as this involves mostly parts wearing each other slightly so that they fit better. Speaker break-in is more like a newly manufactured metal spring that is compressed for the first time--it'll shrink down to a smaller size, but then spring back to that size from then on, for the most part (until it wears out or is overcompressed). This makes sense because speaker suspensions act as springs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

Here are two documents which provide more detail:

http://www.gr-research.com/burnin.htm
http://www.gr-research.com/myths.htm

I think it's really the suspension (spider and surround) softening that makes any significant difference. The electronic burn-in emphasized in one of these articles seems like audio voodoo to me (even wire is mentioned--be VERY skeptical). The only electronic components that actually "break in," arguably at that in the context of speakers, are electrolytic capacitors, but it's usually done at the time of manufacture (known as conditioning). Some people have measured changes even in film capacitors over time, but the differences some people claim to hear as a result are all out of proportion.
Edited by Robert Cook - 3/9/13 at 12:37pm
post #3524 of 3912
I should mention I do have current speakers that I'm using now but I have someone that really wants to buy them and I'm kind of wondering what else is out there since I never listened to anything before I purchased my current ones. I have Yamaha NS-555's http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/speaker-systems/home-speaker-systems/ns-555/?mode=model, a NS-C444 http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/speaker-systems/home-speaker-systems/ns-c444/?mode=model#page=2&mode=paging, and NS-333's http://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio-visual/speaker-systems/home-speaker-systems/ns-333/?mode=model#page=2&mode=paging for my surrounds. The Yamaha's sound really nice so I'm looking for something that would be equal if not better. It's hard to pick one since we don't really have a place to audition speakers. We have a Best Buy but it's not a Magnolia store and their speaker selection is really limited.
post #3525 of 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Cook View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Another thing about laying a 170 on its side is that it's not a huge difference to upright....they're not all that particularly rectangular, they're most square to begin with anyways.

I see your point, but in many home theaters every inch counts when it comes to speaker placement, especially with regard to the center, and the 170 on its side shaves off three inches of height. On the other hand, 9 inches is still pretty tall for a center, which is probably one reason, aside from being so well known as a bookshelf speaker, the 170 is overlooked as a center (that and no references to this on its own webpage).
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

I use my 170s as surrounds and they're oriented upside down, as well as slightly angled downward, as they're elevated above ear level.

My 170 surrounds are mounted quite high (no choice, really) on the back wall that most of my seats (a sofa) are up against, and while there is some lateral distance, the angle between the speakers and the viewers is greater than I'd like it to be. I used to mount them upside-down and angled downward like you do, but now I believe that I'm getting noticeably better results from laying them on their sides (on wall-mounted shelves) with the tweeters away from the wall and toward the viewers; the surround speakers are mounted slightly behind the seats, so they're also toed outward toward the viewers. They had always worked well before, but I think that they work even a bit better now, and with some of the modern movie soundtracks and multichannel music, it's not that difficult to tell.

Understood about the room you've got to utilize what you've got...I've never had the 170SE center, or used the 170SE as a center, though.

My 170SE surrounds are up at about 7ft, flanking the listening area which is approx 2/3-3/4 out from the front to back wall (L-shaped sofa sitting at a slught angle to the front wall, with the tv set at an angle, too). My fronts are Sierra1s (NrT) on floor stands; rear surrounds are 200SEs set a bit higher, around 8 ft level, and angled more downward and toed in to the seating area (my living room is 18.5 x 22.5 with a vaulted ceiling, figure average 11ft). I've tried the 170SEs both upright and upside down and couldn't tell a difference, just ended up upside down to put the tweeters closer to the general listening height. Next on the list...Horizons!
post #3526 of 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Cook View Post

I think you meant TSi, as opposed to LSi. The LSi series are higher-end and very nice speakers, in my opinion, although they color the sound more than I can personally tolerate these days for their price tag.

Good catch. Bad typo. I meant the TSi that are available at Best Buy and Amazon. Those are essentially the same speaker line as the Monitor series at Newegg.
post #3527 of 3912
Thanks Newbie01, Robert Cook and cel4145 for the responses on the break-in question. I appreciate it very much.

-A4F

~~~
post #3528 of 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by All4fun View Post

Thanks Newbie01, Robert Cook and cel4145 for the responses on the break-in question. I appreciate it very much.

-A4F

~~~

+1 Yes, very informative. Thanks guys!
post #3529 of 3912
Hi everyone! I have a couple of questions. If i purchase the 170"s 5.0 should i get the 340 center? I read somewhere that the 340 center was originally designed for the 170's. I just don't want something that will over power the 170 mains.

Also i need a reviver to power these and the cheaper the better.biggrin.gif I don't need all the bells and whistles just a couple hdmi ports. thanks for any suggestions.
post #3530 of 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigblockhead View Post

Hi everyone! I have a couple of questions. If i purchase the 170"s 5.0 should i get the 340 center? I read somewhere that the 340 center was originally designed for the 170's. I just don't want something that will over power the 170 mains.

Also i need a reviver to power these and the cheaper the better.biggrin.gif I don't need all the bells and whistles just a couple hdmi ports. thanks for any suggestions.

It won't overpower the mains. It can actually give you better dialogue dispersion through a wider seating area with that design.

Check Newegg for deals on Pioneer and Yamaha (subscribe to their mailing list for discount codes). Or, accessories4less.com carries factory refurbished, factory warrantied Denons. I like the Denon 1612. Last year's model that got a great review for a budget receiver: http://www.hometheater.com/content/denon-avr-1612-av-receiver
post #3531 of 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

It won't overpower the mains. It can actually give you better dialogue dispersion through a wider seating area with that design.

Check Newegg for deals on Pioneer and Yamaha (subscribe to their mailing list for discount codes). Or, accessories4less.com carries factory refurbished, factory warrantied Denons. I like the Denon 1612. Last year's model that got a great review for a budget receiver: http://www.hometheater.com/content/denon-avr-1612-av-receiver


Thanks for the info! This looks exactly like what i was looking for. Did you have any advice on what center i should buy to go with the 170 mains and rears?
post #3532 of 3912
Sorry i didn't see the comment about the center until after i re-posted.
post #3533 of 3912
Aye...bang for buck even if I was running 170 all the way around..I would get the 340 center. MTM is better than MT for off angle etc seating and you can play it louder.

I bought the 170 "Center" because it cost me 55 bucks used. I will probably use it upright and buy another for a 7.1 system..if I go that route.
post #3534 of 3912
So if I purchase the 340 L,R,&C would the HTM-200's be fine for the 4 rear surrounds? They would be a little easier to wall mount due to the smaller size than the 170's. Will there be much of a difference between the 200's & the 170's in sound quality especially since they're being used for surrounds?
post #3535 of 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigblockhead View Post

Hi everyone! I have a couple of questions. If i purchase the 170"s 5.0 should i get the 340 center? I read somewhere that the 340 center was originally designed for the 170's. I just don't want something that will over power the 170 mains.

It won't overpower the mains. It can actually give you better dialogue dispersion through a wider seating area with that design.

I think you have that backwards--in terms of horizontal dispersion over the width of the seating area, the 170SE performs better than the 340SE even when the 170SE is lying on its side (oriented horizontally). And when the 170SE is upright (oriented vertically), it performs WAY better still. For that matter, the 340SE would perform equally well if it were oriented vertically, but that's not real practical for most people. The 340SE's standard MTM configuration is just not ideal for use as a horizontally-oriented center speaker in terms of horizontal dispersion. Rest assured that Dave F. took all the necessary steps to maximize its performance in this role, as he explained here, but it still can't match the 170SE in this respect. The reasons the 340SE is recommended by Ascend for use as a center speaker are that its horizontal dispersion is considered good enough for most situations (but not mine) and it's a better speaker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newbie01 View Post

MTM is better than MT for off angle etc seating and you can play it louder.

It depends on the MT you're comparing it to, and the 170SE happens to be better in terms of off-axis viewing (so are many other MTs). The MTM configuration was expressly designed to limit vertical dispersion to minimize room effects when it is oriented vertically as it was originally intended to be, and when it is oriented horizontally for use as a center speaker, it therefore has limited horizontal dispersion. The 340SE is designed to work better than most MTM centers, but it is still an MTM center. My home theater has a very wide seating area (one seat is about 45 degrees off-axis, and another is more than 30 degrees), so I use a vertically-oriented 170SE instead because of its much wider horizontal dispersion (if I could accommodate a vertically-oriented 340SE, then I would have done that, but horizontally-oriented MTM centers are out of the question for my situation).
post #3536 of 3912
So would the 170 or 200 be a better choice for center when paired with 340 mains?
post #3537 of 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtenn View Post

So would the 170 or 200 be a better choice for center when paired with 340 mains?

For most home theaters, I would be forced to admit that the best match for 340SE left & right fronts is the 340SE center. As long as the angles to the farthest seats to either side of the center seat aren't too great, then you'd want to have a center that is at least as capable as your other front speakers.

My argument right above your post (with more details given in an earlier post) was in response to the false notion that a horizontally-oriented MTM center inherently provides the best and widest horizontal dispersion, when in fact the opposite is true. However, it is not the be-all-end-all of which center would be the best--other factors must always be considered for each specific situation in order to make the best overall choice.

Now, if a particular home theater could accommodate a vertically-oriented 340SE, then that would definitely be the right answer virtually every time for those who own 340SE left & right fronts, because its horizontal dispersion would be very wide in this orientation. I shudder when I think of cases I've dealt with where, for example, a TV is mounted above a never-used fireplace, and a horizontally-oriented center is flanked by two vertically-oriented towers--in such cases, a third identical tower (or "mini-tower" like the 340SE on its stand) would have been a perfect match with audibly superior off-axis performance, but the owner chose instead to use a horizontally-oriented center because that's what most people think is the right thing to do, no matter what (head-slap, face-palm!). Oh the humanity! wink.gif
Edited by Robert Cook - 3/9/13 at 11:40pm
post #3538 of 3912
Here's a pic of my HT room. A vertical 340, if sitting on the floor would come right to the black edge of the screen. I could also raise the screen a couple of inches and adjust my projector to give me slightly more room at the bottom. Most of the viewing is done from the couch directly in front of the screen. Occasionally someone will sit on the loveseat to the side. The couch is 11' from the screen. With this configuration would I need to place the center vertical or would horizontal be fine? Also would placing the center vertical make much of a difference in my layout?
post #3539 of 3912
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtenn View Post

The couch is 11' from the screen. With this configuration would I need to place the center vertical or would horizontal be fine?

With the 340SE, a horizontal center should be fine for the viewers who are 11' back, although for the viewers sitting on either side of the center seat the performance of a vertically-oriented 340SE would still be slightly better. Those sitting on the loveseat (same scenario I have), however, would benefit noticeably, I think, from a vertically-oriented center, otherwise it would seem that the midrange detail had substantially dropped out, making dialogue less intelligible.

By the way, for the best performance, a vertically-oriented 340SE should be tilted up toward the general ear level of the viewers. This will vary between individual viewers depending on their height and locations, but just do your best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtenn View Post

Also would placing the center vertical make much of a difference in my layout?

In what way? The only other thought I have is that you may want to move your left & right speakers closer to the screen in order to clear the loveseat for some of the viewers.

I gotta run now, but I'll get back to you late tonight to further analyze the layout of your home theater...
post #3540 of 3912
Hello all, the 340 center is definetely a performer and rest assured that its performance with center dialogue and dispersion is well engineered by Dave. The 340's are massively equiped for the job and its ability digs deep with choice of high frequency driver and its dispersion as well as the voiced crossover. In my opinion, Dave would never release a product that wouldn't meet the high standards of dispersion, accuracy, and output.

When it comes to measuring the performance within a setup there are many variables, what type of receiver, how close to the wall, what flavor of room correction, so many variables. The awesome thing as you all know is that Dave has engineered deep intentions and many variables have been minimized by use of high end drivers and the crossover methology to deal with many acoustical issues like polar patters and diffraction.

For the picture above, have you tried toeing in or moving further from the side walls? There could be some serious side reflections happening with whatever room correction system really trying to configure with possible high frequency reduction to account for those reflections even digging into the upper midrange due to their wave lengths not being long.

Please feel free to e-mail Ascend anytime friends, support is your given!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Ascend SE Owner's Thread