If you calibrate the system, they will all play the same level at your listening position.
Pick 1) or 2). I'd pick 2.
Pick 1) or 2). I'd pick 2.
Originally Posted by gohd You do know they have some new ones (340SE & 170SE) coming out soon, right? |
Originally Posted by Hyperlite so option 1 still appears to be the winner... |
Originally Posted by Clmrt But...that's ideal. To have the same thing in all positions gives the best opportunity for seamlessness. Like here - http://www.mksound.com If it's OK for THOSE guys, then hey.... |
Originally Posted by Alimentall Am I the only one who thinks it makes far more sense to have three 170s up front so they actually match better? |
Originally Posted by Alimentall Am I the only one who thinks it makes far more sense to have three 170s up front so they actually match better? |
Originally Posted by Bikedorian The 340C was specifically designed as a center for the 170's way before there were 340M's. Dave Fabrikant has discussed all the issues involved in designing an MTM center on the Ascend Forum. If anyone's interested I can dig through the archive and find the post(s). David |
Originally Posted by Tex-amp Having had a 170 for the center and a 340. I find the 340 a better center channel and they are a seamless match with the 170s. . |
Originally Posted by Alimentall Both of those can't be true, the logic doesn't work. A 170 automatically would have better dispersion characteristics and a more seamless match, even if the latter is only bit a tiny bit. |