Ascend CBM-170 SE Speaker Review

[TimVG]

Keeping my above posts in mind, if we compare the M16 to the only speaker so far tested with a Raal ribbon, the Sierra2 - we can see just how much wider dispersion it has

Despite @Dennis Murphy and I not agreeing on the overall importancy of reflected sound, ironically his BMR loudspeaker would very likely tick many of my personal boxes.

 

[Kim_z]

Bit of a layman and more of an audio enthusiast, but I just wanted to say thanks. I wish I had come across this review prior to purchasing my ascend speakers. Although they are pretty good, they ended up costing $385 with shipping and I think I could have purchased something better for the money.

This whole thread has been an interesting read to say the least but here's my experience with these speakers:

I found them to be very fatiguing until they were eq'd. I couldn't find any reviews that mentioned them being bright at all, so I was confused and thought I might be losing mind when I listened to them. My wife said she could hear the treble outside my house, 50 ft away, so clearly that she could make out the lyrics. Imagine how my ears felt only 10 feet from them. The other thing I couldn't put my finger on was mid/high range bass distortion on certain songs. I knew wouldn't be a perfect solution due to acoustic differences.....but using your measurements as a reference I found the right frequencies to attack with my parametric eq, and lo and behold, the speakers sound pretty good. Not too bright, no bass distortion. Much more enjoyable listening and still a good speaker imho, but the quote about paying a premium for US assembled products might be very true with these.

Anyway, amazing info.

Edit: bass distortion was probably due to impedance at that freq range being less than 4 ohms and my amp sucking.....

 

[TurtlePaul]

I have owned a pair of the original CBM-170 (non-SE) since 2003. I have to say that I certainly got good value out of them. I am probably going to use them a few more years until I don't have to worry about my very young son pushing in the tweeters. Then I will shop for a better set with a much higher budget than when I bought these in college. Some thoughts/comments:

- It is interesting to see the dispersion difficulties of the SE model which many are speculating would benefit from a tweeter wave guide. The original (pre-2006 non-SE) model uses a deeper wave guide on the tweeter without the big roll surround or big magnet of the newer tweeter. It wonder how the original would measure in the spinorama in comparison.

- To counter any brightness, I don't toe-in the speakers at all but point both speakers parallel to the wall. Listening 20-30 degrees off-axis can tone down the highs somewhat. I think they may be voiced to not be used directly on-axis horizontally. I have pretty dead sound in my listening room with plaster over lath walls, high ceilings, and several layers of carpet over hardwood, which may also help.

- Regardless of the highs, these speakers need a sub to not sound bright because they just aren't capable much below 80 Hz. The high port tuning causes the aerogel woofers to just flap in the breeze below 60 Hz or so. Bass management is needed to protect the speakers as much as to fortify the sound below their range. The question I ponder is how much better is a speaker which performs better at 50 Hz which will still be crossed at 80 Hz anyways.

- Amir is right that brightness sells. The "upgrade" to Ascend's Sierra-1 speakers was a new tweeter and x-over which was voiced brighter than the original model. Of course reviewers couldn't help but to comment on the detail. Nobody complained about detail on the original Sierra's which suddenly became too 'laid-back' in presentation when the bright neodymium ring tweeter model was released.

 

[chych7]

I've had the original CBM-170s for many years and certainly would never describe them as "bright"; if anything, some of the upper notes are missing for instruments such as violin/cymbals.

I did do some quick measurements on my not so fancy measurement system (UMIK-1 & REW in my listening room, which does have a bunch of sound absorption, but room modes do pop up). When measuring near-field, I do see the boosted treble that Amir was measuring for the SEs. However when I'm >1 m away, the treble flattens out, and is more similar to the Ascend measurements (1 m distance, quasi-anechoic). Thus I am left wondering if the room/far-field estimate is inaccurate for this speaker and the near-field measurement methodology...

 

[krabapple]

A 15dB-wide DI plot of the CBM170 doesn't look too bad when compared to those of some of the other speakers at the same scale.
In fact it's identical to that of the M22.

and NB the Revel M22 are ~$900/pr used , vs the Ascend Acoustics CBM170SE @ ~$300/pr new.

 

[krabapple]

For fun (because I've owned both Ascend and Behringer) I ran these against the Behringer 2030Ps and Revel M22s (which I have not heard) in Etienne's Loudspeaker explorer. Comparing Amir's comments on the Ascend and Behringer in their reviews, where (after EQing), he seems to have much better things to say about the Behringers, I'm curious to know which of the many measurements account for the Ascends being the more predictedly 'preferred' of the two 'budget' speakers, in the Olive Preference scale, and both being far less 'preferred' than Revel M22s.

 

[chych7]

For fun (because I've owned both Ascend and Behringer) I ran these against the Behringer 2030Ps and Revel M22s (which I have not heard) in Etienne's Loudspeaker explorer. Comparing Amir's comments on the Ascend and Behringer in their reviews, where (after EQing), he seems to have much better things to say about the Behringers, I'm curious to know which of the many measurements account for the Ascends being the more predictedly 'preferred' of the two 'budget' speakers, in the Olive Preference scale, and both being far less 'preferred' than Revel M22s.

Add in the SVS Ultra Bookshelf and Elac DBR62 to the comparison, compare with Amir's comments, and then try and make sense of all of this...

 

[krabapple]

It looks to me that the Ascends have a nicer 'native' FR, but the Behringer's native FR aberrations can be more easily fixed with EQ (and fixing the Ascend's on-axis EQ would not fix its off-axis issues) at which point the Behringers FR is as good or better than the Ascends. The Behringers have better native off axis performance and directivity generally, as well as deeper bass (though both speakers should be used with subwoofers) . They can both play 'loud' too. So I get how Amir could have liked the Behringers better but I don't get how they do worse in the Olive metric*, nor how both are predicted to do *decisively* worse than the Revel.

*Which metric I admit to not grasping 100%..! I need to remedy that.

 

[raistlin65]

I've had the original CBM-170s for many years and certainly would never describe them as "bright"; if anything, some of the upper notes are missing for instruments such as violin/cymbals.

I did do some quick measurements on my not so fancy measurement system (UMIK-1 & REW in my listening room, which does have a bunch of sound absorption, but room modes do pop up). When measuring near-field, I do see the boosted treble that Amir was measuring for the SEs. However when I'm >1 m away, the treble flattens out, and is more similar to the Ascend measurements (1 m distance, quasi-anechoic). Thus I am left wondering if the room/far-field estimate is inaccurate for this speaker and the near-field measurement methodology...

I wouldn't stress to much about it. Amir's measurements of on axis response and Ascends do reflect a similar level of linearity. Just ignore the red arrow that Amir drew.

And I can see how his subjective assessment was that they sound bright. They were designed to be used with a sub. Note where Amir said, "I compared the CBM-170 SE against the Pioneer SP-BS22. Despite being a larger speaker and hence has more bass..." That's an inaccurate characterization due to the design goals and a bad comparison. The Pioneers have a rize in bass below 100hz, and then roll off at 70hz. Whereas the CBM-170 SEs have a midbass bump between 100hz and 200hz, and are rolling off by 100hz. So the CBM-170 SE should have a brighter sound without the lower midbass that the Pioneer has.

 

[krabapple]

I can't imagine it makes a giant difference, but I wonder if grill vs no grill has a significant effect. (And whether Ascend's own measurements were taken with or without the grill)

 

[chych7]

Grille on attenuates higher freqs by a small amount, it's nearly negligible. Something like >10 kHz gets 0.5 dB attenuation at typical far field listening distances. It's very standard to remove grille for any measurement tests.

Anyways I'm more concerned that the far field/in-room estimate is misleading. I haven't seen much validation of that prediction for the reviews here; far-field response can be really different than near-field. A lot of speaker measurements that Amir posts disagree with manufacturer data (which are usually collected in far-field anechoic conditions), with little explanation as to why.

 

[MDINNO]

The speaker tested here isn't the new SE model it's the older 170. Just take all these tests here with a grain of salt. You could say the 170SE is one of the best, if not the best, sub $500 for the pair speakers on the market.

 

[krabapple]

The speaker tested here isn't the new SE model it's the older 170. Just take all these tests here with a grain of salt. You could say the 170SE is one of the best, if not the best, sub $500 for the pair speakers on the market.

Any idea what are the design differences between the older and the SE model?

 

[MDINNO]

Any idea what are the design differences between the older and the SE model?

Upgraded woofers, and improved tweeters by SEAS of Norway.

 

[Beave]

The speaker tested is/was the SE version. Look at the picture of the back of the speaker and near the bottom you'll see the "Signature Edition" sticker.

 

[MDINNO]

The speaker tested is/was the SE version. Look at the picture of the back of the speaker and near the bottom you'll see the "Signature Edition" sticker.

Yeah I see that. My mistake but I stand by take all these reviews with a grain of salt. You could take the greatest measuring speaker take it home and it sounds like crap. You won't find a better pair of speakers under $500.

 

[krabapple]

If that 'greatest measuring' speaker sounds like crap at home, your room is probably the problem.

On that basis, i.e., one that does value objective performance,, a search for a better pair of speakers <$500 could start with the growing database(s) of speaker measurements kept by several of ASR's readers.

For me, the most important caveat would be that no speaker of this size should get points off for limited bass performance. Such speakers need subwoofers in any system that aims at 'hi fi'.

 

[trevor_bartram]

I'm looking to replace Snell J IIs in a small bedroom HT system. I have not been able to get satisfactory vocal presentation despite the use of tone controls. A recent YT video by Cheapaudioman recommended these Ascend speakers as an alternative to the Kef LS50s (I like their sound). If these Ascend speakers are judged by midrange (vocal) clarity alone, do they excel or is there better at this price?
Being a small bedroom, the restricted bass is a plus. I'm not overly concerned by the mild brightness. I have another similar system using Mission speakers that sounds fine.

 

[617]

I'm looking to replace Snell J IIs in a small bedroom HT system. I have not been able to get satisfactory vocal presentation despite the use of tone controls. A recent YT video by Cheapaudioman recommended these Ascend speakers as an alternative to the Kef LS50s (I like their sound). If these Ascend speakers are judged by midrange (vocal) clarity alone, do they excel or is there better at this price?
Being a small bedroom, the restricted bass is a plus. I'm not overly concerned by the mild brightness. I have another similar system using Mission speakers that sounds fine.

I find that intelligibility in small rooms is typically impacted by nearby reflections, which can be helped with a speaker with narrower dispersion. You may find that an active monitor with a large waveguide like the LSR 308 or 306 or 305 or the Kali LP 6-8 would help more. As you may have noticed, simply increasing treble doesn't help clarity very much.

The 'shape' of the speaker's dispersion has a lot to do with clarity, more than simply how loud the treble and mids and bass are, and the Ascend speakers here are not fundamentally that different from the Snells - maybe a bit better due to the smaller woofer, but a waveguide is best for a small room.

 

[tw 2022]

I'm looking to replace Snell J IIs in a small bedroom HT system. I have not been able to get satisfactory vocal presentation despite the use of tone controls. A recent YT video by Cheapaudioman recommended these Ascend speakers as an alternative to the Kef LS50s (I like their sound). If these Ascend speakers are judged by midrange (vocal) clarity alone, do they excel or is there better at this price?
Being a small bedroom, the restricted bass is a plus. I'm not overly concerned by the mild brightness. I have another similar system using Mission speakers that sounds fine.

i am using the cbm 170s as center in 2 different systems, both in small rooms,they work fine as centers ,although the center in the smaller more cluttered room isn't quite as impressive.. i do attribute that to the clutter ...