Ascend CBM-170SE2 Speaker Review

[DanTheMan]

I have been working with ChatGPT Pro to try to better answer questions like this. It is not there yet but it happens that I was using CBM-170SE2 and Ascilab F6B as samples. Here is the comparison as generated by AI:

Metric	Ascend CBM-170SE2	F6B	Better
Preference score (↑ larger is better)	5.80	6.53	F6B by +0.73
Preference w/subwoofer (↑ larger is better)	8.16	8.47	F6B by +0.31
LFX (↓ smaller is better)	51.3 Hz	41.0 Hz	F6B
NBD On-axis (↓ smaller is better)	0.405	0.271	F6B
NBD Listening Window (↓ smaller is better)	0.329	0.264	F6B
NBD Sound Power (↓ smaller is better)	0.260	0.263	Essentially tie
NBD PIR (↓ smaller is better)	0.227	0.242	Ascend, slightly
SM PIR (↑ larger is better)	0.932	0.944	F6B
SM Sound Power (↑ larger is better)	0.952	0.954	Essentially tie
AAD On-axis (↓ smaller is better)	0.205 dB	0.465 dB	Ascend

Using the absolute preference-score grading scale we established:

Speaker	Preference score	Grade
F6B	6.53	A−
Ascend CBM-170SE2	5.80	B+

The most obvious difference is much deeper bass extension which helps boost preference score good bit. The build quality is also at another level when it comes to F6B as it should be given its higher cost.

When I read this, I see: if you want a broad pattern, get the Ascend. If you are looking for narrow, get the AsciLab. In old head speak: if you prefer the 'you are there' effect, get Ascend. If you want the 'they are here' sound, get AsciLab. Oversimplification I know, but it can give a newcomer the general idea. Both are excellent bargains in the audio world and it's just amazing what's been done with passive components, excellent testing facilities and solid design/engineering. All that's needed is a Yamaha RS202 or a WiiM Amp Pro/Ultra, a sub or 4, and you've got system for if not a lifetime, a very long time. The studio monitors I'm still using cost more than any of these entire systems 15 years ago without accounting for inflation or the source component to feed them. They are similarly capable sound-wise, but I also had to do so much trial and error to get great speakers because useful reviews were extremely hard to come by. I had to build a measurement rig to get to the truth and it all took a lot of time and was nowhere near as complete as what's available here and a couple other enclaves around the web. I don't mean to bemoan the past too much because it was actually a lot of fun, but we really live in a great time for audio.

 

[azzy_mazzy]

As someone who prefers wide-dispersion speakers and far-field listening over near-field, I do wonder how much the F6B’s more controlled dispersion makes up for its narrower dispersion compared to the CBM-170SE2. I suppose the F6B is more likely to sound tonally right in different rooms.

 

[Penelinfi]

I thought "you are there" is narrow dispersion as you only hear the recorded ambience
"They are here" is wide dispersion, because it adds your room to the mix, making it "sound like the musicians are in your room"

 

[YouDontHaveEnoughBass]

All else equal, the overwhelming majority prefer wide dispersion + more diffuse imaging in blind AB tests, it’s just tough to achieve that when balancing other considerations like in room tonality etc, like azzy said above the ascilabs are sacrificing width for control so they’re more likely to sound good in a given room

 

[a4eaudio]

All else equal, the overwhelming majority prefer wide dispersion + more diffuse imaging in blind AB tests...

Please provide sources. I wouldn't be surprised if this is correct, but I've never seen any research that shows this, much less for "the overwhelming majority."

 

[Timcognito]

Most of the image comes from how the source was mic'd and mixed. Wide dispersion takes a small amount away unless side walls are close.

 

[amirm]

What about F6B or C6B vs Sierra V2 or Sierra LX?

It essentially shows a tie between F6B and C6B.

Metric	Better direction	C6B	F6B	Advantage
NBD_ON (smaller is better)	↓	0.300	0.271	F6B
NBD_LW (smaller is better)	↓	0.291	0.264	F6B
NBD_SP (smaller is better)	↓	0.256	0.263	C6B
NBD_PIR (smaller is better)	↓	0.240	0.242	C6B
SM_PIR (larger is better)	↑	0.939	0.944	F6B
SM_SP (larger is better)	↑	0.948	0.954	F6B
LFX (smaller is better)	↓	39.6 Hz	41.0 Hz	C6B
AAD_ON (smaller is better)	↓	0.684 dB	0.465 dB	F6B
Olive Preference Score (larger is better)	↑	6.52	6.53	essentially tied
Preference + subwoofer (larger is better)	↑	8.40	8.47	F6B

The important point was that the raw Olive scores were virtually identical: 6.52 vs. 6.53. The F6B had the cleaner on-axis response by NBD/AAD measures, while the C6B had slightly better bass extension and marginally better PIR NBD.

The four variables actually used in the original Olive regression were NBD_ON, NBD_PIR, LFX, and SM_PIR. Their approximate relative weights in the paper were 31.5%, 20.5%, 30.5%, and 17.5%, respectively.

And here is the comparison to Ascend Sierra-1 V2:

Metric	Better direction	C6B	Ascend Sierra-1 V2	Advantage
NBD_ON (smaller is better)	↓	0.300	0.484	C6B
NBD_LW (smaller is better)	↓	0.291	0.324	C6B
NBD_SP (smaller is better)	↓	0.256	0.269	C6B
NBD_PIR (smaller is better)	↓	0.240	0.251	C6B
SM_PIR (larger is better)	↑	0.939	0.944	Sierra-1 V2
SM_SP (larger is better)	↑	0.948	0.969	Sierra-1 V2
LFX (smaller is better)	↓	39.6 Hz	42.5 Hz	C6B
AAD_ON (smaller is better)	↓	0.684 dB	0.321 dB	Sierra-1 V2
Olive Preference Score (larger is better)	↑	6.52	5.91	C6B
Preference + subwoofer (larger is better)	↑	8.40	7.92	C6B

The analysis is using way too much precision. I will need to ask it to fix that but for now, there it is.

Commentary from AI on above:

"The difference is about:

6.52−5.91=0.61
preference points.

Using the unchanged Olive equation, the Sierra loses primarily because of NBD_ON:

Component	Sierra-1 V2 relative to C6B
NBD_ON	−0.46
NBD_PIR	−0.03
LFX	−0.13
SM_PIR	+0.01
Net	≈ −0.61

So the interesting result is that the two speakers are actually quite close in their spatially averaged behavior. Their PIR NBD differs by only about 0.010, and the Sierra actually has slightly higher PIR and sound-power smoothness.

The main penalty for the Sierra-1 V2 is its on-axis NBD:

• C6B: 0.300
• Sierra-1 V2: 0.484

That one term accounts for roughly three quarters of the total score difference.

Also noteworthy is AAD_ON: by that metric the Sierra is substantially better, 0.321 versus 0.684 dB. This is possible because AAD and NBD are measuring different things: AAD reflects broad deviation from the 200–400 Hz reference level, whereas NBD penalizes local variation within ½-octave bands."

 

[amirm]

BTW, my work with AI is clearly showing that due to higher resolution of my measurements, preference scores are about 0.5 lower than that produced by Erin, etc. So for the above kind of analysis, you need to be using my data exclusively (or Erin's but not one against the other).

 

[DanTheMan]

I thought "you are there" is narrow dispersion as you only hear the recorded ambience
"They are here" is wide dispersion, because it adds your room to the mix, making it "sound like the musicians are in your room"

I’ve only ever heard it used the other way around. That’s how it was told to me back in the late 90s/early 2000s. ‘They are here’ analogy for narrow dispersion because they tend to sound more like a live performance with greater efficiency, power handling and thus dynamics and less artificial source width. More like performers are in front of you in your room.

‘You are there’ because of the envelopment sensation makes you feel surrounded by sound in a way that never really happens naturally in your room if someone or a group is playing music on a stage. It feels more like an alternate reality—something like even Dolby surround sound does.

So I guess it’s a bad analogy and I was hesitant to use it because when I first heard it, I thought of it the same way you do.

All I know is that I seriously want to build one system with each brand and have them talk to each other via WiiM when I want.

 

[Matt_Holland]

I’ve only ever heard it used the other way around. That’s how it was told to me back in the late 90s/early 2000s. ‘They are here’ analogy for narrow dispersion because they tend to sound more like a live performance with greater efficiency, power handling and thus dynamics and less artificial source width. More like performers are in front of you in your room.

‘You are there’ because of the envelopment sensation makes you feel surrounded by sound in a way that never really happens naturally in your room if someone or a group is playing music on a stage. It feels more like an alternate reality—something like even Dolby surround sound does.

So I guess it’s a bad analogy and I was hesitant to use it because when I first heard it, I thought of it the same way you do.

All I know is that I seriously want to build one system with each brand and have them talk to each other via WiiM when I want.

‘They are here’ is the goal of many hifi systems and is usually achieved using wide dispersion speakers IME. A common effect is for dry recordings to sound more real and musicians “in the room” by using the room’s acoustics to add spatial qualities. Many hifi setups have the speakers quite close together. Too close, in my opinion, to present a sound stage with a realistic width. Wide dispersion speakers can help somewhat to alleviate this. Without data as such, I think it can be argued that the hifi speaker industry has adapted to three factors:
- The fight for detail/loudness to win the showroom battle or which demo. Achieved by running the tweeter hot.
- enhanced spatial effects to make musicians sound like they are in the room and to help soundstage size with narrowly positioned speakers common in domestic setups
- upper/mid bass emphasis with lack of true low bass to give the impression of bass speed and help the speaker work in more rooms without bass EQ.

It is typically studio monitor speakers and others with narrow, controlled dispersion that present a small, more precise soundstage and imaging quality. This is the “window into the recording” effect. IME, this can sound like musicians are in the room, but only when the speakers are placed as wide apart as possible (without collapsing the centre image) and the recording has suitable imaging qualities and dynamics.

A typical studio monitoring setup with speakers around 1-1.5m apart and nearfield listening position certainly allows you to hear everything about the recording but it is nothing like listening to the real thing because the sounds the and sound images are so small. For realism you need a big room and speakers at least 3m apart, in my opinion.

 

[Endibol]

I don't know about the shipping costs, but in Europe for 468$ it's a good deal.

Don’t forget to add 21% (or so) VAT!

 

[YouDontHaveEnoughBass]

BTW, my work with AI is clearly showing that due to higher resolution of my measurements, preference scores are about 0.5 lower than that produced by Erin, etc. So for the above kind of analysis, you need to be using my data exclusively (or Erin's but not one against the other).

I'm surprised there isn't a standard for smoothing when applying the score!

 

[Matt_Holland]

Don’t forget to add 21% (or so) VAT!

Presumably the prices on the Ascend website do not include local sales tax? I realise sales tax is typically a lot less than VAT though.

 

[Inertiaman]

Presumably the prices on the Ascend website do not include local sales tax? I realise sales tax is typically a lot less than VAT though.

The prices don't include sales tax, but its also worth noting that many shipping destinations in the USA will avoid sales tax entirely, due to idiosyncrasies of the US tax system and Ascend's relatively centralized commercial properties/interests. A pair of 170SE2 to me in Arizona, for example, is $468 + $48 shipping for $516 total to my door.

 

[Inertiaman]

This speaker competes with the Ascilab F6B at around the same price anyway

The cheapest Ascilab (F6Bs) at $845 (+ shipping and tax if applicable) is nearly twice the price of the 170se2 at $468.

 

[cbelmont3]

The prices don't include sales tax, but its also worth noting that many shipping destinations in the USA will avoid sales tax entirely, due to idiosyncrasies of the US tax system and Ascend's relatively centralized commercial properties/interests. A pair of 170SE2 to me in Arizona, for example, is $468 + $48 shipping for $516 total to my door.

i just pulled the trigger on these as well. 516 total to my door also.

 

[pedrojoaquimborges]

Measurements look fantastic for the price. Something this solid was much needed at the price point. Find myself wishing the tweeter and woofer had even better time-domain integration - which is admittedly a ridiculous ask for this value and with analog circuitry.

I know constant graph and data requests can be a constant headache, but it'd be great to have group delay and/or longer spectrogram graphs to better judge low end response in the time-domain.

 

[FrantzM]

This review shines a light on Ascend, the brand. We , like many others, tend to latch on a few favorites, and forget about other companies that manufacture gear of quality , worhty of our appreciation and , yes, our money.

Ascend, Philharmonic Audio and many others deserve our consideration; not in a condescending, "helping them ou" fashion, t but becasue these are genuinely superior products in , comparable to those from our current darlings: Kef, Revel, Genelec, Neumann, etc ...

 

[Mort]

All else equal, the overwhelming majority prefer wide dispersion + more diffuse imaging in blind AB tests, it’s just tough to achieve that when balancing other considerations like in room tonality etc, like azzy said above the ascilabs are sacrificing width for control so they’re more likely to sound good in a given room

Can you cite that? I think it's a myth.

 

[Mort]

I’ve only ever heard it used the other way around. That’s how it was told to me back in the late 90s/early 2000s. ‘They are here’ analogy for narrow dispersion because they tend to sound more like a live performance with greater efficiency, power handling and thus dynamics and less artificial source width. More like performers are in front of you in your room.

‘You are there’ because of the envelopment sensation makes you feel surrounded by sound in a way that never really happens naturally in your room if someone or a group is playing music on a stage. It feels more like an alternate reality—something like even Dolby surround sound does.

So I guess it’s a bad analogy and I was hesitant to use it because when I first heard it, I thought of it the same way you do.

All I know is that I seriously want to build one system with each brand and have them talk to each other via WiiM when I want.

I think you got it backwards