Ascend CMT-340 SE Center Channel Speaker Review

[Jon AA]

As long as your process [exposes flaws in speaker designs], expect some strong headwinds.

Fixed that for you. Seriously, unless damaged, speaker performance shouldn't change measurably over a couple of years. HAY, they're finally "broken in!"

Being at the mercy of manufacturers who will want veto power over any review isn't a solution if readers actually want measurements of a large number of speakers. Buying all those speakers could add up for somebody already paying for a Klippel.

 

[Shazb0t]

This is sold for both purposes so I calculated both.

Upright Preference Rating
SCORE: 3.8
SCORE w/ subwoofer: 6.6
View attachment 52257
View attachment 52258
View attachment 52259View attachment 52260View attachment 52261
Center Preference Rating
SCORE: 3.4
SCORE w/ subwoofer: 6.2

View attachment 52262View attachment 52263View attachment 52264View attachment 52266View attachment 52267

Ascend also posts measurements and I can compare them (they have the dip at 2500Hz but not the peaking at 1kHz).

The Google docs link on the preference rating for the 340se center incorrectly links to a Polk speaker. Just a heads up.

 

[Prana Ferox]

Regardless, I am getting tons of new speakers including some from manufacturers. He is underestimating the broad reach and influence of our site.

Ahem, I believe you mean to say he needs to reflect on the significant dispersion, both horizontal and vertical, of these reviews

What you highlight is just one a many things Dave says is flawed with your review process and speaker rating. Before Dave posted his evaluation, I thought the process of using used speakers was seriously flawed. You have a uber-expensive analyzer and you test used speakers. This seems bizarre to me. As long as your process is flawed, expect some strong headwinds.

Any and all audiophile demos use used equipment. The risk of testing 'used' speakers is that the 'new' model might have unstated revisions. Generally this is a very easy thing for the manufacturer to clear up and I'm sure Amir / the owner could provide the serial number to Ascend if that was a concern. Aspects of the speaker like dispersion are fixed by the design and aren't going to shift with time and use.

 

[ahender]

Fixed that for you. Seriously, unless damaged, speaker performance shouldn't change measurably over a couple of years. HAY, they're finally "broken in!"

Being at the mercy of manufacturers who will want veto power over any review isn't a solution if readers actually want measurements of a large number of speakers. Buying all those speakers could add up for somebody already paying for a Klippel.

The owner of this site has created a business model. He wants to be an influencer. Maybe more money should be spent initially. Instead of testing one used speaker, how about more than one from a different source? Roger Cicala, of lensrentals.com, is widely respected in the photo community. When he decides to test a lens he purchases up to ten lenses so he can rule out copy variation prior to posting his results. No one criticizes his methodology. Ascend's Dave Fabricant has pointed numerous flaws with amirm's methodology and ratings process. The only one amirm has addressed is testing used speakers. Now amirm demands Dave send him a new speaker if Dave doesn't like used speakers being reviewed. Amirm should post on this forum all of Dave's replies from the Ascend forum and address each point Dave makes. Right now, amirm has only picked one of Dave's comments to reply to.

 

[MZKM]

The Google docs link on the preference rating for the 340se center incorrectly links to a Polk speaker. Just a heads up.

Fixed.

 

[ahender]

Ahem, I believe you mean to say he needs to reflect on the significant dispersion, both horizontal and vertical, of these reviews



Any and all audiophile demos use used equipment. The risk of testing 'used' speakers is that the 'new' model might have unstated revisions. Generally this is a very easy thing for the manufacturer to clear up and I'm sure Amir / the owner could provide the serial number to Ascend if that was a concern. Aspects of the speaker like dispersion are fixed by the design and aren't going to shift with time and use.

Audio forums and recent speaker reviews are new to me. I've spent the last 10+ years on photo forums. In the photo world, if a camera or lens is widely regarded as being very good, when it is reviewed and the reviewer finds many faults, the reviewer typically will ask for another copy to review prior to posting the results.

When amirm reviewed the ELAC Adante, amirm did not like the speaker. In his review, he stated he reached out to the designer, Andrew Jones, to let him know what he was posting. (a) This seems odd to me; (b) Did he also reach out to Dave Fabricant at Ascend prior to published this review.

I have read quite a bit of posts regarding this website. There have been missteps and stumbles from the beginning.

 

[TimVG]

.. Or you can accept that while the measured loudspeaker is good, there is room for improvement. Other loudspeakers (Genelec, Revel, ..) seem to correlate very well with regards to manufacturer posted specs. Speaker to speaker variation is a reality but that is the company's responsibility, not the reviewer's. Improvements to the measurement methodology have been made, but even the very first measurements were nearly as good as some what you'd get out of a highly rated anechoic chamber. Honestly people should simply accept what is measured, and move on. If there is an issue with the measured speaker, the company should intervene, I remember Kali audio doing so as there was a definite QC issue on the first measured IN-8. It got cleared up. Ascend could do the same if they don't agree with the measurements, but it's ridiculous to try and discredit Amir's methodology or hardware setup.

 

[ahender]

.. Or you can accept that while the measured loudspeaker is good, there is room for improvement. Other loudspeakers (Genelec, Revel, ..) seem to correlate very well with regards to manufacturer posted specs. Speaker to speaker variation is a reality but that is the company's responsibility, not the reviewer's. Improvements to the measurement methodology have been made, but even the very first measurements were nearly as good as some what you'd get out of a highly rated anechoic chamber. Honestly people should simply accept what is measured, and move on. If there is an issue with the measured speaker, the company should intervene, I remember Kali audio doing so as there was a definite QC issue on the first measured IN-8. It got cleared up. Ascend could do the same if they don't agree with the measurements, but it's ridiculous to try and discredit Amir's methodology or hardware setup.

"...but it's ridiculous to try and discredit Amir's methodology". That is exactly what Dave Fabricant has done on the Ascend forum. I waiting for amirm to discredit all of Dave's comments.

 

[TimVG]

"...but it's ridiculous to try and discredit Amir's methodology". That is exactly what Dave Fabricant has done on the Ascend forum. I waiting for amirm to discredit all of Dave's comments.

The proof is in the pudding of course. There are measurements posted that correlate extremely well with manufacturer specs. There has been some argument over the Neumann measurements (which were still very good), and the result is that Neumann is looking into it as they take the NFS measurements seriously. I've looked at the post on the Ascend forum, and I'm seeing someone defending his product.

First saying that measurements don't matter as much as we think:

I was "all in" for perfect measurements from every speaker and stupidly argued with much more experienced engineers (my mentors) about why such and such should measure this way or that. It’s interesting to me now, having designed over 40 different commercially successful speakers, with overall sales far exceeding over 300K units – I have come to realize more and more that my mentors were more right than wrong.

Subsequently saying his measure better than in some ways

However, the C52 (due to being a WTMW design) does show off-axis vertical issues, something our lowly $300 CMT-340SE center does not show.

He also says things that are simply wrong:

However, if we sit 15 degrees off from the center, we do not hear that 15-degree response measurement, we hear the averaged response of the speaker – that is taking all of those measurements and averaging them together.

Of course the direct sound is what you hear first, as established in the Toole research - if you sit at 15° off-axis, that's the first sound to hit your ears.

If you look at Amir’s “predicted in-room response” (which averages various responses) – you will see the response of the speaker looks good.

Again, in-room response doesn't paint the entire picture, as determined by Toole, especially not the theoretical simulation as presented here.

Perhaps after a decade of measuring speakers, thousands of them – he will understand that there is quite a bit more to a speaker than just the measurements he is taking*² - and attempting to interpret them into some type of rating that will determine overall preference*³ is inherently flawed and biased

Which directly contradicts Toole*² and Olive*³.. How it is biased is also beyond me, as the top rated speaker currently is not even a Harman product. It was designed and manufactured half a world away, yet somehow they managed to make it correlate perfectly with a competitor's -biased- methodology.

 

[ahender]

The proof is in the pudding of course. There are measurements posted that correlate extremely well with manufacturer specs. There has been some argument over the Neumann measurements (which were still very good), and the result is that Neumann is looking into it as they take the NFS measurements seriously. I've looked at the post on the Ascend forum, and I'm seeing someone defending his product.

First saying that measurements don't matter as much as we think:



Subsequently saying his measure better than in some ways



He also says things that are simply wrong:



Of course the direct sound is what you hear first, as established in the Toole research - if you sit at 15° off-axis, that's the first sound to hit your ears.



Again, in-room response doesn't paint the entire picture, as determined by Toole, especially not the theoretical simulation as presented here.



Which directly contradicts Toole*² and Olive*³.. How it is biased is also beyond me, as the top rated speaker currently is not even a Harman product. It was designed and manufactured half a world away, yet somehow they managed to make it correlate perfectly with a competitor's -biased- methodology.

I think these are some of Dave's most important comments:

"Yes, I am well aware of Olive's research with regard to the preference rating. I have worked with ex-Harman engineers who shared different opinions and I as well as many other engineers I know do not agree with this preference rating. In many ways, it is like trying to determine what food someone will like best over another based on the ingredients used. "

"Amir should post measurements only - no opinions, no preference rating. If he did that, more speaker manufacturers might be willing to send him speakers rather than him getting used speakers loaned to him from various owners that could possibly have been abused, defective or even modified without Amir having any possible way of knowing. I know I would be more open to sending a speaker to him but not until that absurd preference rating is taken down and reviews & measurements are kept purely objective..."

"As I clearly indicated, that preference rating does not correlate to real world listening these days. I have listened to the Pioneer BS-22 dozens of times, it was assigned a very high preference rating, I found the speaker unlistenable and have corresponded with countless consumers who felt the same.... "

 

[Haint]

Which directly contradicts Toole*² and Olive*³.. How it is biased is also beyond me, as the top rated speaker currently is not even a Harman product. It was designed and manufactured half a world away, yet somehow they managed to make it correlate perfectly with a competitor's -biased- methodology.

I don't think the Ascend guy knows the preference rating originates from Harman/Olive, it seems he believes Amirm or forum members created it. Certainly he didn't when he made the original post, he has probably been corrected on it by now.

 

[aarons915]

"...but it's ridiculous to try and discredit Amir's methodology". That is exactly what Dave Fabricant has done on the Ascend forum. I waiting for amirm to discredit all of Dave's comments.

You should take some time to read some of the earlier review threads because this has been hashed out already and no Dave didn't discredit Amir's methodology, which is actually Klippel's methodology. The Revel C52 review shows a near perfect duplication of Harman's measurement of the speaker in an anechoic chamber a decade ago, this debunks any claim that the system can't filter out the direct sound from the reflections and that the speaker being "used" matters.

[The testing location for the speakers is the guy's garage. I haven't read anything which indicates acoustical improvements have been made. My first thought was that of an "influencer" on the internet posting what people need to do to take charge of their lives and become a success - all the while vlogging from his mom's basement. If I was testing speakers, I would not be doing it in a garage. There has to be universally accepted ways of testing speakers. I doubt a garage environment is on the list.

This is what you posted on the Ascend forum, it once again shows your ignorance of the Klippel system and you seem more interested in discrediting the measurement system than seeking any kind of truth. In short, it doesn't matter where the Klippel is setup and the acoustics of the room don't matter because the reflections are filtered out of the measurements. This system is about the best you can get and is much more advanced than what Dave at Ascend uses to measure speakers but I've never heard anyone challenge him on his measurements...odd.

 

[TimVG]

I think these are some of Dave's most important comments:

"Yes, I am well aware of Olive's research with regard to the preference rating. I have worked with ex-Harman engineers who shared different opinions and I as well as many other engineers I know do not agree with this preference rating. In many ways, it is like trying to determine what food someone will like best over another based on the ingredients used. "

"Amir should post measurements only - no opinions, no preference rating. If he did that, more speaker manufacturers might be willing to send him speakers rather than him getting used speakers loaned to him from various owners that could possibly have been abused, defective or even modified without Amir having any possible way of knowing. I know I would be more open to sending a speaker to him but not until that absurd preference rating is taken down and reviews & measurements are kept purely objective..."

"As I clearly indicated, that preference rating does not correlate to real world listening these days. I have listened to the Pioneer BS-22 dozens of times, it was assigned a very high preference rating, I found the speaker unlistenable and have corresponded with countless consumers who felt the same.... "

All anecdotal - the fact is that the prediction model was reached by correlating blind listening results to measured data, not the other way around. There is an entire AES paper dedicated to it. Not agreeing with it based on "ex-Harman engineers who share a different opinion" or one's own sighted experiences with one particular speaker does not make for a strong case.

 

[ahender]

I don't think the Ascend guy knows the preference rating originates from Harman/Olive, it seems he believes Amirm or forum members created it. Certainly he didn't when he made the original post, he has probably been corrected on it by now.

He does. I quoted "the Ascend guy" in my last post. He's also known as the owner of Ascend Acoustics.

 

[amirm]

The owner of this site has created a business model. He wants to be an influencer. Maybe more money should be spent initially. Instead of testing one used speaker, how about more than one from a different source?

I am not here to solve manufacturer's problem. You seem to be. The solution to that is simple: as I mentioned, if a manufacturer thinks products they have sold to consumers that are being used without thinking they are broken, indeed are broken, then they should send me a new one to test. If they refuse to do so despite the little cost of shipping, then you, as a consumer, you should assume the measurements are fine. To think otherwise is to be manufacturer's PR person, not an advocate of consumers.

As to my business model, it is one that has worked hugely well in reviewing nearly 300 electronic products. They are a mix of new, and used as speakers are. What you want to think about is the business model of a manufacturer who is likely used to giving free loaner gear to "reviewers" in exchange for positive outcomes. What I do disrupts that since I don't source my gear from manufacturers that way.

Now, good manufacturers do send me gear and they are the ones we cherish around here because they are not afraid of independent verification of their products.

Roger Cicala, of lensrentals.com, is widely respected in the photo community. When he decides to test a lens he purchases up to ten lenses so he can rule out copy variation prior to posting his results. No one criticizes his methodology. Ascend's Dave Fabricant has pointed numerous flaws with amirm's methodology and ratings process.

Wrong. He made zero criticism of the measurement system capability:

This is the heart of my review: measurements created by Klippel NFS. The system is fully automated and not at the whim of an operator cooking the results for one speaker versus another.

He argues about preference scores. I actually don't compute them, nor usually post them. They are based on very solid research as noted in his own thread and his criticism without data is worth nothing. Have him bring those "ex-Harman" engineers and tell us what they think about it. Don't give us hearsay information made to favor his point of view.

 

[ahender]

You should take some time to read some of the earlier review threads because this has been hashed out already and no Dave didn't discredit Amir's methodology, which is actually Klippel's methodology. The Revel C52 review shows a near perfect duplication of Harman's measurement of the speaker in an anechoic chamber a decade ago, this debunks any claim that the system can't filter out the direct sound from the reflections and that the speaker being "used" matters.



This is what you posted on the Ascend forum, it once again shows your ignorance of the Klippel system and you seem more interested in discrediting the measurement system than seeking any kind of truth. In short, it doesn't matter where the Klippel is setup and the acoustics of the room don't matter because the reflections are filtered out of the measurements. This system is about the best you can get and is much more advanced than what Dave at Ascend uses to measure speakers but I've never heard anyone challenge him on his measurements...odd.

I'm not an engineer or scientist regarding speaker measurements. I have not researched the Klippel system. The garage just seemed like an odd place to do acoustical testing.

Dave discredited reviewing used speakers and how speaker ratings are assigned. He did not discredit the use of the Klippel but did question some of the measurements.

 

[amirm]

The only one amirm has addressed is testing used speakers. Now amirm demands Dave send him a new speaker if Dave doesn't like used speakers being reviewed. Amirm should post on this forum all of Dave's replies from the Ascend forum and address each point Dave makes. Right now, amirm has only picked one of Dave's comments to reply to.

I have zero need or desire to re-test this speaker. I have so many other speakers and audio products to test, including another Ascend. The only reason to test another sample is out of professional courtesy and to help him. If he doesn't want to do that, it is perfectly fine and we will move on. Our work is done here.

I did address more points. Seems like you didn't understand or read them. He defended MTM design incorrectly by only considering on-axis. I explained how off-axis response is super important especially in home theater center channel designs. See: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nter-channel-speaker-review.11797/post-341373

Go and ask him on his forum to give an answer to this, including research references. The claim that "i have designed speakers for 40 years doesn't mean a thing." As he knows, speakers are mostly about marketing and that usually forces compromises in design. And that compromised design is what we tested. MTMs are attractive to consumers, so he built one, flaws and all.

Here is a great reference for you that I highly recommend to read before trusting manufacturers as your source of knowledge:
Sound Reproduction
Loudspeakers and Rooms
Dr. Floyd E. Toole

Dr. Toole is making exactly the point I made, and one that David did not consider or talk about.

It is clear to me he used enough technical terms to confuse you into thinking he had made valid points. He had not. I suggest hanging around here and learning proper sound reproduction science.

 

[amirm]

I'm not an engineer or scientist regarding speaker measurements. I have not researched the Klippel system. The garage just seemed like an odd place to do acoustical testing.

Well, that is the problem. The main reason the Klippel NFS system costs US $100,000 is because it can be used anywhere, including an office space or storage area. Here is a picture of the system measuring a Focal speaker:

See? It is just an ordinary warehouse space.

Here is one being put together in again, an ordinary garage like space:

The system is designed to make measurements of speakers very close to the drivers. As a result, it doesn't care about ambient noise. It also uses dual scans and advance mathematics to get rid of reflections in the room, presenting more accurate data than anechoic chambers which look fancy but have problems despite their expense.

This is not our or my first rodeo. The science in this area is one of my core expertise. If it is not yours or the designers, then hang around here and learn. Don't throw rocks. All of this is being done to benefit you as a consumer. Where would you be without people performing reviews of cameras and lenses?

 

[Haint]

He does. I quoted "the Ascend guy" in my last post. He's also known as the owner of Ascend Acoustics.

He posted that after it was pointed out and he was corrected on it. Seems to me he would have mentioned that tidbit in the original post and not referred to it as "something Amirm came up with". I honestly can't fault him for that though, he clearly had a very loose (if any) knowledge of ASR beforehand and almost everyone would have made the same assumption at first blush. The very obvious "I knew the whole time!" backpeddle is juvenile though.

 

[617]

Apart from the weird distortion spike with the RAAL tweeter, both Ascend products measure exactly as I would expect them to - which is pretty well, by the standards of nice-drivers-on-a-flat-baffle MT and MTM speakers.

MTMs don't work for center channels. They are not a hifi solution unless you are using a big waveguide between the woofers and even then it is bad solution. This one doesn't measure particularly badly or particularly well.

I don't see what all the fuss is about here.

Regarding the outrage over Amir testing used products, I would rather he test units which have been run in for a while, so that any problems that may manifest with time are shown (although I think modern drivers have few of these issues.)

I could take or leave Amir's listening impressions and the preference score, the latter of which ignores output capability (important) to my knowledge, but the data about frequency response and dispersion is a big resource which manufacturers almost never publish. Regarding that data, as I mentioned earlier, what we are seeing with this speaker is exactly as I would expect.

If you aren't designing waveguides or using other directivity control mechanisms such as cardioid or dipole loading this is what the responses basically look like.