Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 User manual

Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 Speaker
Manufacturer: Ascend Acoustics, Inc., 16921 S. Western Avenue, Building 111, Gardena, CA 90247; 310/719-9786;
www.ascendacoustics.com; e-mail: [email protected]
Price: $360/pair; $800/pair with Hsu VTF-2 subwoofer; $1258 for five with Hsu VTF-2 subwoofer
Source: Manufacturer loan
Reviewer: Howard Ferstler
Perhaps I should just make this a “speed-record” review and state right off the bat that the CBM-170 is a terrific
speaker – terrific at the asking price and terrific even if it were to sell for twice what Ascend has chosen to sell it for,
factory direct. But, hey, you probably want to read more than just a summary.
BeforeIgetintothedetailsaboutwhythisspeakerissogreat,IwillpointoutthatalthoughtheCBM-170isanOK
bass-reproducing system, considering the small size of the cabinet, it is best used as a satellite handling the range
above about 80 Hz. It can actually do a decent job of going somewhat below that frequency, but a pair of them will
best demonstrate their excellent abilities when working with a good subwoofer.
Indeed, the owner’s manual for the system encourages subwoofer use, and to press the issue the company has
beenofferingtheirspeakersintwo-,three-,five-six-,andseven-systempackagesincombinationwiththeHsuResearch
VTF-2 subwoofer that I reviewed in issue 88. The systems can also be
purchased along with the bigger, seriously potent VTF-3 model that I
havereviewedforTheAudiophileVoice.
Because of these deals and the nature of these speakers, I am going to
review the CBM-170 systems as if a subwooferwerepartoftheperformance
package. And while any good subwooferwilldovetailbeautifullywith
howevermanyCBM-170s youchoose to utilize, my subwoofer choices inthis
analysis will be those two Hsu VTF models, both of which I still have on
hand.
OK, now here is another summary. With the assistance of a Hsu subwoofer, I believe that any combination of
Ascendsatellites will standupand knock achip offtheshoulder of justaboutanyother combination youcanthink of
that is not designed to fill a huge room with sound. It can do this and still come out looking pretty good after the
resultingaltercation.Consequently,Ibelievethatyouwill want to check out these systemsforseriousaudiouse,even
if your wallet is thick as a brick.
As I noted, the CBM-170 is on the smallish side, but could not be considered as a “mini” system in the true sense
of the word. With the stylish grill installed, the rear-ported, bass-reflex enclosure is 12 x 9 x 10 (HWD) inches in size
andcontainsa6.5-inchwoofer/midrangeandaone-inchtweeter. Cabinet edges are rounded, to minimize diffraction
effects, although the grill frame somewhat curtails the advantage.
The woofer has a non-resonant polymer frame, a rubber surround (more long-term durable than foam), a cone
made of something called aerogel, and a phase plug to assist with midrange dispersion. The tweeter is a soft-dome
job,witha neodymium magnet andferrofluid cooling. Bothdrivers aremagnetically shielded,allowing the systemto
be used near direct-view TV monitors. Both are made by Audax and imported from France.

TheCBM-170’scrossoveremploysair-coreinductors and polyester film bypassinductors.Allsectionsaresecond
order,andtheyformfourth-orderhigh-passandlow-passfilterswhencombinedwiththenaturalrolloffofthedrivers.
The electrical crossover frequency is 2.2 kHz, with the actual, acoustic point being somewhat lower in frequency. The
tweeter also has a Zobel network and the woofer has an additional second-order, low-pass filter, forming a true
fourth-order electrical low-pass filter that only has an effect well above the crossover point. This is pretty serious
crossover work for a system in this price category.
Therated response is74 Hzto20kHz (+/- 2dB), theminus3dB point issaidtobe 69 Hz,the nominalimpedance
isabitunder 8 ohms(4.1-ohmminimumat200Hz),andthe input sensitivity(2.83voltsapplied)isatypicallyaverage
89 dB. The speaker can get along with amplifiers as low in output as 35 watts per channel (it would be hard to finda
decent, modern amp with that little power, of course), and it can handle momentary program peaks of up to 200
watts.Theconnectionsontherearmakeuseofgold-plated,5-waybindingpostsandthereisapairof_-inch,number-
20, threaded inserts on the back that will allow the system to be attached to a sturdy wall bracket. To insure that the
wall bracket will probably not pull loose, the CBM-170 weighs in at a modest 13 pounds. The speaker has a limited
five-year, transferable warranty.
Thesystemwouldnormallybepositionedvertically,with the tweeter above the woofer/midrange. However,for
center-channel use it can be placed on its side. The standard version has the company logo on the narrow end of the
grill screen, but the version configured for center use has it on the long edge and turned so that it does not look odd
withthespeakerplacedhorizontally.Otherthanthegrill-logodifferenceandthedifferentpositionoftheidentification
sticker on the back, the center version of the CBM-170 is identical to systems designated for left-right main and left-
right surround use.
Horizontal positioning with a speaker of this kind eliminates some of the more obnoxious interference-effect
problems you would get with all-too-common, horizontally positioned MTM center speakers. However, you would
stillgetsomelobingat certain off-axisangles.Forthebestcenter-channelperformance,theusermight try toorientthe
system vertically to see if it offers a significant improvement over horizontal placement. You would want to use the
vertical-oriented version of the grill if you placed the unit that way permanently.
NormallyIlistentospeakersbeforeIdoanymeasuring.However,myfirstexperiencewiththesespeakersinvolved
settingupa stereo pairof themin combinationwith aHsu VTF-2in myroughly 18x 22x 8.5-footmain listeningroom
and doing my usual series of moving-microphone, 20-second integration curves with my AudioControl SA-3051
RTA.For this session,I usedtheOnkyoTX-DS787 receiver I reviewedinissue86 and madeuse ofitssub-outjack and
internal,80-Hzcrossover.TheDVDplayerusewiththeDelosSurroundSpectaculartestdiscwasadiscontinuedSamsung
unit.Giventhecleandesignandminimalistapproach,Iexpectedtoseedecentperformancefromthesystems.However,
IwaspleasantlysurprisedtodiscoverthattheydeliveredsomeofthemostattractiveroomcurvesIhaveevermeasured
in that particular room.
After placing them on 28-inch-high stands about 2.5 feet from the front wall and centered 9 feet apart (about 6.5
feet from the side walls), I got a best-curve measurement that was +/- 3 dB from 63 Hz on up to 18 kHz. Better yet,
overthecritical midrange between250 Hzand 2.5kHz thevariationwasonly+/- 2 dB,which wouldbe aremarkable
achievement for even a considerably more expensive speaker.
Inaddition,whilemosttwo-waysystemsexhibit a dip of some sortsatthecrossoverpoint(insomecases,thisdip
can be substantial), the transition from woofer/mid to tweeter with the CBM-170 was considerably smoother than
most. Indeed, of the two-way systems I have reviewed, only the Waveform MC satellite, Dunlavy SC-II, and Atlantic
Technology 271LR satellite have surpassed the Ascend in that area – but not by much. And all of these systems cost
more than the Ascend model, with the first two costing a great deal more.
Indeed, the overall response-curve uniformity of the Ascend/Hsu combination was comparable to that of the
Waveform MC/MC.1 sub/sat package that I reviewed in issue 84, and even to the Dunlavy Cantatas I reviewed in
issue87. Kids, thissub/satpackageis right upthereplaying in thebigleagueswhen it comestolinearpower input to
a typical listening room.
A few days after doing the measurements I did a series of single-presentation auditions with a number of fine
recordings that have recently come my way. I used a different package of ancillary gear for these listening sessions,
including a Pioneer DVL-700 super-combi player (reviewed by me in issue 66), a pair of Sherbourn 1/300MB power
amps,avintageCarverC-1 preamp, and the AudioControlPhase Coupled Activator (thatI reviewed in issue68). The
PCA, in addition to its bass-synthesizing abilities, incorporates a separate, Linkwitz-Riley crossover with fourth-
order filters set at 90 Hz. The crossover was used to separate the sub input from that to the satellites.
Particularly impressive was a recording ofCantiones Sacrae Quinis Vocibus, by Peter Philips, as performedby the
Tudor Consort (Naxos 8.555056). The sound was absolutely superior and the performance was utterly profound. The
CBM-170 pair managed to bring out all the fine technical qualities of this presentation. Just as impressive sounding
with the speakers was a recording of An American Requiem, by Richard Danielpour (Reference Recordings RR97CD),
which is as fine an example of a massed choral group recording as I have ever heard.
A bit livelier was Danzón, performed by the Turtle Island String Quartet (Koch 7529). This mix of jazz and Latin
musical themes, with a bit of classical thrown in, exhibited very good detail, imaging, and clarity and it helped to
showcase the ability of the Ascend systems to delineate those qualities. The result was very impressive.

I also had a chance to audition a new recording of Vaughan Williams’ Symphony Number Two (Chandos 9902),
done by the London Symphony Orchestra. This was the original 1913 version, and the sound, as reproduced with the
Ascend/Hsupackage,wasterrific,aswasthe performance. Anyone interested in Williams’work will want to get this
release and compare it to the revised versions that came later.
Finally, I listened to Bach’s Art of the Fugue (Dorian 90297), a work originally composed for harpsichord but
played here to near perfection by the 15-member chamber ensemble Les Violons du Roy, conducted by Bernard
Labadie. The result was revealing, both of Bach’s music and also of the Ascend/Hsu speaker combination.
Iwanted toseehow the systemscomparedto several otherstereo pairs Ihadon hand. So,keeping the Sherbourn
ampsandPCA in operation,I broughtthe OnkyoTX-DS787 backinto play(using itsaux inputsand disablingits sub-
out feature), and got some extra cables, two more speaker stands, and a line-level switch box. Making use of the
Onkyo’s volume control and a pink-noise test signal, and using the SA-3051’s RTA readout to overlay the outputs
reasonably close, it was easy to adjust the two pairs of systems for similar average outputs.
Therecordingsusedwerethesamebefore,butIalsoincludedsomecarefulcomparingwithmyownstandby,the
Engineer’s Choice II disc (Delos 3512). The latter has a wonderful collection of excerpts that were recorded by John
Eargle.
I also included the CD-1 test disc recently produced by members of the Boston Audio Society. It includes some
spectacularlywell-recordedinstrumentalandchoralpassages,aswellasanorganexcerptfromSt.Saen’sThirdSymphony
that will tax even the biggest subwoofers. The $40 compendium can be obtained directly by contacting the BAS at
[email protected]. The payment also gets you a one-year membership in the Society, which publishes a very
informative magazine.
Note that this is a CD-R disc, meaning that while many CD players can track it with ease, most DVD players will
notbe ableto.All I havethesedays is DVDplayers, but thePioneerDVL-700 super-combi playerhadno trouble with
it. Firstinlinewasthe$600pairofNHTSB3systemsthatIreviewedinissue90.IcontinuedtousetheHsusubwoofer,
in order to make this a comparison of the satellites only.
During this session, I felt that the Ascends were a bit more spacious sounding at times, although when that was
happening the NHT systems seemed to have a bit better center focus. With the Vaughan Williams material, I felt that
theSB3swere abithollowsoundingduringsomepassages (theyhaveamildbasspeakin the80-100Hzrangethatthe
PCA’s 90-Hz crossover point could not quite tame), with the CBM-170s a bit more detailed. However, at other times
Ascendsystemsjustseemedtosoundatadthinner,andtheydefinitelyseemedatadleanerwhenthesounddemanded
a strong degree of fullness in the middle bass. Of course, some listeners might judge the SB3 units to be a tad bloated
sounding, with the Ascends being the accurate systems.
In nearly all cases the violin string tones were close to identical, although cellos tended to sound closer up and
stronger with the SB3s playing. For the most part, the result was a near dead heat, with each system taking turns at
slightly out pointing the other. If forced to pick a winner, I would have to take the Fifth Amendment.
To help sort things out, I also compared the systems with pink noise, and with a mono input the SB3 systems
again seemed to have a bettersense of focus than the CBM-170s. The latter systemsseemed to spread the noise out a
bitmore.Interestingly, withuncorrelated(stereo)pinknoise thingswerereversedandthe SB3systemssoundedmore
spread out and spacious. Ah, the tricks that slightly varying radiation patterns can play.
I wanted to see how the Ascend units stacked up against more formidable competition, and so I replaced the SB3
systemswitha pair of NHT’snew M6systems, withboth pairsagain sharing theVTF-2 sub.A bitlater onI reshuffled
the connections and compared the Ascend/Hsu package to a pair of full-range Dunlavy Cantata systems, with the
PCA crossover removed and the Onkyo’s 80-Hz crossover again controlling the sub/satellite interface between the
Hsu sub and CBM-170 pair.
Admittedly, this is some pretty heavy competition for such economically priced systems. For example, the M6
systems list for $600 each ($800 each if you include their dedicated stands) and although the Cantata has been
discontinued,itsnear duplicatereplacement,themorestylish lookingSC-IIIa,listsfor$5500 perpair.However,ifyou
aregoingtodrawconclusionsabouthowclose to perfect a pair ofspeakerswillbe,whynotputthemupagainstsome
of the best.
Duringthisface-off,IwassometimesstartledbyhowwelltheAscendsheldupagainsttheirmuchmoreexpensive
competition,atleastatmoderatevolumelevels.Withtheguitartrackson theECIIdisctheNHTsystemsandCantatas
were almost identical to what I got with the Ascend systems, with the M6 units being maybe a bit more open and
spacioussounding.Withfemalevocalstheresultswereaneardraw.With smaller-scale orchestral material on several
ofthediscs,theresults were evencloser,withtheAscendsbeingjustaboutequaltothe more expensivesystems.With
larger scale works the results were also similar, although at higher levels the bigger systems did seem to pull ahead.
With the organ tracks on the EC-II disc and the BAS disc, the Hsu VTF-2 was equal to the Cantatas at frequencies
down to about 30 Hz, although the small sub was no match for the Cantatas down really low. However, when I
substitutedHsu’snewer,$850VTF-3modelthe tables were turned and theCantatasweretheonescomingoutsecond
best, particularly down near and at 20 Hz. There is no doubt that a CBM-170/VTF-3 combination would be a winner
forseriouspipe-organenthusiasts.Oneneed only listen totheorganexcerptsontheBASdisctobevery aware of that.
Now,ofcourseI amnotgoingtosaythatthe AscendCBM-170systemsaretheabsoluteequals ofthoselargerand

more expensive systems. Remember, these comparisons were mostly at moderate levels. If really high outputs were
required in a large room (this would be the case with a home-theater situation, as well as with spirited listening to
rockmusic) the Ascendswould findthemselvesintrouble before thoseother systems.Itwouldbe this waysimplyby
virtueofthegreaternumber of drivers intheNHTandDunlavymodels.Thereisnofree lunch with speakers,butyou
can come pretty close with the Ascends if you make use of them in small to moderate sized rooms, where their
maximum limits are nowhere near approached.
About a week after this series of comparisons, I set up a five-satellite Ascend/Hsu package in my main room,
driving them with a newly acquired Yamaha RX-Z1 receiver (a review of this $2800 monster is upcoming). I ran the
receiver in its basic 5.1-channel mode (it can operate all the way up to 8.1 channels), and made fitting use of the big
Hsu VTF-3 subwoofer. The idea here was to check out this package’s abilities with both surround-sound music and
DVD movies.
The room has a front-projection TV system, so I could easily experiment with the center speaker in both vertical
and horizontal orientations. I located it on a 28-inch stand out in front of my regular center-channel speaker and
positioned the left and right main speakers on 28-inch stands, about 9 feet apart and 3 feet out from the front wall. I
locatedthetwo surroundspeakersdirectlyouttothe sides,aboutfourfeetup.They werepositionedsothattheywere
facingeachotheracrosstheroom.All speakerswere11-12feetfrommylocation,withthe subwooferintheright-front
corner, about 17 feet away.
The results were excellent. The matched, three front speakers in particular were a good combination when I
checked out a variety of motion-picture source materials. What’s more, I had no off-axis response problems with a
horizontally positioned center speaker at any listening position down the entire seven-foot length of my couch.
The side-located surrounds lacked the spacious characteristics of dipole surround speakers or the ultra-wide
dispersing Allison Model Four monopoles I normally use. However, they had the advantage of being identical to the
mains up front, which worked in their favor with some movie program sources. (Having them all identical also
facilitated doing a rapid set-up job with the RX-Z1’s channel-balancing noise generator.) With music I still tend to
favoramorediffusesoundfield,mainlybecausetherewillbenoneedforpinpointimagingawayfromthesoundstage,
at least with the kind of music I ordinarily listen to.
Fortunately,theRX-Z1hastheabilitytogenerateadiffusesoundfieldelectrically(manymodes,includingDPLII
and Neo 6), and in combination with the Ascend units the results were excellent with all kinds of musical material.
AndofcourseitisgoodtorememberthereisnothingatallstoppingyoufromaddingthreemoreCBM-170modelsfor
the full 8.1-channel treatment. One advantage of speakers this low in price is the ease with which you can get a whole
bunch of them.
Withsome DVD-A materialtherewere problems. TheRX-Z1lacks bass managementwiththe six-channel inputs
required for DVD-A, and so the somewhat limited bass response of the satellites put the pinch to the low-bass
performanceattimes.However, asIhavenotedinpreviousSkeptimania articles,DolbyDigitalandDTSareboth able
to give DVD-A a serious run for the money. And since all digital surround processors are able to supply both bass
management and speaker-distance corrections to those inputs, they often sound better than DVD-A.
This was the case here, and with the DD and DTS tracks on a number of fine DVD-A releases the Ascend/Hsu
combination was right up there in the big leagues. One fine, DVD video (not DVD-A), surround-sound release I
auditioned was Anthems From King’s (English Choral Favorites), featuring the Choir of King’s College, Cambridge
(BBCOpus Arts0835).The 5.1 tracksare DTS coded(at754 kbps),with2-channel PCM asthe alternate, andthevideo
picture is at a 16:9 ratio.
Overall, this disc’s sound with the Ascend/Hsu combination was first class, with wonderful integration of the
choral parts into the church environment. Oddly enough, there was no center feed, in spite of the 5.1 rating, but the
soundstaging was still equal to what you would get with any two-channel release. There is also some impressive low
organ bass on this disc, which was magnificently presented by the VTF-3.
Another DVD-A disc I tried that has superb DD and DTS tracks was Vivaldi’s The Four Seasons (Naxos.110001),
whichdemonstratedtheverycleansound,superbsoundstaging,andnicesenseofhallspacepossiblewiththespeakers.
The Four Seasons presentation on this disc has become a reference-level surround-sound presentation for me.
So, what do I think of the Ascend speakers? Well, to be truthful, the Audax woofer/mid has nowhere near the
massivemagnetheftorcast-basketsolidityoftheultra-high-qualityScanspeakjobsusedintheTriadInRoommonitors
I also recently auditioned. (I opened up both to take a look around.) And the Audax tweeter was somewhat of a
physicallightweight,atleastcomparedtothetweetersIhavecheckedoutintheTriad,Waveform,andAllisonmodels
I have come to appreciate.
However, it is the bottom-line performance that counts, and not magnet size, driver weight, or basket materials.
And those drivers, in combination with the crossover and decently well-built enclosure, resulted in performance that
easily rivaled speaker systems costing double or triple that of the CBM-170 units. In combination with either of the
Hsu subwoofers, their performance was exemplary, and I will not hesitate to recommend the package to anyone who
is looking for, $ensibly priced speaker systems that deliver upscale speaker sound. -HF
Excerpted -with permission from The Sensible Sound, Issue #92 Sept/Oct 02. Subscriptions to TSS
can be purchased by calling 1-800-695-8439