Head to Head Review: Ascend Acoustics CBM-170 SE vs Wharfedale Diamond 10.1

[j_garcia]

My main listening is 2ch, but for movies I definitely want multichannel. I did step down to 3.1 for a while last year when I moved and I thought I didn't miss it either...until I put the surrounds back in

 

[ousooner2]

Yeah 2.x for music for sure though. I like multichannel movies though

 

[2ndammendment]

I don't watch movies enough to warrant a multi-channel setup right now, besides the fact that the placement of surrounds would be so severely compromised that there would be no point. I would rather spend the extra money that would be spent on surrounds on better mains instead. That said I will probably have a multi-channel setup if I get a dedicated room for HT.

 

[2ndammendment]

Looks like the Arx A1b's are going to be here tomorrow, if FedEx's estimate is correct.....that was fast... Until then, I'm enjoying the CBM-170s.

 

[2ndammendment]

The Arx A1b's arrived about an hour ago. Initial impressions are that this is going to be a tough one. The A1b's and CBM-170's use very different drivers but they are both tonally neutral. They are closer than I could have imagined. They are both currently setup in my main listening room where the SVS Ultras live, on stands, far-field placement. I think it's going to come down to which one performs better at near field duty. I'm going to bring in a few more pairs of ears. I had my mind made up between the Wharfedale 10.1s vs CBM-170's very quickly, probably within the first 2-3 hours. I can already tell this is going to take a lot more time.

 

[ousooner2]

Well that's good for the ARX if they can compete with the beloved Ascend's. I would think they should top the lowest end Ascend speaker somewhat easily though Looking forward to hearing your opinions! Pics too

 

[cschang]

Well that's good for the ARX if they can compete with the beloved Ascend's. I would think they should top the lowest end Ascend speaker somewhat easily though Looking forward to hearing your opinions! Pics too

But it's not the lowest end Ascend speaker...the HTM-200SE is.

 

[zieglj01]

But it's not the lowest end Ascend speaker...the HTM-200SE is.

Did a bell ring?

 

[theJman]

The Arx A1b's arrived about an hour ago. Initial impressions are that this is going to be a tough one. The A1b's and CBM-170's use very different drivers but they are both tonally neutral. They are closer than I could have imagined. They are both currently setup in my main listening room where the SVS Ultras live, on stands, far-field placement. I think it's going to come down to which one performs better at near field duty. I'm going to bring in a few more pairs of ears. I had my mind made up between the Wharfedale 10.1s vs CBM-170's very quickly, probably within the first 2-3 hours. I can already tell this is going to take a lot more time.

I did a review of the Arx speakers, and I can tell you from personal experience they take a long time to loosen up. Give them no less than 25 hours -- 50 would be better -- before doing any critical listening. Trust me on that one...

 

[2ndammendment]

I did a review of the Arx speakers, and I can tell you from personal experience they take a long time to loosen up. Give them no less than 25 hours -- 50 would be better -- before doing any critical listening. Trust me on that one...

I can't say I'm a believer of speakers breaking in. Ive read just about everything you can find about the subject. From the research I've done, its more your ears/brain breaking in more than anything else. Sure theres mechanical changes that occur and they may alter the sound of a speaker slightly but I doubt I could hear the difference. Theres a larger measurable difference attributed to the voice coil heating up and surrounds loosening up during extended playback than there is from breaking in alone, so any difference that there would be, would likely be masked by the dynamic changes that occur as the speakers are being played(I'll tell you the truth, I cant hear the difference between a heated voice coil and a cold one). Its obviously a very strongly debated topic. I'll give both speakers ample time to "break-in" just to make everyone happy. It certainly wont hurt Also, Jon Lane who designed the speakers asked me to break them in, so I will.


As for an update on the review, both speakers are doing well. I've actually started writing down notes, something I haven't done before. I'm going to let my girlfriend who has a good pair of ears(shes heard some very expensive systems, and she use to be a singer) take a crack at the A1b and CBM-170's then we will compare notes.

 

[zieglj01]

Dennis Murphy measured the Cambridge Aero 6 speaker, with the BMR tweeter >
where several people and reviewers noted, that the driver/speaker so-called needs
to break in - now note on the chart, the red and blue lines for a 50 hour difference.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1504045/cambridge-aero-2-bookshelf-speaker/180#post_24151030

 

[theJman]

If everything audible could actually show up on a graph then perhaps those charts would prove something, but since that isn't the case I'm not convinced they tell a convincing tale. A multitude of highly respected speaker engineers -- including Jon Lane, the man behind the Arx speakers the OP is testing -- have clearly stated that break-in is anything but a myth. My own experience corroborates their findings.

 

[ichigo]

The reason why many loudspeaker companies call break-in a myth because yes, the FR response does change if you play the speakers continuously for a certain amount of time. But if you leave them be for a week and play them again, they "roll back" their FR response to the pre-break-in period.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

If everything audible could actually show up on a graph then perhaps those charts would prove something, but since that isn't the case I'm not convinced they tell a convincing tale. A multitude of highly respected speaker engineers -- including Jon Lane, the man behind the Arx speakers the OP is testing -- have clearly stated that break-in is anything but a myth. My own experience corroborates their findings.

A couple of points. First, speaker design and construction is a science, and it should be subject to empirical testing. I guess frequency and distortion measurements don't capture everything you hear, but they are a lot more reliable than subjective reviews made without any controls. If the Aero 6 BMR driver requires extensive break-in, it would show up in the frequency and distortion pltos--that's what drivers do--they reproduce frequencies, and hopefully without significant harmonic distortion components. Second, my plots don't show anything about woofer performance. That's the area where break-in has the most credibility. It stands to reason that woofer spiders and surrounds will loosen with use, given the the relatively long excursions they experience, and this should lower their resonant frequency and improve bass reach. The real issue is how long this should take--seconds, minutes, hours, days? My experiment didn't answer that question. But it did show that the useful response of the Aero woofer was about 3 Hz lower after 50 hours use than with no break in. And a very accomplished recording engineer was able to hear a difference in the woofer performance of the Aero in a blind test. Other listeners couldn't. My conclusion from all this is that there will be a minor change in bass reproduction with use, but it's not very significant compared with all of the other dimensions of speaker performance, and it may well take way less than 50 hours.

 

[2ndammendment]

I just did 11 hours straight of comparing the A1b vs the CBM-170. I'm exhausted, but I'm determined to pick these two apart. My comparison of these two will be significantly more in depth than between the Wharfedale Diamond 10.1s and the CBM-170's. The comparison will come complete with ABx logs testing the resolution of the speakers by attempting to distinguish higher bit-rate mp3's and flac. It will also include some more detailed notes on a few songs In which I noticed meaningful differences. I'm just waiting for my girlfriend to get some ear time in with these two , that we know I'm not just hearing things I haven't peeped a word about what I think, so she can formulate her own opinions. Can't wait to get this review out to those who it may help! I should have it up by tomorrow evening.

 

[alphaiii]

If everything audible could actually show up on a graph then perhaps those charts would prove something, but since that isn't the case I'm not convinced they tell a convincing tale. A multitude of highly respected speaker engineers -- including Jon Lane, the man behind the Arx speakers the OP is testing -- have clearly stated that break-in is anything but a myth. My own experience corroborates their findings.

Just to play devil's advocate - what proof do you (or anyone else for that matter) have that the differences you perceive to hear are from a speaker actually breaking in, and not from your own perception of the sound changing?

The problem is that it's impossible to prove something based on your own sensory perception. It's also impossible to prove someone isn't really hearing a difference... which comes back to the original problem - is the difference due to the sound output of the speaker changing, or the listeners perception of that sound changing?

I personally don't believe in extended break-in producing radical changes... and I feel measurements show enough to convince me that these night-and-day differences people tout after some magical number of hours of break-in do not really exist... but that's just my opinion, and it doesn't mean I'm right.

 

[theJman]

I personally don't believe in extended break-in producing radical changes... and I feel measurements show enough to convince me that these night-and-day differences people tout after some magical number of hours of break-in do not really exist... but that's just my opinion, and it doesn't mean I'm right.

Just to clarify, I never stated -- nor do I believe -- the difference is night and day. For me, the description of the effect would be subtle but noticeable. Your point is valid though.

My assessment is empirical, yet it was derived from dozens (literally) of different subwoofers and speakers I've both reviewed and owned. Industry luminaries such as Brian Ding, Ed Mullen, Tom Vodhanel and Jon Lane -- to name a few I can think of off the top of my head -- have all stated publicly that break in is not a myth. Other than someone like Dennis, who is obviously there peer, the aforementioned people have far more experience than the rest of us do so I would tend to concur with their conclusions.

 

[zieglj01]

The problem is that it's impossible to prove something based on your own sensory perception. It's also impossible to prove someone isn't really hearing a difference... which comes back to the original problem - is the difference due to the sound output of the speaker changing, or the listeners perception of that sound changing?

I have been broken-in a few times when listening to speakers,
a lot of that depends on my mood swing.

 

[alphaiii]

Just to clarify, I never stated -- nor do I believe -- the difference is night and day. For me, the description of the effect would be subtle but noticeable. Your point is valid though.

My assessment is empirical, yet it was derived from dozens (literally) of different subwoofers and speakers I've both reviewed and owned. Industry luminaries such as Brian Ding, Ed Mullen, Tom Vodhanel and Jon Lane -- to name a few I can think of off the top of my head -- have all stated publicly that break in is not a myth. Other than someone like Dennis, who is obviously there peer, the aforementioned people have far more experience than the rest of us do so I would tend to concur with their conclusions.

I wasn't directing the "night-and-day" comment at you... but there are many out there that talk about it in that way... just look at the reviews in the big mags.

And I'm not saying break-in is entirely a myth either... I've seen measurements showing a drop in F3 in a woofer after break-in, or data showing small changes in other T/S parameters...

I just don't buy that it needs long (50-100) hours to occur, and will always make a speaker sound better. I believe the auditory differences are minimal, if detectable at all... based on my own experiences with many different speakers - of course, I can't prove that there wasn't a difference just because I did not perceive it. But I have never once found a speaker magically opened up and improved in multiple facets of sound reproduction just by playing it for awhile, like so many reviewers and companies would have us consumers believe.

 

[2ndammendment]

Its time for round 2!!!!!!!!!

CBM-170 SE vs Arx A1b

The CBM-170's and the A1b are a much closer match than the 170's and the Wharfedale 10.1's(in my opinion). So this review is going to be much more in depth. I spent 11 hours straight doing cable switches between the 170's and A1b's the first day. So here we go.

I decided to try out the A1b because I heard it was a neutral speaker, and I may have more bass than the CBM-170. Also, Ive never tried a speaker with a planar tweeter before, so I decided it was the perfect time to try out a different technology.

I tested both speakers in two different rooms to try and mitigate any negatives that might be room/positioning dependent.



The A1bs narrowly escaped damage. It looks like something heavy with a pointy end was dropped on the box. This is a photo from the inside of the box. Luckily there was enough mechanical offset from the sides of the box, so the A1bs arrived without a scratch.




Unless otherwise stated, both speakers are being tested without room correction on pure direct and level matched.

Clint Mansell - Lux Aeterna,. The A1b's sound darker/smoother, more restrained. Violins dont carry as much energy in the higher notes. CBM-170's sound more open and engaging. They seem more dynamic. Instruments are more likely to pop out. The A1bs sound like your sitting in the front rows of a concert, the CBM-170's sometimes sound like your leaning over listening to the instruments

Creedence Clearwater Revival - Fortunate Son, In the intro, some guitar notes hang in the air significantly longer with the CBM-170s than with the A1b's. I'm not sure how the recording engineers wanted it to sound like, but I prefer how the A1b's handle those notes. The aforementioned notes seem more dampened through the A1b's.

Papa Roach- Last resort, The lead singers voice seems further back on stage and doesnt stand out as much on the A1bs.

Imagine Dragons – Radioactive, When tested in far-field placement, this is the only song I tried where the Arx A1b take a clear win. CBM-170s have an unrealistic top end emphasis here. Most of the time their top end emphasis makes songs sound more alive and vibrant(typically not in a unrealistic way). For whatever reason though on this song that vibrant quality is negative. Note: I played this song again when I set the speakers up for near-field, and I didn't notice as much of an overemphasis here with the CBM-170s as I heard before. However, I still felt the A1b's were a little more calm and composed on this track.


Master and Comamnder- This is the only movie content I tested, and I did it mainly to test the bass output - I don't normally watch movies on my computer. The A1b seemed like they had a bit more impact during scenes with cannon fire. The slightly more in your face CBM-170s were a bit harder on the ears during movie playback, I would probably throw an X-Curve on there to tone down the high frequencies for this type of content. The A1b's were easier to listen too.

Finally I did some somewhat objective testing to see which speakers have greater resolution and detail. I did some Abx testing between flac and 130kps mp3 as well as flac and 225kbps mp3. I don't have the patience to sit all night Abx testing so I picked something easy enough but not so easy that it wouldn't test the speakers out at all.

Here are my logs for the CBM-170

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.1
2014/01/29 22:25:05

File A: C:\Users\Danny\Desktop\Music\Scores\15 He's a Pirate.flac
File B: C:\Users\Danny\Desktop\Music\Scores\(130kbps)He's a Pirate.mp3

22:25:05 : Test started.
22:26:08 : 01/01 50.0%
22:26:46 : 02/02 25.0%
22:27:10 : 03/03 12.5%
22:27:36 : 04/04 6.3%
22:28:32 : 04/05 18.8%
22:29:36 : 05/06 10.9%
22:30:27 : 06/07 6.3%
22:31:07 : 07/08 3.5%
22:31:56 : 08/09 2.0%
22:33:10 : 09/10 1.1%
22:33:16 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 9/10 (1.1%)

Here are my logs for the A1b

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.1
2014/01/29 22:39:21

File A: C:\Users\Danny\Desktop\Music\Scores\15 He's a Pirate.flac
File B: C:\Users\Danny\Desktop\Music\Scores\(130kbps)He's a Pirate.mp3

22:39:21 : Test started.
22:40:30 : 01/01 50.0%
22:40:54 : 02/02 25.0%
22:41:38 : 03/03 12.5%
22:42:27 : 04/04 6.3%
22:42:59 : 05/05 3.1%
22:43:22 : 05/06 10.9%
22:44:19 : 06/07 6.3%
22:44:58 : 07/08 3.5%
22:45:42 : 08/09 2.0%
22:46:16 : 09/10 1.1%
22:46:21 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 9/10 (1.1%)




My ears were tired so I decided to give it a break and try again the next day with a higher bit-rate.

CBM-170

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.1
2014/01/30 17:28:32

File A: C:\Users\Danny\Desktop\Music\Scores\15 He's a Pirate.flac
File B: C:\Users\Danny\Desktop\Music\Scores\(225kbps)He's a Pirate.mp3

17:28:32 : Test started.
17:29:30 : 01/01 50.0%
17:30:45 : 01/02 75.0%
17:32:17 : 02/03 50.0%
17:33:15 : 03/04 31.3%
17:34:29 : 04/05 18.8%
17:35:53 : 05/06 10.9%
17:36:19 : 06/07 6.3%
17:36:21 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 6/7 (6.3%)


A1b

foo_abx 1.3.4 report
foobar2000 v1.3.1
2014/01/30 17:18:35

File A: C:\Users\Danny\Desktop\Music\Scores\15 He's a Pirate.flac
File B: C:\Users\Danny\Desktop\Music\Scores\(225kbps)He's a Pirate.mp3

17:18:35 : Test started.
17:19:57 : 01/01 50.0%
17:21:04 : 01/02 75.0%
17:22:06 : 01/03 87.5%
17:23:23 : 02/04 68.8%
17:24:24 : 02/05 81.3%
17:25:32 : 02/06 89.1%
17:26:36 : 02/07 93.8%
17:26:40 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 2/7 (93.8%)


The limit of my ears, on this song, on these speakers, and in this room is right around 225kbps. Obviously the CBM-170's did much better here,(6/7) compared to (2/7) . This confirms what I felt originally, that the CBM-170's seem more detailed and revealing. Is this because they have a higher resolution than the A1b's, or because they have a greater emphasis on high frequencies which makes it easier to spot the differences in compressed tracks? I can't say. Its just as likely that its either one, or both. I would feel obligated to do at least a few more trials using different songs before I declare anything, and honesty, I hate ABx testing. Its boring and tedious. Thats why I could only tolerate doing 7 trails on the last run, its hard for me to concentrate like that. Take it for what its worth.



Miscellaneous notes:

There is a significant difference in sensitivity(~5dB, assuming Arx's spec is for in-room sensitivity) between the CBM-170 and the A1b(the 170's are louder). If your looking for the maximum output for large spaces and you only have an AVR(like me) then the CBM-170s are probably your ticket. If I'm doing my math right, you will need almost 4x the power to get the same output out of the A1b's. However, this is a non-issue if your playing at only modestly loud levels in medium sized rooms. I had no trouble getting the A1bs to play loud enough to be uncomfortable. I did find myself turning up the A1bs louder than the ~5dB needed to match the CBM-170s, they weren't as dynamic at low volumes and needed a little boost to get them there.

Both the CBM-170's and A1b's sound like they have a bit of a “gap” in-between the tweeter and woofer. The gap on the CBM-170's sounds like its in the lower midrange and the gap in the A1bs sounds like its in the upper midrange. I'm not sure what frequency the tweeter on the A1b is crossed over at but maybe what I am hearing has something to do with their respective crossovers, or maybe it's that they are only 2 way speakers and I'm use to listening to 3 way speakers. Take this with a grain of salt. They are budget speakers and neither you or I can expect them to sound perfect. They both still sound very good, I'm just nitpicking.


I didn't find any off axis problems with the planar tweeter on the A1b's. They seemed to project a reasonably large sweet spot for the applications I tested them in.

A1b's feel more sturdy, they weigh 3lbs more than the 170's. The cabinet on the A1b's is fair bit more inert. Both cabinets are constructed reasonably well, but it looks and feels like Arx took a little more care constructing theirs. I already mentioned I'm not a fan of the non-flush face and back plates on the CBM-170s, it looks sloppy in my opinion. The woofer on the A1b is held in with 6 screws vs the 4 found on the CBM-170. The economy finish on both of these speakers is acceptable given the cost saving standpoint. I slightly prefer the matte black finish on the CBM-170's, my brain associates black faux wood vinyl wrap with cheap. I didn't find any obvious flaws with either one and there were no obvious sonic differences that I could attribute to the cabinets, they both do their jobs well enough.

I didn't get the significant increase in bass with the A1b that I was hoping for. The XBL2 motor design in the A1b seems to only have a slightly higher output than the CBM-170. Granted, there is a significant driver size difference(170=6.5inch vs A1b=5.3 inches). I have no doubt that if the A1b had a 6.5 inch driver as well it would have a significantly higher output.


Note the uneven face-plate on the 170's


The A1b has a much larger and longer port than the CBM-170. The port on the CBM-170 is made of solid plastic and is not flared, The port on the A1b is made of plastic and cardboard and appears to be flared at both ends. I was pleased to find at the cardboard section of the port seemed very ridged, its not made like a toilet paper tube.



The A1b's grills are much nicer. They are made of a very thick MDF and are attached to the speaker via 4 ball joints. The CBM-170's grills are fairly flimsy, and are attached with plastic ball joints. From a sonic standpoint I'm not sure if these things matter at all. I don't ever use speaker grills anyways, so it really doesn't matter to me. However, if I did use speaker grills, I have no doubt the grills on the A1b's would outlast the ones on the CBM-170, for what its worth.



Aesthetically, I can see the A1b's having a higher WAF. That said, they are both medium-ish size stand-mount speakers, if your wife has a problem with them – its time for a new wife.


The A1b's are taller than the CBM-170s, in my application this is a good thing as I don't have to use something to raise the A1b's tweeter to ear level like I do the 170's.

I have not noticed any sonic changes due to "break-in" throughout my review process.

Sonic signature: A1b vs CBM-170 SE

As Ive mentioned before, the A1b's do not seem to be quite as clear or revealing as the 170's. The A1b's still have some top end sizzle, the main area they are different in is the midrange. This makes me think the difference in sound might be related to the crossover or slight variations of the frequency response curve. I can't say for sure. Another way I can describe it is that the A1b's are “softer”, a lot of instruments aren't quite as sharp or crisp. The CBM-170's seem very dynamic and engaging. They are exciting to listen to. I think a lot of people might find the CBM-170's sonic signature more appealing. There are those who prefer a smoother more laid back sound, in which case the A1b's may be a better fit for you. I think the A1b's are somewhere in-between the Wharfedale 10.1s and the CBM-170 in terms of warmth. The Wharfedales were very warm to the point of losing detail. The A1bs are on the warm side of neutral and the CBM-170s are on the brighter side of neutral. The SVS Ultras are in-between the A1b's and CBM-170.

I decided run MCACC and see what in room frequency response of each of these speakers is like. Since I'm trying to be as thorough as possible, I ran MCACC in not one, but two different rooms. That way we can compare the graphs and if an anomaly shows up on one graph it can be compared to another to see if its just caused by the room or if it might be something else.

This is the correction table that MCACC applied to get each speaker to read flat in my computer room. Note, these first two are done in all channel adjust. I took pictures of what the right speaker in each case measured as.

CBM-170


A1b


I then went ahead and ran MCACC again in my main listening room. Note the differences in the way data is displayed is due to the fact that I have a newer Pioneer receiver in this room.

CBM-170

A1b




I let my girlfriend Kate spend some time with each speaker. Her sonic preferences are fairly similar to mine, but different ears and brains hear things differently. I did not tell her what I thought about each speaker so she could form her own opinions. When I went to audition speakers before I purchased the SVS Ultras I took Kate along, so she has heard some very nice systems(some worth over 50k). Basically, her ear is somewhat trained and she goes to live concerts far more often than me. Below are her notes on each.

CBM-170

“They sound more detailed”
“brighter”
“Backround sounds are brought more into the foreground, but its not always a good thing as it can be fatiguing to listen to for a prolonged period of time (it wasn't mastered to be that way)”

A1b

“They sound more cohesive”
“They have a richer sound”

Summary: Not sure yet. More listening needed.


Side note: I realized something pretty funny about half way though this review, funny to me anyways. The A1b's sound like what I imagined the CBM-170s would sound like, and the CBM-170s sound like what I imaged the A1b's would sound like! This was my first experience with Planar tweeters, and I cant wait to try out more non-dome tweeters in the future. If I have one piece of advice to those who are new to audio, it would be that don't worry so much about what a tweeter is made of or if its a planar/dome/ribbon etc. I use to be “that guy” who only brought speakers with silk dome tweeters, because I hadn't heard any well executed metal dome tweeters. I took a chance with the SVS Ultras(which use an aluminum dome tweeter) and I can easily say its one of the smoothest sounding tweeters Ive heard. That said, I've heard that soft dome tweeters are easier to implement, where as its a lot harder to implement a hard dome tweeter properly. So when shopping for very cheap gear, from questionable company's, it may be a safer bet to go with a soft dome tweeter. Otherwise, a properly designed tweeter is a properly designed tweeter. YMMV.