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

j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
It was nice meeting you yesterday and you definitely have a good ear :) I think our thoughts on the two speakers was pretty similar. I don't know that I would call the A1Bs "veiled" but the tweeter does seem to be padded down a bit, perhaps to smooth overall speaker response. They seem more midrange focused and on that level they did extremely well - they're very detailed and clear in the upper mids. The CSBs are sort of the opposite, more width, depth and detail on the top, but lacking a bit in the upper midrange below the X-over.

Here are the ones I mentioned yesterday when you asked what were my favorite bookshelf speakers so far:

RM7XL Special Edition
 
zieglj01

zieglj01

Audioholic Spartan
It was nice meeting you yesterday and you definitely have a good ear :)
At least that mystery is solved - that is, who the forum member was.

Not to be negative - however, I have been somewhat suspect of the Arx,
only so much you can do for the price. However, I am sure they are nice
for the price.
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
I had no opinion of the ARX, which is why I was interested in hearing them since they get a lot of buzz. Above the x-over point they seem to have a dip that goes away as frequency rises. So they are crisp at the very top, but lack somewhere in the 8-10K range (guess) which makes some things sound less realistic or flat. I'd call them a good value, but not giant slayers. Perhaps a better x-over could help them? Not being negative about them either, just what I heard; I actually do think they sound good, but they could be better just like the CSBs could. The A1Bs also seem to be lower in sensitivity than listed as the CSBs are rated at 85 and the A1Bs at 86, and it was clear they were not as loud as the CSBs by about -3dB. They claim heavy cabinets lol. My A/V-1s are smaller than them and weight 24lbs :D
 
A

alphaiii

Audioholic General
At least that mystery is solved - that is, who the forum member was.

Not to be negative - however, I have been somewhat suspect of the Arx,
only so much you can do for the price. However, I am sure they are nice
for the price.
I know you have your reservations about the Arx speakers... I did as well...

I agree with j_garcia - they're not giant slayers, but very good speakers in that price range. I think I prefer them over the NHT Two based on the first A/B comparison I've done with them. Definitely better low end - more extended and cleaner - to my ears. The Two's treble is brighter, so I think I prefer the Arx there too. I didn't compare them directly to the Boston M25, but based on memory, I think the woofer in the Arx is clearly better. The dimple dome in the Boston is nice though.

The woofer is pretty impressive, and the tweeter is a variation of HiVi's planar that many people at PE's Tech Talk seem to like.... HiVi RT1.3 Planar Isodynamic Tweeter | 297-412

The main grip with the off-the-shelf HiVi tweeter seems to be the need for a higher xover point due to the not-so-stellar low end performance of the tweeter. It doesn't appear near as capable as the SB dimple dome or the BG Neo3 (in the Carnegie's) in that range.

I'm not sure what Jon Lane has done with the version used in the Arx (particularly the "C" version)... but perhaps this is why some seem to feel the low treble is the weak part of the A1b's performance.
 
A

alphaiii

Audioholic General
The A1Bs also seem to be lower in sensitivity than listed as the CSBs are rated at 85 and the A1Bs at 86, and it was clear they were not as loud as the CSBs by about -3dB. They claim heavy cabinets lol. My A/V-1s are smaller than them and weight 24lbs :D
The A1b is definitely a low sensitivity speaker. Audyssey is applying 4-4.5dB boost in my room to hit reference at 0dB volume. For comparison, this is about 1-1.5 dB more than the NHT Two (which we already know is low sensitivity), and on par (maybe 0.5dB more) with the Wharfedale Jade 1 and Boston Acoustics VS240 - Sound Vision and HT Mag both measured the sensitivity of the VS 240 as 83dB.

As far as weight - they are stout for the price range... but they are certainly not overbuilt cabinets by any stretch. I weighed the A1b at 15.4 lbs sans grill.
 
Last edited:
A

alphaiii

Audioholic General
It was nice meeting you yesterday and you definitely have a good ear :) I think our thoughts on the two speakers was pretty similar. I don't know that I would call the A1Bs "veiled" but the tweeter does seem to be padded down a bit, perhaps to smooth overall speaker response. They seem more midrange focused and on that level they did extremely well - they're very detailed and clear in the upper mids. The CSBs are sort of the opposite, more width, depth and detail on the top, but lacking a bit in the upper midrange below the X-over.

Here are the ones I mentioned yesterday when you asked what were my favorite bookshelf speakers so far:

RM7XL Special Edition
So it seems you're not entirely satisfied with the CSB either - or maybe you are satisfied for the price paid (not retail), but feel they could be better.

How do you think the two compare in the lower mid and bass range? I think the A1b is more articulate in this range than alot of speakers I've heard.
 
A

alphaiii

Audioholic General
I had no opinion of the ARX, which is why I was interested in hearing them since they get a lot of buzz. Above the x-over point they seem to have a dip that goes away as frequency rises. So they are crisp at the very top, but lack somewhere in the 8-10K range (guess) which makes some things sound less realistic or flat. I'd call them a good value, but not giant slayers. Perhaps a better x-over could help them? Not being negative about them either, just what I heard; I actually do think they sound good, but they could be better just like the CSBs could. The A1Bs also seem to be lower in sensitivity than listed as the CSBs are rated at 85 and the A1Bs at 86, and it was clear they were not as loud as the CSBs by about -3dB. They claim heavy cabinets lol. My A/V-1s are smaller than them and weight 24lbs :D
I do find it interesting you feel the Arx is lacking in the 8-10kHz range compared to the CSB...

Here's what DIY designer Paul Carmody had to say about the BG Neo3:
The BG Neo3 is pretty well-renowned for being a very good tweeter, and it is. You will never hear any sort of hiss or hash from them. In fact, its frequency response has a wide dip centered around 7000 Hz, which is where a lot of sibilance happens in recordings. As a result, the first few minutes you listen to this tweeter, it will sound a tad bit "dark" (Please don't say "veiled." I hate that word.). Human ears quickly adjust, however, and after a song or two the music will be quite clear. However, if you go listen to a normal dome tweeter after this (even one that measures ruler-flat like the XT25, the treble may seem somewhat accentuated because your ears will have to adjust again. This phenomenon is nothing to be alarmed about. The Neo3 is a very high-quality tweeter; it is extremely low-distortion, and fares quite well in the retail speaker market. The Neo3 rounds off this design nicely because it lends itself to long listening sessions without any fatigue.

So unless Danny did something with the xover to address that, it would seem the CSB is actually dipped in that range.

I agree the A1b tweeter is a bit laid back somewhere... I would have guessed a bit lower in frequency than you did though... particularly after comparing with the NHT Two.
 
J

Jon Lane

Audiophyte
To repeat a little of what I left in a similar thread elsewhere, it's interesting to see our Chane 'Arx' A1b in a nearfield system, and we appreciate the opportunity and insights.

The treble unit in the A1b is our 2nd gen update to a similar well-regarded technology measured at the Zaph site and found to have an attractive distortion profile - the result of having nearly four times the area of a 25mm dome is a proportional decrease in distortion. Combined with the speaker's higher dynamic average* this could make it more suitable for larger systems and longer distances. Regardless, the licensed XBL2 "SplitGap" woofer also has a rather more attractive distortion component than convention too. Together the two like to get up and go and we've tied them together in a design that allows this.

The design is therefore voiced to be sufficiently damped, which leads back into its higher than average "dynamic mean" for a speaker of its size. It's quite flat and depending on measure, tends to fall into +/- under 2dB from end to end. (In all speakers this also naturally depends on angular axis and distance, and nearfield use will naturally call these angles into play more).

The A1b is a true 8 ohm design, and will not sink the up to 2W some 8 ohm designs will if they're based on very low impedance woofers (the tweeter impedance magnitude is irrelevant. Note that the speaker's net size and F3 tell us about where its efficiency lies, and you can expect that a 5" design in X liters is going to have the same efficiency as another 5" in X liters with the same F3. Sensitivity will differ per load impedance, but efficiency will not.)

*A point not often made about loudspeakers lies in their relative damping. This ties back to the "dynamic average", or about where in loudness the speaker seems to hit stride.

A design can be built within an efficiency range that, while the response varies little, may occupy a +/- 1dB or more window, wideband. In other words, a design can be "let out" to seek its highest sensitivity specification, or it can be constructed to a specific sound quality which lies lower down.

This can have everything to do with the perception of musicality or authenticity in the sound, and it's another area in which the really subjective art in the science lies. Needless to say there's always going to be a tendency to seek high 2.83v loudness numbers and ruler flat responses in some areas, they're just not necessarily where we want Chane 'Arx' to be. We like to think that run by good sources and components at realistic levels the product line delivers our target family sound.

Lastly, we're also moving toward a third-gen Chane 'Arx' A1rx-c to replace the A1b, and have begun to explore the 4.5"-based category for desktop. The 3rd gen tweeter has a somewhat different response profile that allows refinements to the design and sound that we like. It's already in the A2rx-c and A3rx-c and will find the A1 and A5 platforms next.

It's been an enjoyable evolution for what is for us an unusual project.

Thanks again for the trial and happy listening!
 
zieglj01

zieglj01

Audioholic Spartan
I know you have your reservations about the Arx speakers... I did as well...

I agree with j_garcia - they're not giant slayers, but very good speakers in that price range. I think I prefer them over the NHT Two based on the first A/B comparison I've done with them. Definitely better low end - more extended and cleaner - to my ears. The Two's treble is brighter, so I think I prefer the Arx there too. I didn't compare them directly to the Boston M25, but based on memory, I think the woofer in the Arx is clearly better. The dimple dome in the Boston is nice though.
You seem to be stuck in some sort of Audio Causality Loop.:)
You sell your more favorable (and expensive) speakers, for the
nice sounding popular budget friendly speakers. I am confident
that the ARX is one of the better budget-friendly speakers out
there. > I also read that the Arx voicing, may favor the flavor of
some older Paradigm Mini Monitor speakers that I have owned.
Which would still be nice - however, the Monitors lacked some
in the treble department. > I also wanted more resolution from
them speakers.

As nice as the Classic Two is - it still falls short for the price >
The JBL Studio 530 is a better speaker

I do not like bright/sharp/edgy highs, however I want good detail
and definition from the likes of the Boston EWB (dimple dome) >
and the Seas tweeter in the Snell K7. I really do enjoy the modified
VR tweeter in the Boston E60 (more smooth than the E40) and the
E60, has the bass that E40 could not compete with.

I have listened to many types of different tweeters, and it will still
all come down, to the full design of the speaker as a whole.

Now how many weeks or months, till you post the Arx in the forum
classified ads?:)
 
Last edited:
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
So it seems you're not entirely satisfied with the CSB either - or maybe you are satisfied for the price paid (not retail), but feel they could be better.

How do you think the two compare in the lower mid and bass range? I think the A1b is more articulate in this range than alot of speakers I've heard.
Not disappointed in them at all, I don't feel they sound "dark" either, but I can hear what he is talking about. The first thing you notice about them is the huge stage they throw, yet still have great imaging. I can't handle tweeters that fatigue over time, so I really appreciate these ones. Zero harshness and good for long sessions. yes, I would sort of say it is a price thing - they are excellent for the price. At full price, I might have a harder time.

In the listening session, we also threw my A/V-2s back in the system and I have to be honest, I may switch back to them. They have so much more midrange kick to them with the dual midbass drivers and being 4 Ohm and 91dB sensitive. The old dome tweeter doesn't have the width of stage and lacks fine detail that the BG tweeter has, but they still sound very pleasant.

I do find it interesting you feel the Arx is lacking in the 8-10kHz range compared to the CSB...

So unless Danny did something with the xover to address that, it would seem the CSB is actually dipped in that range.

I agree the A1b tweeter is a bit laid back somewhere... I would have guessed a bit lower in frequency than you did though... particularly after comparing with the NHT Two.
That was guess and it is hard to pin down. It is in the tweeter's range that I hear this, though it could be lower for sure. Not sure if it is how the tweeter is or a result of the x-over. Interesting, because I didn't expect that to be in the tweeter; the dip in them seems lower than the ARX, which is why I thought the issue with the ARX was higher up. The CSBs could be a little better with vocals and midrange output in general, but they are a small 2-way so... The problem is, I have my A/V-2s and they have SO much more midrange output. Had I only heard the A/V-1s and the CSB-1s, I wouldn't have noticed this. My A/V-2s are midrange monsters and the difference between them and even my A/V-1s is similar: all of the sound is there in the A/V-1, but with the A/V-2 there's a lot more of it.

The CSB gets quite a bit of taming with the EMO-Q on and it makes for a VERY easy listen, though I still tend to listen to music analog direct because the separation and space the 105 has still yields better results.
 
A

alphaiii

Audioholic General
You seem to be stuck in some sort of Audio Causality Loop.:)
You sell your more favorable (and expensive) speakers, for the
nice sounding popular budget friendly speakers. I am confident
that the ARX is one of the better budget-friendly speakers out
there. > I also read that the Arx voicing, may favor the flavor of
some older Paradigm Mini Monitor speakers that I have owned.
Which would still be nice - however, the Monitors lacked some
in the treble department. > I also wanted more resolution from
them speakers.

As nice as the Classic Two is - it still falls short for the price >
The JBL Studio 530 is a better speaker

I do not like bright/sharp/edgy highs, however I want good detail
and definition from the likes of the Boston EWB (dimple dome) >
and the Seas tweeter in the Snell K7. I really do enjoy the modified
VR tweeter in the Boston E60 (more smooth than the E40) and the
E60, has the bass that E40 could not compete with.

I have listened to many types of different tweeters, and it will still
all come down, to the full design of the speaker as a whole.

Now how many weeks or months, till you post the Arx in the forum
classified ads?:)
Yeah I've been a bit all over the place with speakers... Sold the Boston VS 260/325C to keep the NHT Three/TwoC... kind of got bored with the NHT and sold those... missed the Boston...

I threw in an impulse bid on the Wharfedale Jade 1 on ebay and ended up winning them... I'd probably keep the Jades if I could find the matching center for cheaper... Although I don't like the big dip in the 800-1.5kHz range in the Jade C2... I wonder if the C1 has the same dip. I assume it is due to interaction between the mid and woofers, so if that's the case the C1 wouldn't be any better in that range.

I've never heard any Paradigm speakers... but measurements I've seen of the monitor series show rising treble... And some people complain about them being bright. I don't hear that with the Arx.

The NHT Two - yeah, well another impulse buy during the recent sale. I can't say it's near as good as the Three, and it probably won't stay. I agree - it falls very short of the retail price.

I didn't realize the E60 and E40 used a different tweeter. I thought the E40 was a little edgy - perhaps in part because it lacked any real bass... But I remember thinking the tweeter in the NHT Three was alot smoother.

As far as how long the Arx will stay... I guess we shall see. :)
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
Paradigms are bright IMO and always have been. I like them, but having owned 5 or 6 pairs of their bookshelf speakers across all of the lines and hearing most of all of the lines, the only ones that I think I'd actually bring home are the Sig S2s.

My favorite NHTs were the Evolution M5 and M6. A definite step up from the classic line.
 
zieglj01

zieglj01

Audioholic Spartan
We all have different definitions of the subjective audio word (Bright)

I consider Klipsch, Polk and Infinity Beta to be bright, compared to the
version 2, 3 and 4 Paradigm Mini Monitors. > I consider the Paradigm
earlier versions of the Atom, Titan and Phantom, more dull/dark, when
compared to the Monitors and Esprit speakers.

As the Audio World Turns.
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
I used Mini Monitor and Monitor 5s for a few years and was pleased with them. Had Titans and Atoms and enjoyed them back then, but they never blew me away.
 
zieglj01

zieglj01

Audioholic Spartan
I've never heard any Paradigm speakers... but measurements I've seen of the monitor series show rising treble... And some people complain about them being bright. I don't hear that with the Arx.
Paradigm on the series 6 and up, have boosted/tipped up the treble > they seem
to be pushing the HT side of things.

I will not buy the current versions Paradigm speakers. Also, it was the Mini Monitor
bass response that gave me ear fatigue.:) Poor bass can give me ear fatigue.
 
Last edited:
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
I used them as surrounds, so they didn't bug me. I tried out the Studio 40s after the 5s and after just a week, I found them fatiguing in the treble, even when watching movies. They sound better at lower listening levels, but cranked they were too "in your face". The 20s were a bit better, especially with more power, but still fatigued my ears. As soon as I heard the GRs, all of the Paradigms were sold :D
 
zieglj01

zieglj01

Audioholic Spartan
I used Mini Monitor and Monitor 5s for a few years and was pleased with them. Had Titans and Atoms and enjoyed them back then, but they never blew me away.
The Titans and Atoms bored me - the originals had no air from the tweeter.
I did like the bass from the early Titans, the one with the Vifa tweeter. >>
However, not much dynamics with them - the sleeping ants were safe. Also,
they were cheaply built and somewhat nasal and congested sounding.

I preferred PSB Alpha and Image and Boston CR speakers, over the likes of the
Atoms, Titans, Phantom, Esprit and Mini Monitors.
 
Last edited:
theJman

theJman

Audioholic Chief
Yeah I've been a bit all over the place with speakers... Sold the Boston VS 260/325C to keep the NHT Three/TwoC... kind of got bored with the NHT and sold those... missed the Boston...

As far as how long the Arx will stay... I guess we shall see. :)
Well, if you go impulse shopping again one you might want to check into is the XTZ 93.21 (I'm listening to them as I type this). I own the NHT Absolute Zero's as well; the XTZ's cost less and are nicer speakers IMHO. The Classic Two's are probably the 93.21's direct competitor, more so than the Zero's, and the Two's sell for a 60% premium.
 
charmerci

charmerci

Audioholic
Well, I received my Carnegie CSB-1's today. They are a nice sounding speaker. I've only had about a couple of hours with them so far.

New thread? (I'm not that articulate about writing about speakers. It'd be short.)
 
fuzz092888

fuzz092888

Audioholic Warlord
Well, if you go impulse shopping again one you might want to check into is the XTZ 93.21 (I'm listening to them as I type this). I own the NHT Absolute Zero's as well; the XTZ's cost less and are nicer speakers IMHO. The Classic Two's are probably the 93.21's direct competitor, more so than the Zero's, and the Two's sell for a 60% premium.
I can never remember, is the price on the XTZ website for a pair or are those prices for one speaker?
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top