Sony SS-CS5 3-way Speaker Review

[tomtoo]

What realy made me wonder was a speaker that cheap designed by the marketing department measured that well.
Hehe i think about that poor engineer that had to follow this requierments and not get lost completly. Must be a great engineer.

Think!
Marketing: We need a speaker with a extra tweeter so we can sell it better for hires audio.
Engineer: Great no problem so what else?

Marketing: It should sell for 36 Dollar a peace and measure and sound not to bad.

Engineer: @#€%€€#@€^&

 

[gfx_1]

Unfortunately that's not a mid-range driver and thus not a classic 3-way speaker, but a mid-woofer, tweeter and super-tweeter, a result of the silly hype (and golden badge) of "Hi-Res Audio" https://www.sony.com/electronics/speakers/ss-cs5

But it does go from 53-50.000 Hz according to the site. My hearing stops at 13.000 these days.

 

[jeroboam]

I think it's influenced by @armirs preferences..I think he likes a deep round bottom and gentle highs. This speaker is just the opposite.

Yes I like to see a deep round bottom and gentle thighs too

 

[BYRTT]

As I noted in the review, I covered the super tweeter with my hand and it definitely reduces the high frequency spectrum. So it must play fairly low for me to be able to hear it. It may also be playing very hot which would go with the increased energy above 10 kHz.

Many thanks for another new acoustic review, in impedance graph crossover region for super tweeter looks be some 15,5kHz ish, these speakers cost is really some unbelieveable low, thanks being honest how feel is on sound performance although spinorama and score is not that bad, that said think not its a good idea publish a review and tell HF curve tendency is not really right and actual more hot than presented, because how can score then be calculated right relative to other objective reviews.

 

[QMuse]

Yes I like to see a deep round bottom and gentle thighs too

We're stil speaking about speakers here, right?

Although, this lovely lady also fits the description:

 

[jeroboam]

We're stil speaking about speakers here, right?

Although, this lovely lady also fits the description:

View attachment 65118

Exactly what I had in mind no measurements needed !

 

[Vladimir Filevski]

Having modified several cheap "3-way" loudspeakers with a "supertweeter" (actualy, 2-way with a spoiler), I can concur with others that a supertweeter actually damage the high spectrum, especially at this price level. The crossover looks almost unbelievably good for this price, with quality parts. Without the "supertweeter" and with redesigned crossover having the same BOM for crossover parts, this loudspeaker could be much better.
As for complaints about being subjectively too bright, I am certain it comes primarily from the high distortion in the range 2.5 - 5.5 kHz (crap tweeter). Elevated output above 4 kHz also "helps" a little bit.

 

[QMuse]

We're stil speaking about speakers here, right?

Although, this lovely lady also fits the description:

View attachment 65118

Btw, @BYRTT she's Dannish, so of course you like.

 

[tomtoo]

We're stil speaking about speakers here, right?

Although, this lovely lady also fits the description:

View attachment 65118

Gentlemans! Discipline please!

 

[carlosmante]

In a word: yes.
The reason being that for no extra cost they could have been much better. The marketdroids got to the specification and perverted what could have been a really good speaker or the money into something that misses. That should only be rewarded by a good bucketing.

The super tweeter is just useless vanity bling. The design of the tweeter baffle could have, for no additional cost, been an optimised waveguide, and placed closer to the woofer. Deleting the supertweeter could have freed up 50 cents in the BOM that could have been invented in maybe an inductor in the crossover. And so on.

The design cost of these speakers is likely dominated by the plastic mouldings. A teardown would be illuminating. It is possible the entire woofer basket is integral in the moulding. Hilarious decoration like the hex-head bolts are almost certainly part of the moulding. They will have taken the toolmaker effort and pain to do. All effort that would be better spend in design. Something like this is manufactured in six figure quantities. There is opportunity to throw a lot of science at the design in manner that does not change the cost or price, but yields far more satisfactory result.

 

[BYRTT]

Btw, @BYRTT she's Dannish, so of course you like.

Okay, its a good example distance can distort SNR and as nearfield as possible could improve alot on that

 

[carlosmante]

In a word: yes.
The reason being that for no extra cost they could have been much better. The marketdroids got to the specification and perverted what could have been a really good speaker or the money into something that misses. That should only be rewarded by a good bucketing.

The super tweeter is just useless vanity bling. The design of the tweeter baffle could have, for no additional cost, been an optimised waveguide, and placed closer to the woofer. Deleting the supertweeter could have freed up 50 cents in the BOM that could have been invented in maybe an inductor in the crossover. And so on.

The design cost of these speakers is likely dominated by the plastic mouldings. A teardown would be illuminating. It is possible the entire woofer basket is integral in the moulding. Hilarious decoration like the hex-head bolts are almost certainly part of the moulding. They will have taken the toolmaker effort and pain to do. All effort that would be better spend in design. Something like this is manufactured in six figure quantities. There is opportunity to throw a lot of science at the design in manner that does not change the cost or price, but yields far more satisfactory result.

".....for no extra cost they could have been much better"? Anyway according to ASR those humble Sony SS CS5 sound Better than 6 JBL models out of 8 JBL models tested to date. Maybe your point of view is not backed by Science.

 

[Ron Texas]

A mixed bag. Measures OK, but sounds nasty. I suppose one could say what do you expect for $78 a pair? Perhaps this shows the limits of the preference score.

 

[BenB]

I own a pair of these speakers which I have modified slightly, but even when they were stock I didn't find them bright. I don't see any brightness in the frequency response measured, either:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ma-frequency-response-measurements-png.65017/

There is a broad excess of energy in the range from about 900 Hz to 2.2 kHz, and a bit of a dip at 3kHz but otherwise these measure as exceptionally well balanced speakers for the price. To my ears, they sound that way as well.

I set out to improve this speaker, which Dennis Murphy pointed me to as being a great value even stock. I was prepared to generate a whole new crossover, but ultimately found that the biggest issue was diffraction, which caused the elevated response in the 1-2kHz range. I addressed that with an anti-diffraction frame, which also lowered the baffle step frequency contributing to better spectral balance.
I measured the speaker drivers and started simulating (they have an interesting series crossover between the tweeter and supertweeter, BTW). I figured I would need a more complicated crossover, but it actually needed a less complicated one. Shorting out one of the resistors in the woofer circuit gave increased attenuation at high frequencies, and an increased Q, which was also needed.
All of this was documented on this site:
https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-speakers/3068362-improving-sony-ss-cs5.html

I would be happy to send the frames I made (and 2 wires for shorting that resistor) if Amir would be interested in giving his impressions of the mod, along with measurements. I honestly think the on and off-axis measurements of the modified version are exceptional, along with the sound (as long as they aren't pushed too loud.)

I think it would make an interesting experiment to show how the diffraction frame changes dispersion, and possibly perception.

 

[tuga]

Wow! 5.0 is incredible for a $78 loudspeaker.

What does it do to the "with subs" score? Given the price tag and target market, I'll bet these are designed to be listened to off axis with no toe in(straight ahead).

 

[JohnBooty]

This is the weirdest review yet, for me. Even weirder that I'm the only one so far that seems to think that.

I most certainly agree with you. My opinion does not mean much, but according to the thread that @BenB linked to over on AVSForum, Dennis Murphy thinks pretty highly of these speakers and he's a legend.

I respect that Amir generally leaves "value for the price" out of his conclusions. Personally I would make that a big part of my subjective evaluations, however, I can 100% respect that he doesn't do it that way. I also respect that he simply didn't enjoy the speakers' sound.

But I am very confused that he flunked a decent-measuring speaker because of his subjective listening experience. That seems like the opposite of the ASR ethos and the way that equipment has always been evaluated here.

I don't mind Amir doing subjective evaluations. In fact, I really enjoy them. But I think they should be totally separated from objective measurements and scoring.

 

[ROOSKIE]

This speaker is just getting trashed here.
What a time to be alive.

For shits and giggles I rotated the measurements by 20 degrees horizontally and also subtracted the difference between on-axis and 20H to all the vertical measurements (this is not super accurate, you can't reliably calculate diagonally), and I came up with this:
This Preference Rating increases from a 4.5 to a 5.0.

I wish the off axis score could calculated for all of the systems. I have free range to toe and place as I like, many do not. I can guarantee regardless of what the manual does or doesn't say, many speakers are designed for off axis set-ups any I'd bet 90% of the average Joe's do not toe in anything.

Look at the Infinity R162 and the RC263C. The 263 does not have rising treble on axis the R162 does. The R162 without toe roughly matches the RC263C. I can not imagine that this is not intentional, especially since it is a Harman product.

Same goes for the Sony. I know the super tweet is annoying but really, it is compromise to be able to sell such inexpensive gear that generally must appeal to very uneducated mainstream buyers. All budget gear has many compromises. These speakers sound very decent for the low price. They are not giant killers but they sure do not suck based on their intended market which is not really the folks here. These have a nice nip of hifi for the price of Awai shelf gear. Someone destined for hifi will buy these and then upgrade later now inspired. The rest will have much better sound than the Bluetooth jam box they use often at the beach.

The design cost of these speakers is likely dominated by the plastic mouldings. A teardown would be illuminating. It is possible the entire woofer basket is integral in the moulding. Hilarious decoration like the hex-head bolts are almost certainly part of the moulding. They will have taken the toolmaker effort and pain to do. All effort that would be better spend in design. Something like this is manufactured in six figure quantities. There is opportunity to throw a lot of science at the design in manner that does not change the cost or price, but yields far more satisfactory result.

Dude a simple google search will tell you that your completely off base on this. This is a decently constructed unit with a quality crossover. This has been discussed online at other sites for years. It is not even remotely new material.
It also never seems to amaze me how everyone wants to ignore the target market/buyer. Ignoring that market is not science IMHO. I am not saying one has to appeal to the less educated buyer but if your market is that group you better know what "compromises" to make to excite them. The two main speakers in this group with mass sales are the Pioneer and Sony. Both are compromised, yet both are pretty decent given the absurdly low prices.
I can not bring myself to trash this system.

 

[JohnBooty]

I don't think there is anything bad in and of itself in a plastic basket. Thermal considerations are possibly the main problem, but we are hardly talking a high power speaker here. When a designer is value engineering something as low priced and mass produced as this, all sorts of possibilities exist.

Huh! That's interesting to think about. Now that you mention it, I could see a cleverly molded hunk of plastic (essentially, resembling the metal baskets in cast metal speakers, where there are reinforcing "ribs" molded into the the metal - sorry, I don't know the proper term) potentially being more inert than the thin bits of stamped metal that you often find in cheap woofer baskets. That stamped metal is often laughably thin in my experience.

Regarding thermals, is the woofer basket typically a big factor in heat dissipation? I wouldn't imagine so, but I'm purely guessing.

 

[MZKM]

I wish the off axis score could calculated for all of the systems.

I calculate a Listening Window score. You can see them on my master spreadsheet (click on my signature and go to Performance : Price LW / sub).

Calculating the actual score by toe-ing like I did for this Sony was a pain in the ass. I could maybe create an automation that automatically rearranges the measurements based on desired listening axis, but that is too much work and wouldn’t be super accurate either (can’t 100% calculate diagonal vertical measurements).

 

[Pepperjack]

personally I feel the people who are criticizing the personal opinion evaluation are off base. There is tremendous integrity here in that we have already established a sighted preference vs blind is a real factor. Therefore, it is imo very honest and puts himself on the line to give his personal opinion prior to getting the score. He could just wait, then make sure it always matched, and everyone would oh and ah and how great it is. But instead he gives his honest opinion with all his bias and humanity out on display. Then we can compare it to the numbers. This allows people who know how to read the charts to either identify what may be causing the perceptions from the measurements, or if they indicate some sort of bias etc. Much better this way, and anyone reading the thread can decide for themselves if they want to go buy Amir’s perception or the data, nothing wrong with that imo.

plus, I thought the preference score was supposed to be like 80% reliable? Which in and of itself suggest the measurements are either missing some elements or are limited in some way to allow a pretty wide margin of error-20% is not a small value, if I am remembering that correctly?