Do you speak of the adjustable problem?
Not sure the Wilson’s adjust the same way but the downward angling to point the upper module yields a similar appearance.
Do you speak of the adjustable problem?
Sorry, I was joking. First there is a clearly avoidable problem with the crossover, then they kind of make it resovable in the mechanical domain, but leave it to the customer to be done. To the full benefit of never loosing contact with the technical origin of the sound, as not to negotiate the enjoyment of music with yourself. Wilson's appear unreal for a reason. That's what I was refering to as an 'adjustable problem'.Not sure the Wilson’s adjust the same way but the downward angling to point the upper module yields a similar appearance.
"Physical" EQ, probably the only type audiophiles would accept, even if obliviouslyCSS Typhon frequency responses
https://css-audio.com/typhon-tilt-mechanism
[ Crossover: 3-way 230 Hz / 2400 Hz ]
But graphs... about 1600 Hz
View attachment 276230
gotcha, but even before I deep dive into the design, the speaker has to make sense from a value perspective.Sorry, I was joking. First there is a clearly avoidable problem with the crossover, then they kind of make it resovable in the mechanical domain, but leave it to the customer to be done. To the full benefit of never loosing contact with the technical origin of the sound, as not to negotiate the enjoyment of music with yourself. Wilson's appear unreal for a reason. That's what I was refering to as an 'adjustable problem'.
(language barrier, 'deepl' understands it ;-)
And also different seating heights. I wish I had adjustable stands in my living room since my couch is abnormally low and it makes it hard to get my ears aligned with the tweeter.I don’t see the adjustable angle to be s problem. People set up their speaker differently, some like it pointing straight, some like it toe in . Having the ability to adjust up and down is another option .
Somehow I like you to defend the 'adjustable problem'. It's for sure a handy solution. Once set up visually, it will set the critical listener into the limelight of the auditory scene. Not the least, when the music stops talking a readjustment will urge, and it plays again."Physical" EQ, probably the only type audiophiles would accept, even if obliviously
There's no alternative to hifi stands, nothing?And also different seating heights. I wish I had adjustable stands in my living room since my couch is abnormally low and it makes it hard to get my ears aligned with the tweeter.
Honestly, the tube amp shown in front of it scares me.
This is the exact tweeter used in the CSS1tdx and CSS2tdx where it is crossed over at 1600 hz and 1800 hz respectively. I guess the difference is both of those speakers are ported. I really don’t understand why the 3 speakers are crossed over differently. See Amir’s review of the 1TDx which had some directional issues around the crossover. Maybe the 2400 hz crossover aids this?That really isn’t exceptionally good as far as tweeters go. The good ones do about .5%. The 2.4 kHz crossover point also seems a bit low for the tweeter, which I curious in on itself… it’s not. 19mm tweeter after all. It is devoid of resonances though, which is quite interesting. I’d be more worried about the non smooth frequency response and directivity.
I have the 2TDx and agree they sound great—-as do most reviewers but…Amir did not seem too impressed with how the 1TDx measured. All of the three top CSS speakers use identical drivers, just different in number, layout, and crossover frequency, and for the Typhon, no port for the top unit.I just heard them at Axpona. They are a beast at $5500. They exceed their price point by at least double. They are amazing.
I read Amir's review as fairly positive considering the speakers issues. I have the 1TDX currently as surrounds but I have built and owned the 2TD-X towers and MTM's and I think the bookshelves sounded the best and most linear to me. The towers and MTM's showed an even bigger dip at the crossover range than the bookshelves did in my REW measurements at my MLP.I have the 2TDx and agree they sound great—-as do most reviewers but…Amir did not seem too impressed with how the 1TDx measured. All of the three top CSS speakers use identical drivers, just different in number, layout, and crossover frequency, and for the Typhon, no port for the top unit.
My guess is With the additional woofer there is greater sensitivity which means less padding on the tweeter which also means the tweeter will get more power. Higher crossover prevents from over driving the tweeter.This is the exact tweeter used in the CSS1tdx and CSS2tdx where it is crossed over at 1600 hz and 1800 hz respectively. I guess the difference is both of those speakers are ported. I really don’t understand why the 3 speakers are crossed over differently. See Amir’s review of the 1TDx which had some directional issues around the crossover. Maybe the 2400 hz crossover aids this?
I don't like the fat transmitting triodes either, although I know such amps well. It's more about decoration.Honestly, the tube amp shown in front of it scares me.
Not the first choice for tube amps.The claimed sensitivity is not bad at 87 dB.
Not unless you use (for example) push-pull KT88s in ultra-linear mode. Which is probably not what you consider a good tube ampNot the first choice for tube amps.
You are right! But besides from that, I do not see any attractive USP regarding this expensive speaker.Not unless you use (for example) push-pull KT88s in ultra-linear mode. Which is probably not what you consider a good tube amp
Not the first choice for tube amps.