CSS Criton 3TD-X Kit Speaker Review

[Kerry Armes]

How about an option to use an active crossover?

We are working with Orchard Audio on one using six of Leo's amps and a DSP solution from Danville Signal Processing

Really like to see you guys stay in business as comparable options have thinned in recent years, but even GR has more than one tweeter.

Well, so do we We have 3 plus a waveguide version of the LD25X, it's just no one seems to care about the two lower end models.

 

[Ktacos]

The midrange disturbances of the CSS Criton strongly remind me of another 3 way speaker that was reviewed earlier this year: The Nubert Nuvero 60.

Take a look and compare:

View attachment 406177

Nubert NuVero 60 Speaker Review

This is a review, listening tests, EQ and detailed measurements of the Nubert NuVero 60 3-way stand-mount speaker. It was kindly sent by a member from Germany and costs €1,650 (US $1780) a pair. I had to take my diffuser out of the lightbox to fit the speaker in there so please pardon the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I find them baffling in both cases and have no real explanation for why they are there. Maybe you guys can sense some connection that I don't see.

Probably just diffraction from the cabinet/baffle. Gotta waveguide the mid or use very large radius roundovers to get rid of it. Diffraction isn't just a tweeter thing.

 

[Rick Sykora]

We are working with Orchard Audio on one using six of Leo's amps and a DSP solution from Danville Signal Processing

Look forward to hearing more in the future! Who is Leo?

Well, so do we We have 3 plus a waveguide version of the LD25X, it's just no one seems to care about the two lower end models.

Ok, but only the LD25X for this kit (and not the waveguide version). Yes, I missed the LD22 but it looks like the LD25. I get that carrying more parts is more overhead but certainly there are better tweeters you could offer?

 

[NTK]

Who is Leo?

 

[375HP2482]

Its bass performance (distortion) is underwhelming, especially for a larger-than-bookshelf speaker. Past ten watts it could use a subwoofer.

 

[375HP2482]

Thank you for your review Amir. Nice that you tested a floorstanding speakers this time!

They seem to be good speakers but it is relative, relation to price, as pointed out by:


Regarding bass:

I suspect the trend for slim floorstanding speakers is why they don't have larger bass woofers in them? They would be too wide in that case. What is the size of the mid driver? Hard to tell just by looking at the pictures, 5-6.5 inches? In any case, such a mid together with 12-15 inch bass drives, then it is given the opportunity to get lower in frequency. Even larger boxes in terms of volume might then be needed but maybe people don't want such large lumps in their combined living room, listening room these days?
What speaks against that, or which shows that there is a certain market demand, is for example Cerwin Vega. Here a three-way speaker from them with 15 inch bass driver.
Cerwin Vega XLS-15:
View attachment 406041
Then we have the vintage, retro trend regarding looks and such speakers are not exactly slim. I don't really know if I can generalize and draw any conclusions.

I can offer a few conclusions.

As more and more young people leaving college (and block parties) behind settled for apartment living, space became a premium, not to mention the need to avoid antagonizing the neighbors -- something C-V flippantly advertised as a feature, even handing out Neighbor Earplugs at tradeshows. Nowadays we have subs to do that, but they usually don't rise to the height of a TV stand. In the late 90s when bigscreen TVs became available, many living spaces couldn't afford the additional space taken by a small fridge-sized cabinet next to the bigscreen. A few years later the introduction of high-definition broadcasts made bigscreens more important, pushing audio into secondary importance in the living room.

The OG Cerwin-Vega declined the opportunity to follow the market away from large, loud and party-oriented speakers and towards smaller, slimmer and less-efficient designs. (CV's idea of a bookshelf speaker used an 8-inch woofer.) On the other hand, Klipsch -- a company of similar early inclinations as C-V -- did follow the market and, unlike C-V, thrives to this day.

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

The CSS stuff is great and this speaker is evidence of that. While every body is busy nit picking everything on this speaker, it's nice to see level headed and clear responses from them on all of it. Nice work Amir and nice work CSS!

 

[a4eaudio]

Regarding round-overs...it is a kit that comes with or without a flat pack (presumably MDF). The veneered speaker looks great and is going to sell more kits than showing it in raw MDF. But the builder can put roundovers on the flat pack or their own build. Assuming a standard 3/4-inch round-over it would be pretty minor.

To put all of the little squiggles in perspective, here is Amir's SPL and the independent labs SPL (from post #44, valid only at 100 Hz and up) with psychoacoustic smoothing.

 

[HighFutility]

From an aesthetic view point, the front port looks like it should be A) higher and B) at the back and out of sight.

 

[amirm]

If you are making your own cabinet, you can put the port in the back.

 

[eddantes]

Ooof a lot of picking of nits in this review. I think for a kit - this pretty darn good. My only kvetch is the price - a lot of speaker can be had for that outlay.

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

Regarding round-overs...it is a kit that comes with or without a flat pack (presumably MDF). The veneered speaker looks great and is going to sell more kits than showing it in raw MDF. But the builder can put roundovers on the flat pack or their own build. Assuming a standard 3/4-inch round-over it would be pretty minor.

To put all of the little squiggles in perspective, here is Amir's SPL and the independent labs SPL (from post #44, valid only at 100 Hz and up) with psychoacoustic smoothing.

View attachment 406232

Nice assessment here. These 2 curves are very close and could easily be the difference of moving the measurement mic up or down just a little bit. In my experience, even a 1.5" roundover made only a small difference in the frequency response and was much less helpful than I thought it would be. These speakers have the important stuff down; flat frequency response on-axis with a mostly even downward tilt off-axis, drivers playing within their distortion limits and a reasonable impedance/phase response. We could nitpick all day but I bet these things sound really good

 

[AudioSceptic]

I think that is highly room/seating location dependent. Short room/tall room, narrow room/wide room, 2m triangle/4m triangle makes a difference in what you want the "ideal" speaker to do in that room.

That makes Amir's plots more difficult to judge, doesn't it?

 

[Ktacos]

Ooof a lot of picking of nits in this review. I think for a kit - this pretty darn good. My only kvetch is the price - a lot of speaker can be had for that outlay.

The other catch is, you have to build it if you get the kit which IMO warrants more nit picking them if you purchase a speaker finished. I'd be more impressed with the css tower if this were 10 years ago. Theyre just now getting around to waveguides and the one thay have looks kinds poor tbh. A peerless dx25 in a wg300 will net you better performance for considerbaly less money.

even a 1.5" roundover made only a small difference in the frequency response and was much less helpful than I thought it would be.

Opposite experience, while the changes in response may appear minor, the changes in sound are not.

I measured a waveguided tweeter with and without 3/4" roundover, measured differences are obvious and sound wise they sounded nothing alike. The one without the round over was harsh and overly forward.

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

The other catch is, you have to build it if you get the kit which IMO warrants more nit picking them if you purchase a speaker finished. I'd be more impressed with the css tower if this were 10 years ago. Theyre just now getting around to waveguides and the one thay have looks kinds poor tbh. A peerless dx25 in a wg300 will net you better performance for considerbaly less money.



Opposite experience, while the changes in response may appear minor, the changes in sound are not.

I measured a waveguided tweeter with and without 3/4" roundover, measured differences are obvious and sound wise they sounded nothing alike. The one without the round over was harsh and overly forward.

View attachment 406274

I assume the bottom measurement is with the roundover and it seems to be smoother above 4KHz. Is that consistent with what the math says in regards to a 3/4" roundover?

 

[Ktacos]

I assume the bottom measurement is with the roundover and it seems to be smoother above 4KHz. Is that consistent with what the math says in regards to a 3/4" roundover?

Yes the bottom is the round over. Idk the math on round overs, I just make them as big as I can because it seems to only benefit a speaker. I don't think kii speakers are using large round overs for no reason. I've gone up to 3" radius and those were probably the smoothest to listen to speakers I've heard. Speakers that lack round overs often become hazy with more sustained passages of music which makes sense to me. Those passages are probably the closest you'll get to music resembling a noise profile and complex interactions like that of edge diffraction generally become more obvious with playback of noise. I find it curious a 1.5" radius didn't do much for you as I found 3/4" to have pretty noticable differences.

The 1TD is a speaker that I often use as an example of why it's important to round over as it exhibits some very obvious edge diffraction. The 3td appears to not be nearly as bad likely because the tweeter is crossed higher.

But hey CSS has made some good points as to why they don't have round overs, which is mostly that they can be tricky to veneer. Personally I don't find them to be that much of a challenge and my first veneer project was a tower with a radius up and down the front sides.

 

[Ktacos]

They told me they don't make a measurable difference, either at component level or for the speaker as a whole.

Boy I'd love some clarification on this one, what I'm reading is that CSS knows there's no difference but are more than willing to take peoples money either way?

 

[Spkrdctr]

Pick, pick, pick. Sheesh, they are offering a very nice kit for people who want to DIY it. You end up with a very nice speaker. So you have to decide are you a DIY person and do you want a very nice expensive DIY kit. If so, these are fantastic. I say job well done. I think their next company step would be to offer regular already built and finished speakers. Great performing speakers are only about what, 20% of the market? These would fall into that category, well worth building as a finished product. If I had Elon Musks phone number I would get CSS some venture capital to ramp up production! Bravo for CSS!

 

[Spkrdctr]

Boy I'd love some clarification on this one, what I'm reading is that CSS knows there's no difference but are more than willing to take peoples money either way?

You offer what the customer wants, not what you decide you want for the customer. Business 101. It is just an offer, not a high pressure sell at all.

 

[Ktacos]

I think their next company step would be to offer regular already built and finished speakers

They already do that.