CSS Criton 3TD-X Kit Speaker Review

[Spkrdctr]

They already do that.

I was on their site and didn't see that? How could I miss it. All I saw were the flat packs.......but I am a Senior Citizen.

 

[Ktacos]

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.

The customer wants detrimental edge diffraction? Honestly the customers for these products probably don't even know what that is. There is a trust aspect that goes into these products, the buyer trusts the designer has utilized their extensive knowledge on speaker design to deliver the best product they could. In some aspects I believe CSS has done a good job there, in other areas not so much.

Consider practically every kit with a flatpack from Dayton Audio has round overs, even the Amiga tower kit has them.

You guys complaining about nit picking are really just on the wrong forum.

 

[GXAlan]

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?

I wonder if the only real difference is in the tolerance of the various specs. Just because something is +/- 5% just means that it's what is "guaranteed" and you may have the majority of generic capacitors hitting +/-2% with a rare one being out of that spec (But still within official tolerances). With *some* of the higher end products, the guaranteed tolerances are higher.

Depending on specifics, you can imagine how a mass produced capacitor could actually have superior tolerances to something hand-made. Likewise, you can imagine how something hand made with higher production tolerances but individually sorted/binned could result in a more accurate result.

So then it just becomes bragging rights, country of manufacture, etc.

 

[Spkrdctr]

The customer wants detrimental edge diffraction? Honestly the customers for these products probably don't even know what that is. There is a trust aspect that goes into these products, the buyer trusts the designer has utilized their extensive knowledge on speaker design to deliver the best product they could. In some aspects I believe CSS has done a good job there, in other areas not so much.

Consider practically every kit with a flatpack from Dayton Audio has round overs, even the Amiga tower kit has them.

You guys complaining about nit picking are really just on the wrong forum.

I tend to be on the friendly side of ASR. Well, until subjectivists enter the room and start telling us how crazy we are, then I roll up my sleeves and join in the fight. On DIY flat packs, I have no dog in this. I don't do DIY. So, as the famous Rodney King said, "Can't we all get along". LOL

 

[Timcognito]

From the CSS website. I think they know what they are doing based on their reply's, Amirs data and the fact that the kits are geared towards DIY amateurs.

Understanding Baffle Step and Diffraction

Baffle step and diffraction are two very important concepts to understand in speaker design. Most people who are in to performance audio have probably heard the terms before, but if you don’t really understand what they are or how they affect a speaker, this article is for you. We’re going to...

www.css-audio.com

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

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.

View attachment 406497

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.

So, conventional wisdom is that you are correct and that is why we see lots of people using roundovers. I personally have never done a real A/B comparison that would eliminate or minimize bias. The only one I know of was done by Vance Dickinson. Listeners could hear a difference but didn't necessarily have a preference for each one. Scott Hinson and some others have done some writing on the topic and he concludes that he doesn't think baffle edge diffraction is as much of an issue as many people think it is. And that's generally my point; it's a very small difference if any especially once a speaker is placed in a room. I'm not trying to discount your experience either. It certainly does seem to smooth out the measurements directly on-axis and somewhat off-axis, but I place less emphasis on it than other factors such as how well the crossover is integrating the drivers, drivers playing within their distortion limits and some other more obvious potential problems. When I did my 1.5" roundovers it only made about 1db of a difference in a couple of spots. Sure, that's a difference but wasn't worth the hassle of doing by hand with a 1.5" roundover bit in a router.
Here is a link to the paper that I'm talking about:

https://www.scribd.com/document/768415915/Audibility-of-baffle-edge-diffraction-2024-03-08

 

[Rick Sykora]

ASR is not youtube and so some criticism is to be expected and hopefully done respectfully and constructively.

While most of us appreciate kudos, know I would rather get some valid feedback than superficial praise. @Kerry Armes already aknowledged that faceting would improve the power response but CSS made a compromise towards kit simplicity. It is a correctable choice and could be improved later with another flat pack option.

 

[Spkrdctr]

ASR is not youtube and so some criticism is to be expected and hopefully done respectfully and constructively.

While most of us appreciate kudos, know I would rather get some valid feedback than superficial praise. @Kerry Armes already acknowledged that faceting would improve the power response but CSS made a compromise towards kit simplicity. It is a correctable choice and could be improved later with another flat pack option.

Rick is hitting me with common sense and critical thinking. I was not prepared for that. I will now go and contemplate my life choices, in the corner with a dunce cap on.

 

[Rick Sykora]

I was on their site and didn't see that? How could I miss it. All I saw were the flat packs.......but I am a Senior Citizen.

Not quite senior citizen yet but struggled too, take the Shop/Custom Shop path on the CSS website.

 

[Timcognito]

I was on their site and didn't see that? How could I miss it. All I saw were the flat packs.......but I am a Senior Citizen.

Could be "Male Pattern Blindness" that's what my wife says I have and it strikes males of all ages.
I think she moves things around in the fridge to screw with me.

 

[a4eaudio]

I tend to roundover or chamfer my DIY builds. I tend to believe it is likely to help, and unlikely to hurt, but I also design my crossover to take that into account. Adding a 3/4" roundover is not going to make much of a difference to a preexisting design, but adding a two-inch roundover on something like the 3TD-X is probably detrimental because the xo was not designed for it. Look at the normalized graphs in posts #68, 69 and 70 HERE for measurements if you want to pixel-peep the 0.25db differences. I know a lot of people who think that roundovers sound better, but I know of no blind AB test regarding the audibility of roundovers. But I'm going to keep using them anyways.

Regarding capacitors. I do know a a blind AB test where some participants could consistently identify the change in capacitors. It was not that one was "better" than the other, but that they were identifiably different. I am sure I personally would not be able to tell a difference and I don't use exotic capacitors. Some people DO prefer higher end capacitors as evidence by almost every vendor who sells DIY kits. I can't imagine a competent business who would refuse to sell an option that their customers desire and improves their profit margin.

I'm pretty sure Bennic used to (and probably still does) make Dayton Audio's capacitors.

Waveguided tweeters are not "better" than non-waveguided tweeters. There are trade-offs like almost every other aspect of speaker design.

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

I tend to roundover or chamfer my DIY builds. I tend to believe it is likely to help, and unlikely to hurt, but I also design my crossover to take that into account. Adding a 3/4" roundover is not going to make much of a difference to a preexisting design, but adding a two-inch roundover on something like the 3TD-X is probably detrimental because the xo was not designed for it. Look at the normalized graphs in posts #68, 69 and 70 HERE for measurements if you want to pixel-peep the 0.25db differences. I know a lot of people who think that roundovers sound better, but I know of no blind AB test regarding the audibility of roundovers. But I'm going to keep using them anyways.

Vance Dickason did a blind A/B test on the audibility of roundovers. It's in the link that I provide in my previous post.

Regarding capacitors. I do know a a blind AB test where some participants could consistently identify the change in capacitors. It was not that one was "better" than the other, but that they were identifiably different. I am sure I personally would not be able to tell a difference and I don't use exotic capacitors. Some people DO prefer higher end capacitors as evidence by almost every vendor who sells DIY kits. I can't imagine a competent business who would refuse to sell an option that their customers desire and improves their profit margin.

I'm pretty sure Bennic used to (and probably still does) make Dayton Audio's capacitors.

Waveguided tweeters are not "better" than non-waveguided tweeters. There are trade-offs like almost every other aspect of speaker design.

 

[a4eaudio]

Vance Dickason did a blind A/B test on the audibility of roundovers. It's in the link that I provide in my previous post.

Thank you, I missed the link at the bottom.

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

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

Not really, but you do have to consider the plots in relation to your room and speaker placement. The plots are what the speaker does, but to use that you need to think about other factors at the same time.

For example, my AV speakers have a very narrow vertical dispersion, but they sit 12' from my main AV listening position. They work well in terms of ceiling reflections. When I was looking for some stand mounts to use in the same room, but more at 6-8' (depending), I wanted something with more vertical dispersion. That gave me more like what I was getting off the ceiling from the AV speakers. Which I like.

The plots are accurate, but you have to think about what that means for your room. A good way to do this, if you can, is to find dispersion plots for speakers you have, then play with them. Move them narrower and wider, closer and further. See how that changes the sound. When you find a place you like, then you can assume that something with narrower dispersion might work better closer to side walls and further from the listener. And one with wider dispersion will likely work closer to the listener and further from the side walls. Work meaning give similar amounts of reflected/direct sound.

I admit I can get some idea of what will happen in my room with various types of dispersion, but just some idea. Ballpark. There are people who can pull a lot more from such plots and room dimensions, and give very good suggestions. Dispersion plots, room dimensions and speaker placement, they all matter in combination.

 

[amirm]

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?

It is more of losing business, than selling an option. That is, they won't be able to sell the speaker at all without the upgrade option for some people.

 

[VMAT4]

It is more of losing business, than selling an option. That is, they won't be able to sell the speaker at all without the upgrade option for some people.

Kits for audiophiles and audiophools.

 

[Rick Sykora]

Vance Dickason did a blind A/B test on the audibility of roundovers. It's in the link that I provide in my previous post.

From the paper you cite…

“Vance’s experiment was not a blind trial with a larger number of listeners, but it did allow for fast A/B comparison”

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

From the paper you cite…

“Vance’s experiment was not a blind trial with a larger number of listeners, but it did allow for fast A/B comparison”

My bad. I thought when I read it that it was. Thanks for the clarification. It is interesting though that the consensus seems to be that edge diffraction is unlikely to be very audible. I personally think that it probably is audible, but there is very little evidence to support that.

 

[Ktacos]

My bad. I thought when I read it that it was. Thanks for the clarification. It is interesting though that the consensus seems to be that edge diffraction is unlikely to be very audible. I personally think that it probably is audible, but there is very little evidence to support that.

I'd wager genelec, kii, some kef, nuemann, and others aren't mitigating diffraction just because.

 

[Penelinfi]

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.

Then they can keep the boutique crossover option up. It's good money isn't it?