CSS Criton 3TD-X Kit Speaker Review

[Rick Sykora]

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

The upgraded crossover options look like a poor value to me but is not my business. An active crossover would offer much greater benefits so will see how they price position it. Overall, this kit appears a better value to me than some of their smaller speakers. I offered my opinions but is a niche (and likely declining) market, and so appreciate the challenge they have to stay in business.

Afaik, CSS is not promoting cap upgrades as having mystical improvements (as GR does) so is less problematic in that respect.

 

[RoA]

Nice looking, measuring speaker. I would have liked to see some chamfering or rounding of the baffle or/and a slightly trapezoidal cabinet but I guess that adds complications to veneering. I also dislike screws directly into wood. Some threaded inserts would be nice. Do they come with grilles? That front port looks fugly. Little animals and children will be tempted.

 

[Penelinfi]

The upgraded crossover options look like a poor value to me but is not my business. An active crossover would offer much greater benefits so will see how they price position it. Overall, this kit appears a better value to me than some of their smaller speakers. I offered my opinions but is a niche (and likely declining) market, and so appreciate the challenge they have to stay in business.

Afaik, CSS is not promoting cap upgrades as having mystical improvements (as GR does) so less problematic in that respect.

Good money for them, I meant

 

[AudioSceptic]

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.

Does that apply just to the overall shape, or to the "bulges" and "notches"? Should the overall shape be a smooth curve without those?

 

[Pareto Pragmatic]

Does that apply just to the overall shape, or to the "bulges" and "notches"? Should the overall shape be a smooth curve without those?

Generally speaking, I consider distortion as the main issue. More sidewall/ceiling/floor reflections increases distortion. I don't think effects on the frequency response are all that important. They can exist in a given room, but any effects in most rooms will be minimal.

I think you can benefit from looking at some general discussions of the topic. Here's a couple short ones:

Is good sound dispersion in speakers a separate entity?

There is a lot written about the importance of "good" sound dispersion in speakers! What is "good" dispersion without relation to the room? How is the room related to "good" spread? Are there studies on this topic published in major journals by anyone other than Toole and Olive?

www.audiosciencereview.com

Speaker Dispersion - Wider? Narrower? - Your Personal Preference?

Yes I know, a common subject, and there are all sorts of details and caveats involved when discussing the merits of wide vs narrow speaker dispersion. But I'm curious about people's personal preferences on this question. I was reading today about that famous old speaker, the JBL Paragon...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[Rick Sykora]

Good money for them, I meant

I understand but really is more of a question for CSS. Guessing they sell enough to make it worthwhile to offer.

 

[cavedriver]

Per CSS's product description, I wonder what exactly they are referring to:

"We did something special with this design to create a very even directivity without the use of a waveguide."

I think @thewas suggested it might be the choice of a smaller midrange (it's not terribly small though, yes?), and since they said no waveguide I assume they aren't referring to the tweeter being slightly horn loaded, so what could they be referring to? Anything in the crossover design?

 

[a4eaudio]

...Do they come with grilles? ...

From CSS site:


Product Details

This kit comes standard with grills and our upgraded binding posts!

 

[RoA]

Thank you. Unfortunately that ungainly port is not covered by it.

 

[audiobasha]

on Capacitor upgrades: I actually doubt CSS is making a ton of money on those upgraded crossovers. I'm too lazy to do the math but you can look up the cost of those same components from any other vendor and it'd still be crazy high. They don't manufacture their own caps - these are standard parts. They are essentially offering the crossover design - the builder is free to buy parts from anyone else. CSS will sell you just drivers and a flatpack if you want.

on edge diffraction: its funny to see so much arguing on the maybe perceptible effects of roundovers, when most people are gonna use speakers with no room correction which will introduce a 20 DB bump elsewhere in the frequency response.

disclaimer: I daily drive the CSS 1TD (with room correction) and I love them.

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

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

Neuman and Genelec have very small roundovers, but excellent waveguide's and we know that they measure really well. They also have DSP. To me, it seems that waveguides are a better solution to baffle diffraction than a roundover is. But again, I haven't seen any clear science on that.

 

[JayGilb]

Priced a little high for my frugal tastes, but looks like the would be a fun build project.

Thanks again Amir.

 

[Ktacos]

To me, it seems that waveguides are a better solution to baffle diffraction than a roundover is

You still need a round over with a waveguide, my previous post with data clearly demonstrates this.

 

[audiobasha]

@Kerry Armes made this video recently talking about the trade-offs of wave guides on tweeters (also showing off the new CSS LD-25X WG).

 

[Vergiliusma]

Per CSS's product description, I wonder what exactly they are referring to:

"We did something special with this design to create a very even directivity without the use of a waveguide."

I think @thewas suggested it might be the choice of a smaller midrange (it's not terribly small though, yes?), and since they said no waveguide I assume they aren't referring to the tweeter being slightly horn loaded, so what could they be referring to? Anything in the crossover design?

I don't know how special it is, but the baffle itself will affect directivity both in the tweeter range and farther below(baffle step)--it's a part of the system design, so it's a matter of driver sizes, crossover points, and baffle geometry with or without a waveguide on the tweeter.

 

[ThatSoundsGood]

You still need a round over with a waveguide, my previous post with data clearly demonstrates this.

I think this depends on some other factors. Your measurements do show a difference above 4k, which would be expected utilizing a 3/4" roundover. However, you also have some differences below that, which theoretically shouldn't happen with a 3/4" roundover making me wonder about it. I think it would depend on the size of the waveguide, size of the baffle, where the driver sits in relation to the sides, etc. I think this is why we see such a small roundover with Genelec and Neumann. Their waveguides and tweeter placement are dealing with most of the problems.

 

[Rick Sykora]

As this is a review thread, can we please try to keep the discussion specific to the reviewed product. If you need to get a better understanding of baffle step, edge diffraction or how directivity can be influenced by baffle shape, there are other threads for that. If comparing to competitive offerings, this is best considered relative to other tower speakers.

This speaker does a decent job of achieving consistently wider directivity, but as a finished speaker, it falls shy of comparable designs like the Philharmonic HT tower. The kit is a rough jewel and may yet get cut and polished to be something greater. Whether CSS accomplishes this improved offering or someone else does is yet to be determined.

 

[Vergiliusma]

This speaker does a decent job of achieving consistently wider directivity, but as a finished speaker, it falls shy of comparable designs like the Philharmonic HT tower

Agreed. Lets look at the tale of the tape of some of those comparable designs:

Measured by Erin from Philharmonic Audio's website:

 

[Jonazkur]

Probably a really nice kit for diy beginners.

 

[cavedriver]

View attachment 406913

That Philharmonic HT graph is from EAC, not ASR, please correctly credit where credit is due to avoid confusion.