• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Sony SS-CS5 3-way Speaker Review

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
Importantly, each listener preference was converted to a numerical value. This has inherent errors in it. I ran into this as I tried to score the speaker during Harman tests. I started with one set of numbers and as listening tests went on, I regretted the scaling I used.

There are other considerations which I will detail at some future date.

Please do. The first blind I put together we tried to do a numerical scoring, but eventually we gave up on it and just started stating a preference. The two we did after that we didn't even try to do numerical scoring. Done right, though, I could see where it adds value.
 

StevenEleven

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
581
Likes
1,188
Off the top of my head, I am just making this up:

IMHO we should keep the current preference score, keeping in mind it is not a descriptor of the character of the sound but rather is a score that seems to be fairly well-correlated with subjective preferences and accuracy.

Then I would suggest some more granularity and additional considerations, analyzed and evaluated a bit more systematically by our kind host:

A) Power handling.
B) Quality of 1 khz-5khz zone (smoothness, dispersion, distortion, crossover, etc.)
C) Bass handling.
D) Treble / Bass balance (bright / neutral / laid back / chaotic).
E) Fit and finish, looks, quality control.
F) Flexibility and versatility or most appropriate use.

These after all are in large part what folks spend (or wish they could reliably spend) the big bucks on.

Still our kind host should include the Pink Panther in an appropriate pose at the beginning of each review, if he so chooses, according to his personal feelings. Our kind host has the benefit of actual repeated hands-on measurement and evaluation and the experience and human intuition that goes along with that, but subject to the treacherous waters of our most expert peanut gallery should he go rogue on us.

For very very special occasions, such as @Dennis Murphy ’s BS22 mod, we should introduce the miraculous Pink Panda, previously and inadvertently conceptualized by one of our fellow members in a fit of pique. There are plenty of Pink Pandas to be had on Amazon for very low cost.
 
Last edited:
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,386
Location
Seattle Area
Idea one. You already give out informal "scores" (the panther score and the "recommended" or "not recommended") for DACs and amplifiers almost entirely based on measurements. The speaker "measurement score" could be kind of a simple "pass/fail" or "recommended/not-recommended" based on the predicted in-room response having no major anomalies.
Those measurements are very easy to judge. Speaker variations are not. What do I do with +2 dB peak in 2 kHz in one versus -2 kHs at 3 kHz in another? I can say what I say on the slides: "fairly flat on-axis" but that is not a score.

Idea two.
Like idea one, but instead of a simple "recommended" it could be "recommended for on-axis listening" or "recommended for off-axis listening" or both (or neither).
How is this objectively deteremined? And arrives at a number/score?

Idea three.
We use the formula from Olive's paper that MZKM currently calculates and posts. I know that formula is not perfect but it is decent.
This is the easiest option but I can't own or defend the number yet. Running with it would generate a ton of arguments just as well.

The only thing I can do is what I did for S400 and say that "objectively performance is very good." or not. I can't come up with scores like I can when I listen. There, I have a concrete impression of what I am hearing.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,386
Location
Seattle Area
A) Power handling.
B) Quality of 1 khz-5khz zone (smoothness, dispersion, distortion, crossover, etc.)
C) Bass handling.
D) Treble / Bass balance (bright / neutral / laid back / chaotic).
E) Fit and finish, looks, quality control.
F) Flexibility and versatility or most appropriate use.
I am basically doing this in my subjective testing/listening. The measurements point to some of these factors but there is no objective formula for them.
 

StevenEleven

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
581
Likes
1,188
I am basically doing this in my subjective testing/listening. The measurements point to some of these factors but there is no objective formula for them.

True—but if you break it out systematically on a speaker by speaker basis people might understand where you are coming from with some of your opinions that don’t match the preference score. For example the Sony here seems to fall on its face in the 1 khz-5 khz zone, and the preference score doesn’t account for that proportionately. I can relate because I tried the tower version and could not get along with them at all—now I think I know why. Also, people could go through the reviews more conveniently to look for that which is most important to them. Just a suggestion. :)
 
Last edited:
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,386
Location
Seattle Area
I will think about it. :) But honestly, objective data is there for all to see. Me putting a number on them just creates more problems/arguments. Folks can read those and judge them. It is not hard after reading a few of the reviews.

My scoring with the panther/recommendation is whether I would buy them or not. Hopefully this can't be disputed. :)
 

StevenEleven

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
581
Likes
1,188
I will think about it. :) But honestly, objective data is there for all to see. Me putting a number on them just creates more problems/arguments. Folks can read those and judge them. It is not hard after reading a few of the reviews.

My scoring with the panther/recommendation is whether I would buy them or not. Hopefully this can't be disputed. :)

I don’t like the idea of putting numerical values on these additional things either, we agree there. Some uniform categorization might be helpful though? Within categories nuanced adjectives, humor, vitriol, etc., in complete sentences will do nicely. If anything the preference score by itself tries to do too much with one number already. That’s one of the core problems people are struggling with, IMHO. But it’s a 7.2! How can you not like a “7.2“ for $76 a pair? Category B): Look at all the problems going on between 1 khz and 5 khz, problems with FR, dispersion, directivity, distortion, resonances, that’s how you can not like a “7.2“ for $76 a pair. :)
 
Last edited:

Colonel7

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
616
Likes
875
Location
Maryland, USA
I will think about it. :) But honestly, objective data is there for all to see. Me putting a number on them just creates more problems/arguments. Folks can read those and judge them. It is not hard after reading a few of the reviews.

My scoring with the panther/recommendation is whether I would buy them or not. Hopefully this can't be disputed. :)
I agree that you should keep this as is. This site provides the objective measurements and is both thoughtful and fun.

That is unless there are scores derived from the massive amounts of data and brilliant analysis generated from mass ABX testing at ASR Fest 2023 to be held in Seattle ;)

In all seriousness, I don't think folks understand how devilishly difficult it is to convert subjective impressions or ratings to objective scores, or even creating objective scores from multiple objective measures or indicators. There are serious issues with weighting, correlation, close coupling, experts who consciously or unconsciously change their ratings throughout the process, etc. I marvel at what Toole was able to achieve over the years, while I find the Olive preference scores only mildly interesting. Yet I still look forward to Amir's listening impressions.
 

JohnBooty

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
632
Likes
1,555
Location
Philadelphia area
How is [the "measurement score"] objectively deteremined? And arrives at a number/score?

Instead of "measurement score" how about an "accuracy score?"
  • +/- 2dB PIRR = "highly accurate"
  • +/- 3dB PIRR = "accurate"
  • everything else = "less accurate"
I dunno. I admit it's imperfect.

I will drop this line of discussion now though. The truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter to me personally. While I'm far from the most knowledgable here, I am capable of reading your excellent graphs and separating the subjective from the objective.

I mostly worry about newcomers to the hobby who don't know how to interpret the numbers and are relying strictly upon the subjective opinion. Over on r/budgetaudiophile we have an informal policy of not publicly linking to ASR because our audience is newcomers and they really struggle to interpret the measurements.

If ASR is not worrying about such newcomers than I think the current system is fine. Nothing wrong with catering strictly to a hardcore audience.
 
Last edited:

MZKM

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 1, 2018
Messages
4,240
Likes
11,462
Location
Land O’ Lakes, FL
Instead of "measurement score" how about an "accuracy score?"
  • +/- 2dB PIRR = "highly accurate"
  • +/- 3dB PIRR = "accurate"
  • everything else = "less accurate"
I dunno. I admit it's imperfect.

I will drop this line of discussion now though. The truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter to me personally. I am capable of reading your excellent graphs.

I mostly worry about newcomers to the hobby who don't know how to interpret the numbers and are relying strictly upon the subjective opinion. Over on r/budgetaudiophile we have an informal policy of not publicly linking to ASR because our audience is newcomers and they really struggle to interpret the measurements.

If ASR is not worrying about such newcomers than I think the current system is fine. Nothing wrong with catering strictly to a hardcore audience.

In my spreadsheet I do calculate the frequency response +/- based on the frequency response range of the published specifications, and I have them formatted such that they change colors based on how accurate they are to the specs (this is done for sensitivity as well).

The one issue I have with doing the on-axis (this applies to the formula too) is that it doesn’t account for speakers designed for off-axis, waveguides also regularly have an error in the response on-axis that quickly goes away off-axis. The Listening Window I also don’t like because +/-10° vertical is unrealistic for the far-field and the horizontal is the +/-30° arc which I don‘t like either, I would prefer average(0°, average(+/-10°), average(+/-20°), average(+/-30°), I also think the vertical portion may be more representative if the on-axis was counted twice (i.e., average(2•0°, +10°V, -10°V)).

I also calculate a “Tonal Balance” curve, which uses the on-axis and the PIR curves (with the PIR being normalized) which use a weighted average based on the weights in Olive’s paper. I could calculate the +/- on this and post it in my main post when I do the preference rating.

I do not know how accurate this really is, for reasons stated above, so maybe I could swap out the on-axis for the Listening Window, or even the modified version as I laid out above.

Anyone have any thoughts?
 
Last edited:

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
My scoring with the panther/recommendation is whether I would buy them or not. Hopefully this can't be disputed. :)

Me not understanding this is where my disagreement came from. I may not agree that "whether I would buy this or not" is the best judge of value, but going with this perspective I understand your lack of recommendation. I'd likely never buy these either, as for another $120, you can get something like the JBL 305p, which (imo) is well worth the extra money over something like this.
 
OP
amirm

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,368
Likes
234,386
Location
Seattle Area
Instead of "measurement score" how about an "accuracy score?"
  • +/- 2dB PIRR = "highly accurate"
  • +/- 3dB PIRR = "accurate"
  • everything else = "less accurate"
I dunno. I admit it's imperfect.
I am leaning toward something like this. Just don't have the free time to develop it right now.
 

HooStat

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
856
Likes
933
Location
Calabasas, CA
I don't think you should create a single score unless you can validate it, which is a huge endeavor. What would be better is to break down your analyses into sections, show the results for a speaker and also show the results for an "ideal" speaker (or perhaps the best results we expect to see based on a real-world example). You already do some of this with your lines/arrows in your current reviews. A little more standardization in your write-ups would make it easier for readers. If you do a score, it should be within each of these areas of analysis. Then people can use the "scores" from the parts of speaker performance they care about. For example, if I am using 3 subs, I am not so worried about anything below 80 Hz.
 

Gatordaddy

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 1, 2020
Messages
110
Likes
186
I will think about it. :) But honestly, objective data is there for all to see. Me putting a number on them just creates more problems/arguments. Folks can read those and judge them. It is not hard after reading a few of the reviews.

My scoring with the panther/recommendation is whether I would buy them or not. Hopefully this can't be disputed. :)

I really agree with @StevenEleven that a consistent write up on factors which lead to our host's recommendation would be useful to both sophisticated and unsophisticated readers, as well as potential buyers. A sophisticated reader could look at the spinorama and preference scores and know if a speaker would sound good at low levels, but will not tell the reader if there are nonlinear or mechanical problems like woofers bottoming or poor power handling.

I like the specific factors he proposed.

An SPL meter would also add a lot more information to the impressions and recommendations. Bringing to mind the S400 review: Our host noted the woofer bottoming out. Limited bass power handling seems to be a primary disqualification from receiving a recommendation. But the notes from that review don't do much to tell readers if this is a problem some/most/all buyers will experience. For instance: what SPL does this become a problem at? As this relates to the Sony: This speaker clearly does a lot for its price. It also has some response and distortion problems. Does it have power handling problems? If so: at what SPL do those become severe?

I'm very much in the camp that sighted impressions by a trained listener are a value add to the measurements. But i'm also in the camp that endless speculation and armchair analysis about why our host did or did not like a particular speaker despite its measurements aren't productive to moving consumer audio forward.
 

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
2,109
Likes
8,420
Location
NYC
I am leaning toward something like this. Just don't have the free time to develop it right now.

Perhaps it's not my place to make suggestions on this is a reviewer myself, but if may...

I don't do scores(or panthers:)) in my reviews, but I've thought about it. And in considering how I might go about it, I've thought about doing two scores: one for my personal enjoyment of the speaker -- sound+design+value --and another for the measurements (or at least, my interpretation of them).

So for ASR, one potential idea would be to provide three scores:

1) Panther based on your sum total impressions (whether you would buy)
2) The Olive preference score
3) Score/Letter grade based on your personal interpretation of the measurements

That way you have a purely subjective opinion(panther), a purely objective one (Olive score as provided by @MZKM), and a combination of subjective and objective. Each has its drawbacks and strengths, but they all complement each other. We all know the preference score might miss out on some qualities that make a speaker better or worse than its numerical value (like really bad resonance that only mildly affects the score, for instance). At the same time it seems your impressions are sometimes at odds not just with the preference score, but with your own interpretation of the data. So having that third assessment could help bridge the gap.

You could go further down the rabbit hole by trying to assign different scores for different qualities, but I think something like the above could satisfy a lot of readers while still being easy to understand. Just a thought.
 

bigx5murf

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
522
Likes
343
I had a SS-HW1 which I recently sold. It’s a much higher end product than the CS5 so the exaggerated treble that Amir reported wasn’t seen. In room, it sounded better than Tag McLaren Calliopes although the Calliopes has better resolution, clarity, and speed. It was just that the SS-HW1 has a warmer midrange and I thought better in room dispersion.

It is 83 dB/2.83V so you know it isn’t designed for mass market. The SS-HW1 is a similar appearing speaker to the SS-HA1 but has a better woofer and surprisingly is one of the speakers supported by Devialet SAM.

All that said, the SS-HW1 did not sound as good as the JBL XPL-90 which was measured here.

All sighted bias.

Sony makes exotic speakers such as this one (use google translate)
https://www.hifido.co.jp/sold/20-25953-02333-00.html

I've heard both, obviously not in the best environment. But I remember being impressed with the build quality of both.

20160711_115406.jpg
20160711_115148.jpg
 

KaiserSoze

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
699
Likes
592
There is a broad excess of energy in the range from about 900 Hz to 2.2 kHz... the biggest issue was diffraction, which caused the elevated response in the 1-2kHz range. I addressed that with an anti-diffraction frame

they have an interesting series crossover between the tweeter and supertweeter, BTW). ... 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

This was more interesting to me than most all of the debate over whether the speakers are junk or pretty decent and an exceptional value. As for that question, I agree with most others that the choice of drivers and crossover points is inexplicable, but that nevertheless they are a good speaker and an excellent value.

But back to your mods. I'd be very interested in seeing the crossover schematic both before and after your mod, and including that series crossover for the two tweeters. In a subsequent post of yours you showed the individual on-axis responses and concluded that the the super-tweeter contributes very little below 10 kHz. But perhaps things are different in the off-axis response? I.e., it might be that the tiny tweeter has substantially better dispersion, such that in the listening window response or whatever, its contribution is much stronger than what your graph implies, possibly even stronger than the bigger tweeter depending on the off-axis angle.

Your anti-diffraction mod is interesting. You provided response plots to show the before/after effect. You did this for both the crossover mod and the anti-diffraction mod, and to give you the benefit of the doubt, you would have done these measurements with just one or the other of the two mods, such that you avoided confusing the effects of the two mods.

Diffraction occurs over a broad range of frequencies starting when the wavelength is small relative to the enclosure or the baffle. However the 1st diffraction peak occurs at a fairly well-defined wavelength where the wave propagated at the corner is in phase with the direct wave. The wave propagated at the corner is a wave associated with a "soft reflection", where a 180-degreee shift in phase occurs. Thus, the longest wavelength at which constructive interference can occur (i.e., the first peak in the diffraction ripple) is the wavelength at which the distance from the center of the driver to the edge of the cabinet or baffle is equal to one-half wavelength. In other words, the 1st peak in the diffraction ripple, for a driver centered horizontally on the baffle, occurs at wavelength matching the width of the baffle. In this case, 7", which corresponds to frequency of roughly 2 kHz. Some reinforcement will occur below this frequency and some above, however there just isn't any way that the sharp response peak at about 1.1 kHz can be attributed to diffraction. The broad elevated response that you described, from 900 to 2.2 kHz, is almost certainly a feature of the driver itself. Diffraction may contribute in the upper half of that plateau, and at 2 kHz especially, but this is the upper end of the plateau.

I recall reading a few years back the writeup that Linkwitz did on baffle diffraction, which is probably still on the site (it is still active). He had something to say about the effectiveness of rounded edges on cabinets. I read through it too quickly and this was probably more than five years ago, but on the off chance that I recall what he wrote, the rounding starts to become effective where 1/4 of the wavelength is shorter than the radius of the round-over. Since you used a pipe with 4" diameter (approximately), this implies that the longest wavelength at which it would be even modestly effective should be 8", or about 1.7 kHz. Of course this effect is a gradual thing, but the point is that rounding the corners doesn't have much effect until reaching higher frequency where the 2nd peak, 3rd peak, etc., of the ripple are found, but not the 1st peak, which is always the strongest and the only one that can't be neutralized by placing the affected driver 1/3 of the distance from one edge to the other edge. Thus, even if the sharp peak at about 1.1 kHz or the broad elevation from 900 to 2.2 kHz were genuinely diffraction effects, the mod you did would almost certainly not have any significant effect at these frequencies.

I am curious to see the crossover schematic both before and after your crossover mod.
 

ThatM1key

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 27, 2020
Messages
1,048
Likes
882
Location
USA
I have 2 pairs of these and Sony still has a pic of the speakers having 2 ports on there website still.
sony.PNG
 
Top Bottom