Sony SS-CS5 3-way Speaker Review

[AudioLover73]

I just bought a pair from Amazon for $88 to see what the hype was all about, and I don’t see how they can be called bright at all. They are very warm (not a good thing), even dark, just like how the downward right tilt in the frequency response graph indicates. They have no air, no sizzle. I’m comparing them to my NHT C3s, which sound far brighter (I love them!).

 

[TheBatsEar]

I just bought a pair from Amazon for $88 to see what the hype was all about, and I don’t see how they can be called bright at all. They are very warm, even dark, just like how the downward right tilt in the frequency response graph indicates. I’m comparing them to my NHT C3s, which sound far brighter (I love them!).

They have two tweeters, therefore they must sound bright. Just like cable, copper sounds warm (reddish color), silver more bright (shiny color). Analog warm, digital cold. And so on.

Such is the nature of sighted sound impressions and vivid imagination.

 

[NewbieAudiophileExpert]

Whilst these are probably good value for money, I can't help but think that the two tweeters are unnecessary..

Personally, I can't even hear past 17.5khz, not sure about the rest of humanity though.

 

[ROOSKIE]

I just bought a pair from Amazon for $88 to see what the hype was all about, and I don’t see how they can be called bright at all. They are very warm (not a good thing), even dark, just like how the downward right tilt in the frequency response graph indicates. They have no air, no sizzle. I’m comparing them to my NHT C3s, which sound far brighter (I love them!).

That downward tilt is the in room by the way, if a speaker measures flat anechoically and has fairly even off axis response it will be a downward trend in room. So an in room downward trend does not by itself indicate a dark speaker, although it may indicate that if the trend is severe and depending on the dispersion character of the unit.

I had the C3's which I found are on the brighter side of neutral. It is perfectly fine to love them and I also liked them but they are not exactly a truly neutral comparison IMHO.

I also felt the Sony's were a bit darker in my room than some other have suggested and more rolled off then the estimated in room response in the review, though not fully a dark speaker.
The Sony set does fall apart audibly as the volume is turned up to loud. That may also contribute to a sense of brightness for many with added harmonics and non harmonics( distortions).

Brightness is not always just associated with the high treble response, the Sony does have a somewhat peaky response which may be an issue for some listeners.

Whilst these are probably good value for money, I can't help but think that the two tweeters are unnecessary..

Personally, I can't even hear past 17.5khz, not sure about the rest of humanity though.

The speakers were designed to sell at a low price in as many mass market retailers as possible and often to buyers with a very limited education in audio.
It is probably an okay compromise between engineering and marketing. These need to sell in the 10's upon 10's of thousands to make sense for Sony, which by itself is something very few speakers can ever do.

 

[Tim Link]

Whilst these are probably good value for money, I can't help but think that the two tweeters are unnecessary..

Personally, I can't even hear past 17.5khz, not sure about the rest of humanity though.

A little tiny tweeter makes a lot of sense to me if implemented to maintain wide dispersion up above, oh, maybe 7k, where most tweeters start to narrow their dispersion. In this case they didn't do an exceptional job with the dispersion characteristics. I don't know where they crossed that tweeter over but if it's way up above 10K I agree they could have left it out. I can't hear past 16kHz last I checked. Might be lower now.

 

[NewbieAudiophileExpert]

That downward tilt is the in room by the way, if a speaker measures flat anechoically and has fairly even off axis response it will be a downward trend in room. So an in room downward trend does not by itself indicate a dark speaker, although it may indicate that if the trend is severe and depending on the dispersion character of the unit.

I had the C3's which I found are on the brighter side of neutral. It is perfectly fine to love them and I also liked them but they are not exactly a truly neutral comparison IMHO.

I also felt the Sony's were a bit darker in my room than some other have suggested and more rolled off then the estimated in room response in the review, though not fully a dark speaker.
The Sony set does fall apart audibly as the volume is turned up to loud. That may also contribute to a sense of brightness for many with added harmonics and non harmonics( distortions).

Brightness is not always just associated with the high treble response, the Sony does have a somewhat peaky response which may be an issue for some listeners.

The speakers were designed to sell at a low price in as many mass market retailers as possible and often to buyers with a very limited education in audio.
It is probably an okay compromise between engineering and marketing. These need to sell in the 10's upon 10's of thousands to make sense for Sony, which by itself is something very few speakers can ever do.

A little tiny tweeter makes a lot of sense to me if implemented to maintain wide dispersion up above, oh, maybe 7k, where most tweeters start to narrow their dispersion. In this case they didn't do an exceptional job with the dispersion characteristics. I don't know where they crossed that tweeter over but if it's way up above 10K I agree they could have left it out. I can't hear past 16kHz last I checked. Might be lower now.

Meh - IMO a better design would be a tweeter, mid-range, and mid-woofer - letting the HT's sub handle the frequencies below 80HZ or whatever.

Of Course this would cost more money than just adding another tweeter, that's smaller..

Regarding the crossovers, there has been some enthusiasts out there who have designed newer crossover designs which take advantage of the tweeter and super tweeter.

I think that GR-Research has some, as well as a bloke who was working with the CheapAudioMan, offering solutions for this speaker's kinda crappy distribution of upper frequencies...

It's good for what it is, but the design if flawed in my opinion, although i guess it's better than having just one tweeter - two tweeters is always better than one.

 

[ROOSKIE]

Meh - IMO a better design would be a tweeter, mid-range, and mid-woofer - letting the HT's sub handle the frequencies below 80HZ or whatever.

Of Course this would cost more money than just adding another tweeter, that's smaller..

Regarding the crossovers, there has been some enthusiasts out there who have designed newer crossover designs which take advantage of the tweeter and super tweeter.

I think that GR-Research has some, as well as a bloke who was working with the CheapAudioMan, offering solutions for this speaker's kinda crappy distribution of upper frequencies...

There are many designs that would work better from a purely hifi standpoint, especially with a different design budget.
That is no mystery so I mean what is your point?
The Sony's are designed to a low price point that also includes being shipped multiple time including across the world before the end user buys them for a very low price.
Weight is an issue. So beefy 3-ways are off the table but adding a super tweeter which appeals to many mass market type buyers adds no weight and minimal costs yet juices sales. Pick your poisons at this price point.

Some have just disconnected the super tweeter and that solves a lot of the issues with a little less 'air'.

Not a GR fan.

 

[NewbieAudiophileExpert]

There are many designs that would work better from a purely hifi standpoint, especially with a different design budget.
That is no mystery so I mean what is your point?
The Sony's are designed to a low price point that also includes being shipped multiple time including across the world before the end user buys them for a very low price.
Weight is an issue. So beefy 3-ways are off the table but adding a super tweeter which appeals to many mass market type buyers adds no weight and minimal costs yet juices sales. Pick your poisons at this price point.

My personality is tuned in a way that I always look for ways in which a system can be optimised - that's all.

That's probably why I got into this hobby - allows me to have a lot of control over the optimization of a system.

The issue that I see with this setup is that two tweeters are kinda unnecessary - sure I understand that in the US these are cheap $75 USD speakers, but those are like my Edifier P17's which I'd paid the equivalent of $40 USD (brand new) in Australia.

A measuring mic, REW, room correction and EQ (peace) makes these $60 AUD speakers sound much more expensive - even though they have one woofer and one tweeter.

I don't mind it, but I'm just commentating on the design and kinda feel that it's a gimmick to add a tweeter and a super tweeter lol.

 

[Gaspar74]

2 times EQ difference curves hanged on below thanks

These txt files, Im not able to use these in Roon am I? I have conv files .wav files. Wondering what I can do with these, too many to manually enter. Thanks.

 

[muskrat]

I had a 2 or 3 generation older pair of Sony 3 ways. The mid had a 3.3uF cap, the tweet a 1.5. I have seen inside the model before this one. The mid and tweet were on one faceplate and bridged together. So one cap to a 1" driver and a .5" one. They could make a decent 2way at the same price point but that isn't what sells. Similar to 4way car speakers with "resonators" with no wiring to the super tweeters.

 

[Tim Link]

I've got six of the SSC-S 5s now. I use 3 at work and 3 at home! I think I'm going to try an active crossover to see what I can get them to do.

 

[Tim Link]

I've been playing with EQ-ing these speakers for a while now and think I've found something that really sounds quite nice. I took the approach tonight of mostly boosting what looked like dips to me around 2700 kHz and 400kHz based on the results posted on Erin's website, which look pretty much the same as Amir's. I notice that the curve looks like a downward tilt. The tone isn't quite perfect but it's very enjoyable to my ears at this point. Trying to approach it by knocking down apparent high points didn't work as well for me, although I did go after the uppermost treble area with a slight reduction, less than 2dB but it's 2 octave width. Honestly this is the first EQ attempt I've made that didn't at least cause as many problems as it solved. This really is a significant improvement to my ears.

 

[NikJi]

If one wants to test a loudspeaker, please put on a blindfold first. Don't look at the number of tweeters or size of woofers, nor the frequency response chart. They will all color your mind and your hearing.

 

[Tim Link]

After trying some Revel M16s I'm back to the Sony SS-CS5s. The Revels sound better in terms of natural tone but my overall listening experience is more pleasant with the Sonys. They don't sound as correct but I enjoy them more. It's baffling. Or maybe it's the size of the woofer, or both. That was an attempt at a joke. Seriously though, when it comes to direct radiators I've noticed that I tend to like midrange/woofers cones with about a 4" diameter and a minimal baffle, which is about what the Sony has. I wonder if the M16 are just too big for my tastes? Maybe I'd like the M105 better. Or the F35. In any case the weird discovery is that what I enjoy isn't necessarily the best in terms of fidelity. What kind of an audiophile am I? One who prefers sound with noticeable flaws? Another thing I should point out is I'm currently listening to the Sonys with a Denon PMA-900HNE integrated amp/receiver and the combination just seems really pleasant. Apparently some inaccurate sound is very pleasing to me. I really notice the colored sound when I first turn on the system in the evenings but after a few minutes I adjust and it doesn't get fatiguing. Another issue to add to audio reproduction complexity - bad sound that you can't get comfortable with vs bad sound that you can get comfortable with and that allows for very pleasant extended listening sessions. Not all colored sound is equal, and quick comparisons may yield different preferences than longer listening sessions. Somehow the M16s sounded great and wore me out.
This reminds me of my dad's supermarket experiences with blind taste tests. They found the amount of sugar to add to fruit juices and canned fruit to get the optimal preference from the most number of people. I prefer a little sweetener on the quick comparison too. But after I've adjusted the non-sweetened has a better long term impression.

 

[GXAlan]

It’s OK. Look at Klipsch and B&W. They measure poorly and yet they have survived the test of time.

The old Infinity Interlude speakers had some of the highest computed preference scores but I would expect people to prefer modern speakers…

What would be interesting is to have a microphone that you can run in room measurements with. It will help you understand what characteristics of the Sony sound is to your preference.

 

[tw 2022]

It’s OK. Look at Klipsch and B&W. They measure poorly and yet they have survived the test of time.

The old Infinity Interlude speakers had some of the highest computed preference scores but I would expect people to prefer modern speakers…

What would be interesting is to have a microphone that you can run in room measurements with. It will help you understand what characteristics of the Sony sound is to your preference.

Another example: i had infinity alpha 20s ( basically il10s) , i presently have some infinity crescendo3006s, i would bet money the alpha's measure better based on the il 10 measurements.. The crescendos are much better sounding imo...i had some of the sony core books for a couple months a while back, they weren't "headless panther" bad imo.... I actually liked them at the price point...

 

[AudioLover73]

I've been playing with EQ-ing these speakers for a while now and think I've found something that really sounds quite nice. I took the approach tonight of mostly boosting what looked like dips to me around 2700 kHz and 400kHz based on the results posted on Erin's website, which look pretty much the same as Amir's. I notice that the curve looks like a downward tilt. The tone isn't quite perfect but it's very enjoyable to my ears at this point. Trying to approach it by knocking down apparent high points didn't work as well for me, although I did go after the uppermost treble area with a slight reduction, less than 2dB but it's 2 octave width. Honestly this is the first EQ attempt I've made that didn't at least cause as many problems as it solved. This really is a significant improvement to my ears.
View attachment 250527

What device is this EQ?

 

[thewas]

The old Infinity Interlude speakers had some of the highest computed preference scores but I would expect people to prefer modern speakers…

The main reason for those unnormal high scores is that they were now calculated on spinoramas of back then which were strongly smoothed, not that they measure so well, so this cannot be used as an argument.

 

[Tim Link]

What device is this EQ?

I was using AudioHijack on my Mac mini to do that EQ. It gives me accesss to the AudioUnits built in to Mac OS. I was specifically using the AU NBandEQ https://developer.apple.com/documentation/audiotoolbox/1389965-aunbandeq_filter_types.

With the Denon 2 channel receiver I'm testing right now I'm not using any EQ or filtering.

 

[Tim Link]

The main reason for those unnormal high scores is that they were now calculated on spinoramas of back then which were strongly smoothed, not that they measure so well, so this cannot be used as an argument.

One thing I notice about these preferences is that they are well supported but far from unanimous. So if you are designing a speaker that you hope will appeal to the largest number of listeners you should pay very close attention to those target measurements. If you are buying, you still should pay attention to them but ultimately you're going to have to listen for yourself in your own room and see what your long term enjoyment level is. The Revel M16 was having a strange effect on me, sounding amazingly good but also somehow giving me the impression that my room was over damped. I was playing them very loud to overcome that perception. I pulled them way into the room away from the walls to give them more space. I thought maybe they were too tight in the directional control so I tested that by playing my much more directional horns in the room. That wasn't it because I liked the horns better. I tried EQ to boost the top end but I didn't get that to work. Now that I've got this new amp I'm tempted to give those Revels a try again, just to see if the amp has anything to do with it. It seems to work nicely with the Sonys. So it's weird that I percieve the Revels as sounding great but I'm strugglling to be comfortable with them at the same time.