Sony SS-CS5 3-way Speaker Review

[edechamps]

Thanks for the measurements @amirm. Looks like you forgot to post the data zipfile?

 

[Wombat]

Ah, Amir tested the single port version.
See the dual port, here: https://www.sony.com/electronics/speakers/ss-cs5

 

[tuga]

In both scenarios I was testing off-axis. It was a matter of angle in the two scenarios.


I don't buy that off-axis is the design goal or it would say that some place. If you look in the manual, it actually says the opposite:

View attachment 65075

View attachment 65074

This is the standard SMPTE surround configuration with speakers directly pointed at the listener (red arrows mine). So on-axis is the intended listening curve.

You may be reading too much into that, it's just schematic guide.
They've probably just copied the Dolby Atmos standard guidelines, but did't do a particularly good job of it...

source: https://www.dolby.com/us/en/technol...tmos-home-theater-installation-guidelines.pdf

 

[edechamps]

Have a look at the vertical polar response. The presence of off-axis nulls at 17-18kHz implies that this is the crossover frequency between tweeter and super tweeter:
View attachment 65066

Could that be why the NFS had so much trouble analysing the sound field? Messy directivity in the high treble seems like the worst case scenario with regard to the NFS theory of operation…

 

[QMuse]

The measurements are good so I wonder if it can't be EQ'd into shape with some more effort, perhaps with some broader Q filters. Seems like it'll always be SPL limited though.

I would gladly give it a try, but I can't find the measurement file.

 

[tuga]

Could that be why the NFS had so much trouble analysing the sound field? Messy directivity in the high treble seems like the worst case scenario with regard to the NFS theory of operation…

Could Amir's NFS be setup to measure too close (if that is even possible) creating problems in this and other measurements?

If so, wouldn't it be better to back off and lose some very-low frequency accuracy whilst increasing it where it matters more/most?

 

[QMuse]

As to measurements, as I mentioned, the energy above 11 kHz or so is underreported.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that spinorama charts are off in the measurement after 11kHz and that you think actual respone is higher than presented in measurements?

 

[QMuse]

This Preference Rating increases from a 4.5 to a 5.0.

And yet we have a headless panther. One more case to add to discrepancy between preference rating and subjective rating.

 

[tomtoo]

Yes, but how many $78/pair speakers can deliver a deep round bottom in a large room?

None, but thats not the point. I think with a little less HF energie @armir would like them much more. So that's my impression about the subjektive part. He also didnt like the kef 350 that also measured not that bad. If someone likes more speakers on the bright side i think he should take this in consideration. Even if a spinorama of a speaker is not bad it can have tendencis that you enjoy more or less. And i think this speaker have them for @armir in the wrong direction.

 

[richard12511]

For shits and giggles I rotated the measurements by 20 degrees horizontally and also subtracted the difference between on-axis and 20H to all the vertical measurements (this is not super accurate, you can't reliably calculate diagonally), and I came up with this:

View attachment 65048

This Preference Rating increases from a 4.5 to a 5.0.

Wow! 5.0 is incredible for a $78 loudspeaker.

What does it do to the "with subs" score? Given the price tag and target market, I'll bet these are designed to be listened to off axis with no toe in(straight ahead).

 

[QMuse]

None, but thats not the point. I think with a little less HF energie @armir would like them much more.

If his ratings are about tonal balance he could have EQ-ed it more precisely to his personal taste before listening.

 

[QMuse]

I can't help feeling that if they'd taken the cost of that utterly redundant super-tweeter and invested it in one or two extra crossover components, this could have been an incredible value-for-money speaker.

I mean really! It's crossed over at a frequency at which 50+% of the population can't hear anything anyway

This pretty much sums it all - it could have been exceptionally good speaker for the money if they have done that. However, looking at spinorama, CSD and THD graphs, it is still very good speaker considering the price.

 

[q3cpma]

This pretty much sums it all - it could have been exceptionally good speaker for the money if they have done that. However, looking at spinorama, CSD and THD graphs, it is still very good speaker considering the price.

Well, but eating shit is also very good considering the price. Personally, I'm on the side that would not buy a speaker where marketing told the engineers what to do; and the broken clock wasn't right, this time.

Now, it certainly could be worse, but if you have to add the price of an amp, the LSR305 becomes a bit more attractive.

 

[thewas]

As I noted in the review, I covered the super tweeter with my hand and it definitely reduces the high frequency spectrum. So it must play fairly low for me to be able to hear it. It may also be playing very hot which would go with the increased energy above 10 kHz.

Probably also just a first order high pass filter so it still has quite some energy around 10 kHz.
Also when placing the hand over it we slightly change the surrounding baffle of the main tweeter which can also have an audible influence, although I guess its more the other reason.

 

[GelbeMusik]

Probably also just a first order high pass filter so it still has quite some energy around 10 kHz.
Also when placing the hand over it we slightly change the surrounding baffle of the main tweeter which can also have an audible influence, although I guess its more the other reason.

This extra super-squeaker doesn't help a bit, but it doesn't hurt either. The little low-cost-low-interest plastic can has its tight limitations with nearly everything I would consider worthwhile to consider. Bass extension, distortion, and first of all intermodulation, not to forget lobing. The tweeter tends to rattle, as seen in the cruel 96dB test, which eventually is the no-go criterion. I had such once ( with a VIFA! ), and I'm fed up for a lifetime with the corresponding annoyance.

Again the spinorama evaluation for the single-number Dr.Olive rating proves to be just one perspective, to be accompanied by others. And even with the spinorama it fails. Too much weight on upper mids, broadly recessed presence, and brilliance broadly exaggerated. That's the sound of moms kitchen radio, to be followed for the speech/singing part all in the house. Good enough for its purpose.

 

[PuX]

Speaker is made in Malaysia so why Russian language translation for that one word?

Russia loves to dream up random laws and companies have to follow these laws, no matter how stupid they are.
Sometimes they just realize the Russian market is small and abandon it altogether.

 

[edechamps]

This extra super-squeaker doesn't help a bit, but it doesn't hurt either.

Well, it does hurt somewhat by having a crossover in the upper treble, which results in directivity issues (especially on the vertical axis) that wouldn't be there otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if simply disconnecting the supertweeter (and its crossover) improved the sound.

 

[MZKM]

Wow! 5.0 is incredible for a $78 loudspeaker.

What does it do to the "with subs" score? Given the price tag and target market, I'll bet these are designed to be listened to off axis with no toe in(straight ahead).

7.6

Again, not 100% accurate as you can’t really compute vertical measurements diagonally. I wish the Klippel could spit this data out, as it does measure all over.

 

[Peas]

Try to use a piece of tape instead of your hand.

Adding a super-tweeter (in fact, it's a 3/4" tweeter above a 1" tweeter) also compensates for beaming adding energy off-axis which adds diffuse sound to the sweetspot. This method doesn't include a high-pass for the lower range, so there is much overlapping, thus lobing may occur. If you look at the crossover, it might be both, a 3-way or a 2.5-way design.

The 1" tweeter is waveguided, so there must be some beaming also in the 3 kHz area. When using a first-order filter, the so-called super-tweeter may still add relevant energy there. Distortion may also come from this (flat and relatively low filtering).

Anyway, I am not saying that the 3/4" couldn't be used as a super-tweeter when crossed high enough. But I think there's a lot of marketing. Given the price, the speaker looks quite "sophisticated" and talking about "high-res sound up to 50 kHz" is more attracting than explaining the complexity of directivity and so on. These speakers do not sell by performance and extended listening, but based on design and marketing making it a quick decision. As long they will sound okay, there won't be too much regrets.

 

[GelbeMusik]

Well, it does hurt somewhat by having a crossover in the upper treble, which results in directivity issues (especially on the vertical axis) that wouldn't be there otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if simply disconnecting the supertweeter (and its crossover) improved the sound.

The bug might become feature. I stick to the idea hat the audience for this is the less caring couple, which tries to improve on a second hand something, they have around since too long. An occasional buy from a humble tax payback may be. It serves only short term interest for something good at least. The customer shall not be the enthusiast with a large collection of first issues in vinyl.

Placed somewhere on a shelve the wide fingered dispersion may be felt as more immersive than piercing treble from a distinctive point in a strictly placed stereo triangle. It may leave the sound some air, when listened to "Rihanna" or "Amy Winehouse" from the other room.

To discuss this obviously less engaged design with all the critique yet not applied to some "high end" product, seems to me a bit over the top. So, I have to defend it