emerald physics cs2.3

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 11005 times.

xero

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 22
emerald physics cs2.3
« on: 26 May 2009, 02:58 am »
hello all
any ideas which driver clayton is using up top (12" coaxial w/ compression driver)?
i would love to get more specs on this driver configuration.  also,  what do you think
about its use as wave guide?

thanks in advance,
xero

Russell Dawkins

Re: emerald physics cs2.3
« Reply #1 on: 26 May 2009, 03:50 am »
what do you think about its use as wave guide?
xero

Brilliant, especially with active EQ to civilize the 12 and the passive crossover to the HF driver. Very clever!

I think Clayton's strength is in the innovative fundamental configurations he chooses which are so effective they transcend the intrinsic limitations of the components he uses.

xero

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 22
Re: emerald physics cs2.3
« Reply #2 on: 26 May 2009, 04:06 am »
it sounds as if you have heard.  can you give any more details?  i am also curious about the use of the port and its effect on the sound.  it would seem as if the sound might be compromised ( not the best word ).  any insight would be helpful.  btw.  do you know what type of driver he is using for the waveguide?

and last but not least.  i would completely agree with you regarding clayton's abilities. his origian 4 chassis  prototype and subsequently the cs2 prove his ability to innovate.

thanks
xero

Russell Dawkins

Re: emerald physics cs2.3
« Reply #3 on: 26 May 2009, 05:33 am »
No, I haven't heard them, but I have lived at length with another speaker that used the cone as a waveguide - the Tannoy Arden. It used a 15" driver with the coaxial horn/waveguide tweeter. The imaging was outstanding and stable over a fairly wide sweet spot and the dynamic capability which resulted from the large paper cone and the horn loaded HF was appreciated. It could have benefited from the kind of micro EQ that Clayton is able to apply with the active crossover, though, as the midrange was not all that accurate.
I have no idea what driver he is using for the 12, nor do I know how the "Aperture Bass Propagation" technology sounds or works (if that's what you were referring to as the port), but I'll bet it's an improvement on the CS2!
This is one speaker I would feel pretty confident about buying unheard - if I lived in Borneo, for example - based on reputation and word of mouth.

ttan98

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 463
Re: emerald physics cs2.3
« Reply #4 on: 26 May 2009, 06:07 am »
I build a pair of speakers based on the old CS2 configuration, they sounded very good too.

Since then I upgraded to 3 way, using 8" pro drivers with 95dB spl as the mid, and compression driver at the top. and Twin 12" woofer mounted on a U frame. All open baffle except the compression driver. The x-over is performed by the DCX as well. An improvement over the 2 way CS2 config.

I am listening to them now.

Cheers.




baka

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 16
  • "I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfi
Re: emerald physics cs2.3
« Reply #5 on: 28 May 2009, 07:47 pm »
    Hi,


Did someone of you have heard a new CS 2.3  ? Any comparation with the older model CS 2 ?
Thx. in advance.

Victor

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 14
Re: emerald physics cs2.3
« Reply #6 on: 30 May 2009, 06:49 am »
    Hi,


Did someone of you have heard a new CS 2.3  ? Any comparation with the older model CS 2 ?
Thx. in advance.

I also cloned the CS@. Although it sounded impressive, there was no "magic" in the midrange. So I went 3 way and added a Visaton B200. Now its great! Just crossing the B200 with 6db at 5k6 and the DT220 with 6db at 10k.
All the "stress" of the CS2 is gone. The waveguide is great crossing it that high. The Alpha 15's are crossed at 300 hz 12 db. Using a dcx2496 makes it simple to try active, but will work it out passive

JohnCZ

Re: emerald physics cs2.3
« Reply #7 on: 25 Nov 2009, 05:39 pm »
Baka,
I've heard the CS2 a few times in the past year or so and while I thought they sound ok, it was too much of a 'pro audio sound' for me. Recently I was able to listen to the CS2.3 several times and they are worlds apart. The 2.3 is much closer to high end audio now. More dynamics, bigger soundstage, great bass and a very good midrange.
Xero,
I have good information as to what drivers they use for the mid/hi unit, but I rather not make it available here. Email me if you are interested.
John

Victor

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 14
Re: emerald physics cs2.3
« Reply #8 on: 26 Nov 2009, 06:30 pm »
As far as I have seen it must be the Eminence Beta 12CX with the Selenium DT 220i, so the upgrade from a CS2 is: replace the waveguide with the Beta! (and ad a passive crossover)

Russell Dawkins

Re: emerald physics cs2.3
« Reply #9 on: 26 Nov 2009, 07:23 pm »
Hi Victor,
I am interested in knowing what stage you have reached with your CS2 clones.

You were using a B200 at one point, but I gather you went back to the waveguide with the DT220i.

Have you tried the Eminence Beta 12 CX yet? Have you had any luck with the passive crossovers?

thanks, Russell

Victor

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 14
Re: emerald physics cs2.3
« Reply #10 on: 26 Nov 2009, 08:53 pm »
After my first attempts with the CS2 in the beginning of this year clone I was disappointed. It was easy to bring them quick to a acceptable level, but it was impossible to bring them further to the next level. I tried the B200 and this really solved a lot of problems, but I went back to the original configuration using Alpha?s with the waveguide and the DT220i.

Originally it all sounded to aggressive and lacked air and openness. There was something wrong and I was not able to correct it by using my ears and the DCX 2496.
So I started measuring with True RTA. I measured the Alpha?s and the waveguide + DT 220i separately. First I equalised the Alpha?s more or less flat form 150 to 1k and then I did the same with the waveguide + DT220i combo. The latter required a lot of eq to really get flat output till 1k. I started listening again with a few reference recordings and further finetuned the EQ
After this was done I measured them combined and tried the auto time delay with the DCX 2496. This really works!
I finetuned the EQ again by listening

The advantage with the DCX 2496 is that you can safe all your settings during the development, so you can easily compare and check if there is any progress. I made about 15 presets, and it is really amazing to compare them and hear the step by step progress.
The first preset is just a plain 1 k 48db Xover without any EQ, the last one is the final one with all the bells and whistles.

Using the DSP these speakers can be tuned from awful till absolutely fabulous. When the EQ and all the settings are ok they are outstanding, but they can be easily be brought out of tune by minor changes. When everything is OK you just hear a completely natural wall of sound with lots of debt and enormous detail, fantastic dynamics.
What really impresses me is the fact that these speakers, when they are in tune, make you really listen to all kinds of music.

Although the dipole woofers go low and reach 20hz they lack the ultimate punch in that region. On the other side they shine in the way they are able to reproduce low and midbass detail.

I tried the speakers in my much bigger living room as well and combined them (actively at 40 hz) with two concrete IB woofers in the floor, using Kilomax 18?s and I must say that this is one of the best setups I ever heard.

Recently I have had my DCX 2496 modified, and lost all my settings, so I have to start all over again.

Please note that the DT220??s are highly sensitive to the amp you are using them with. I started with a T amp, and the sound was aggressive, brittle. Then I tried a Fatman ipod amp and it became a lot better. It improved a lot further when I put an 8 ohm resistor in parallel with the tweeter (and of course re adjusted the level to keep it equal)
Recently I tried an Music Angel 300B and with this amp the DT220i is brought to another level!

I have not tried to clone the CS 2.3. I ordered the Beta 12CX?s recently and will try them the next month. I will start with a complete active 3 way, using an KT88 amp with the Beta and the 300B amp for the DT 220. As soon as I have done some first test I will let you know




Russell Dawkins

Re: emerald physics cs2.3
« Reply #11 on: 26 Nov 2009, 10:05 pm »
Thanks for the detailed run down, Victor. You told me pretty much everything I wanted to know, and am looking forward to the "rest of the story" as it evolves. Now I am torn between this configuration and this attempt at another popular open baffle design:

http://tinyurl.com/ylrve3r

All in good time, though - I'm in no hurry as I have a pair of very good monitors to serve as references for tonality as I proceed - all they need is that last bit of dynamic capability.

http://tinyurl.com/6c33z9

Although mine are the 0300 model, not the 0300D.

ttan98

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 463
Re: emerald physics cs2.3
« Reply #12 on: 26 Nov 2009, 10:12 pm »
Victor,

you will find 3-way sounds better than 2-way, I have experimented the combinations(2 and 3 ways) myself.

Victor

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 14
Re: emerald physics cs2.3
« Reply #13 on: 26 Nov 2009, 11:13 pm »
To my experience there is no absolute no rule that a 3 way will allways sound better than a 2 way. It all depends.
If you have another opinion please explain

Victor

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 14
Re: emerald physics cs2.3
« Reply #14 on: 27 Nov 2009, 08:40 am »
Russel,

I tried to sent you a PM but your inbox seems to be full!


Victor

ratso

Re: emerald physics cs2.3
« Reply #15 on: 4 Dec 2009, 02:37 am »
staring at my brand new 2.3's right now. damn they're good looking. i am sadly awaiting some rca/xlr cables i ordered before i can fire them up. i will report back when i have them up and running. excited/nervous - i have never heard them before, i bought them on reputation alone. we will see what happens.

baka

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 16
  • "I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfi
Re: emerald physics cs2.3
« Reply #16 on: 4 Dec 2009, 12:01 pm »
staring at my brand new 2.3's right now. damn they're good looking. i am sadly awaiting some rca/xlr cables i ordered before i can fire them up. i will report back when i have them up and running. excited/nervous - i have never heard them before, i bought them on reputation alone. we will see what happens.



 we are expecting a report afther you burn them  aa

zybar

Re: emerald physics cs2.3
« Reply #17 on: 4 Dec 2009, 12:55 pm »
staring at my brand new 2.3's right now. damn they're good looking. i am sadly awaiting some rca/xlr cables i ordered before i can fire them up. i will report back when i have them up and running. excited/nervous - i have never heard them before, i bought them on reputation alone. we will see what happens.

I haven't heard the 2.3's, but I owned and spent a lot of time with the CS2's.  I think you are in for quite a treat based on conversations with Clayton.

George

GregC

Re: emerald physics cs2.3
« Reply #18 on: 5 Dec 2009, 07:22 pm »
I bought a pair of CS-2 speakers the day after I heard them at RMAF 2007 because I was so blown away with how they made speakers costing many times their price sound like boom boxes in comparison.  I have been very happy with them for the past two years.  During the time I owned them I upgraded the Behringer with the Cullen mods.  After the mods the speakers further improved in terms of clarity and dynamics (particularly in the midrange).  I always felt like the speakers excelled at dynamics and had fast tuneful bass.  I could have happily lived with them long term, but I wondered how much better the CS-2.3 speakers could improve on the virtues of the CS-2 speakers.

I decided to trade in my CS-2 speakers and get the CS-2.3 speakers.  I have given them more than 150 hours of break-in and I think the character of the sound has settled in.  I am confident that they will continue to improve for at least another 300 hours, but the differences will be too subtle to notice with daily listening sessions.  I feel I have waited long enough to comment on the sound at this point.

So how do they sound?  In a word, spectacular!  They continue to excel in the areas that the CS-2 speakers shine, but improve in some other important areas.  Like the CS-2 speakers, they have the open baffle unconstrained sound and dynamics in spades.  They also excel in producing music that sounds very close to live music.  The midrange coherency improves because of the 3 way design.  The Alphas are cut over at 100 Hz and are now used specifically for bass duty and do not need to perform duty above 800 Hz like they did on the CS-2 design.  The bass response seems to go lower and have better separation, but is still tight and tuneful.  On top of the better sonic performance, the speakers look furniture grade and less industrial.

So in summary, the speakers look better and perform better than the CS-2 speakers which I consider to be an excellent performer for the money.  I am anxious to hear them after another 200 hours of break in to hear how the bass response sounds after they open up further. 

Just a word of caution, reserve judgment until you have at least 100 hours on them because they go through some awkward break in stages where they sound great and then you say WTF and then they sound great again.


ttan98

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 463
Re: emerald physics cs2.3
« Reply #19 on: 6 Dec 2009, 02:40 am »
I bought a pair of CS-2 speakers the day after I heard them at RMAF 2007 because I was so blown away with how they made speakers costing many times their price sound like boom boxes in comparison.  I have been very happy with them for the past two years.  During the time I owned them I upgraded the Behringer with the Cullen mods.  After the mods the speakers further improved in terms of clarity and dynamics (particularly in the midrange).  I always felt like the speakers excelled at dynamics and had fast tuneful bass.  I could have happily lived with them long term, but I wondered how much better the CS-2.3 speakers could improve on the virtues of the CS-2 speakers.

I decided to trade in my CS-2 speakers and get the CS-2.3 speakers.  I have given them more than 150 hours of break-in and I think the character of the sound has settled in.  I am confident that they will continue to improve for at least another 300 hours, but the differences will be too subtle to notice with daily listening sessions.  I feel I have waited long enough to comment on the sound at this point.

So how do they sound?  In a word, spectacular!  They continue to excel in the areas that the CS-2 speakers shine, but improve in some other important areas.  Like the CS-2 speakers, they have the open baffle unconstrained sound and dynamics in spades.  They also excel in producing music that sounds very close to live music.  The midrange coherency improves because of the 3 way design.  The Alphas are cut over at 100 Hz and are now used specifically for bass duty and do not need to perform duty above 800 Hz like they did on the CS-2 design.  The bass response seems to go lower and have better separation, but is still tight and tuneful.  On top of the better sonic performance, the speakers look furniture grade and less industrial.

So in summary, the speakers look better and perform better than the CS-2 speakers which I consider to be an excellent performer for the money.  I am anxious to hear them after another 200 hours of break in to hear how the bass response sounds after they open up further. 

Just a word of caution, reserve judgment until you have at least 100 hours on them because they go through some awkward break in stages where they sound great and then you say WTF and then they sound great again.

Nice review, very concise, avoiding the use of most audiophile words, the last bit seems appropriate(ie in abbrev.) without being crude, ie "WTF...."