Emerald Physics CS2 loudspeakers at RMAF...WOW!!!

TomS · « **Reply #60 on:** 15 Oct 2007, 03:19 pm »

Behringer DCX2496 is what he lists.

I kind of liked the sock better than open and I even have two cats.

gitarretyp · « **Reply #61 on:** 15 Oct 2007, 04:23 pm »

Quote from: anubisgrau on 15 Oct 2007, 03:16 pm

no, the eminence woofers are for sure in parallel - that's a classic OB bass thing. i don't which BMS compression driver is used in CS2, but whatever he uses it goes really low - deeply into a midrange territory. could be it's one of the BMS coaxial compression drivers which is actually mid and tweeter together.

i'm a bit confused with behringer being mentioned - i've thought that emerald is EXCLUSIVELY using DBX products, at least known as an industry standard.

LBNTL has anyone had a chance to check the "sock" that covers the baffle and drivers? i have 3 cats at home and if it looks like a big piece of clothed furniture they will start playing with it sooner or later. naked drivers are less of a problem.

The crossover is listed as being 1kHz. The driver spacing between the tweeter and lower driver is 2-3 wavelengths at that frequency. This will cause significant comb filtering.

Please note, i'm not arguing that the speakers don't sound great. I'm simply pointing out a potential design flaw; one that could be improved upon pretty easily, and emerald might consider trying out, if they haven't already. Of course, all designs involve trade-offs, and maybe this was a trade-off they decided to make in favor of efficiency.

Occam · « **Reply #62 on:** 15 Oct 2007, 04:53 pm »

And the extent of comb filtering between the acoustic ceters, the midpoint in back of the baffle between the two woofers and the compression driver, with a 48db crossossover would be?
Its not a rhetorical question... I really don't know.

zybar · « **Reply #63 on:** 15 Oct 2007, 04:54 pm »

Quote from: TomS on 15 Oct 2007, 02:42 pm

Rather than speculate too much, the easiest thing would be to ask Clayton to walk it through. He was very accommodating so I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem. I was so wrapped up in the sound I didn't ask much about the science. That is indeed rare for me

I have already asked Clayton to join and provide more detailed info.

As he is traveling back from the show, I am not sure if he will be bale to reply right away.

George

BradJudy · « **Reply #64 on:** 15 Oct 2007, 04:55 pm »

I'll just chime in to concur that this setup sounded excellent.

zybar · « **Reply #65 on:** 15 Oct 2007, 04:57 pm »

Quote from: gitarretyp on 15 Oct 2007, 04:23 pm

Quote from: anubisgrau on 15 Oct 2007, 03:16 pm

no, the eminence woofers are for sure in parallel - that's a classic OB bass thing. i don't which BMS compression driver is used in CS2, but whatever he uses it goes really low - deeply into a midrange territory. could be it's one of the BMS coaxial compression drivers which is actually mid and tweeter together.

i'm a bit confused with behringer being mentioned - i've thought that emerald is EXCLUSIVELY using DBX products, at least known as an industry standard.

LBNTL has anyone had a chance to check the "sock" that covers the baffle and drivers? i have 3 cats at home and if it looks like a big piece of clothed furniture they will start playing with it sooner or later. naked drivers are less of a problem.

The crossover is listed as being 1kHz. The driver spacing between the tweeter and lower driver is 2-3 wavelengths at that frequency. This will cause significant comb filtering.

Please note, i'm not arguing that the speakers don't sound great. I'm simply pointing out a potential design flaw; one that could be improved upon pretty easily, and emerald might consider trying out, if they haven't already. Of course, all designs involve trade-offs, and maybe this was a trade-off they decided to make in favor of efficiency.

I can't speak to the science of the speaker, but I can certainly say that it didn't sound like comb filtering was an issue.

If there was a lot of comb filtering taking place, I don't think Emerald Physics would have been able to achieve the sound that so many of us heard.

George

brj · « **Reply #66 on:** 15 Oct 2007, 05:14 pm »

Actually, that was something that I meant to check, but didn't... how did the CS2 sound off-axis? I spent all of my time in the sweet seat, as I had the room entirely to myself for most of the time I was there.

JoshK · « **Reply #67 on:** 15 Oct 2007, 05:24 pm »

I'm somewhat sorry I asked. I didn't mean to knock down this thread's joy. I was asking in all seriousness. Comb filtering is a real phenomena and one that is readily audible and easy to predict so I was just stating the obvious in asking the question.

Paul, I am not sure I understand your question.

zybar · « **Reply #68 on:** 15 Oct 2007, 05:42 pm »

Quote from: brj on 15 Oct 2007, 05:14 pm

Actually, that was something that I meant to check, but didn't... how did the CS2 sound off-axis? I spent all of my time in the sweet seat, as I had the room entirely to myself for most of the time I was there.

I listened at the sweet spot and at many other positions that were off-axis and it was all good!

While the sweet spot was the best, there wasn't a significant drop off in other positions (even the cave area for those who were in the room).

George

zybar · « **Reply #69 on:** 15 Oct 2007, 05:43 pm »

Quote from: JoshK on 15 Oct 2007, 05:24 pm

I'm somewhat sorry I asked. I didn't mean to knock down this thread's joy. I was asking in all seriousness. Comb filtering is a real phenomena and one that is readily audible and easy to predict so I was just stating the obvious in asking the question.

Paul, I am not sure I understand your question.

Josh,

No worries about asking questions.

Keep them coming...

George

sunshinedawg · « **Reply #70 on:** 15 Oct 2007, 05:59 pm »

Quote from: gitarretyp on 15 Oct 2007, 04:23 pm

The crossover is listed as being 1kHz. The driver spacing between the tweeter and lower driver is 2-3 wavelengths at that frequency. This will cause significant comb filtering.

Please note, i'm not arguing that the speakers don't sound great. I'm simply pointing out a potential design flaw; one that could be improved upon pretty easily, and emerald might consider trying out, if they haven't already. Of course, all designs involve trade-offs, and maybe this was a trade-off they decided to make in favor of efficiency.

I always wonder why people are concerned with comb filtering coming from one speaker, when every equilateral triangle speaker/ listener setup produces comb filtering from the upper frequencies coming from two different places and reaching the ears at the same time. Line sources are the worst for me, they have all kinds of this from each speaker and then from the 60o setup.

brj · « **Reply #71 on:** 15 Oct 2007, 06:14 pm »

How does the controlled directivity of a wave guide affect the comb filtering question?

gitarretyp · « **Reply #72 on:** 15 Oct 2007, 06:17 pm »

I hadn't noticed how steep the crossover is. That will lessen the effect of comb filtering, but it should still be noticeable in the region near the crossover off-axis. Like i said above, speaker design is always about trade-offs. However, it seems a strange trade-off to have such large ctc spacing, which will adversely effect the power response, when one of the main reasons for using the waveguide is to match the dispersion of the mid/low frequency drivers at the crossover.

I look forward to hearing from the designer and will refrain from further comment to help put the thread back on track.

KCI-JohnP · « **Reply #73 on:** 15 Oct 2007, 06:44 pm »

Well setting aside all the techno mumbo jumbo, they sure look cool and I would love to give those babies a listen.

John

opnly bafld · « **Reply #74 on:** 15 Oct 2007, 06:53 pm »

WOW!!!.............................WOW!!!

(didn't feel one wow was enough)

Great sound, heard no problems with the design.

I think the waveguide- monopole above 1k tweeter will allow a lot of flexibility in angling the speakers for the best soundstage in each room. In my experience with fullrange dipole speakers getting the soundstage right can be tricky.

As far as flat baffle dipole bass, for some it might take some getting used, but IMO it is very real sounding, is the area where OB/dipoles really shine (along with no box midrange of course-but a number of people do that with boxed bass

) and it is very addictive.

FWIW/YMMV
Lin

PS I liked N. Pass' OB's also but they were a bit more expensive.

JoshK · « **Reply #75 on:** 15 Oct 2007, 07:06 pm »

Quote from: brj on 15 Oct 2007, 06:14 pm

How does the controlled directivity of a wave guide affect the comb filtering question?

Not much, afaik. It will only change the very far off axis filtering.

Bill Baker · « **Reply #76 on:** 15 Oct 2007, 07:29 pm »

I'll let you know my thoughts on the system soon enough

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #77 on:** 15 Oct 2007, 09:18 pm »

Quiet a buzz at the show about the Emerald Physics room (lots of visitors to that room).....listened a few times along with Captain Humble....nice speakers.....nice price....very open sounding, with good detail. Not a big fan of the Bel Canto amps (thats my opinion), but they worked well with the speakers...they did the job.

Looking forward to George's review after he receives his.....

PaulFolbrecht · « **Reply #78 on:** 17 Oct 2007, 01:04 am »

Count me among those stunned by the sound in this room. Unfortunately, we were very pressed for time at the time and I didn't stay long. Wish I would've heard more.

I wish I'd have played some female vocals and see how they did compared to my single-driver (AER) Lamhorns and other single driver designs (about the ultimate in vocal reproduction, I think).

Crazy as I am, I'm considering them for the 2nd system. I nice contrast to the Lamhorns, I think, though actually they seem to have a lot in common - like a single-driver horn, they were super dynamic and I think the low xover gave them good coherence as well (possibly not on par with a good SD).

Bass - yeah, the bass lept out at you, didn't it? Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me like OB bass is like backloaded horn bass as well, in some ways. Both produce the fundamental with no harmonics; BR boxes, of course, muddy the note with harmonics. This OB bass was among the best I have ever heard (from anything).

Paul

Duke · « **Reply #79 on:** 17 Oct 2007, 01:22 am »

While the inter-driver spacing with the Emerald Physic speakers is more than we might like, the steep crossover limits the region of significant lobing to probably less than a third of an octave in width. The ear is less sensitive to narrow-band phenomena than it is to wide-band phenomena, even if the latter is of significantly lower magnitude. Also, the radiation pattern similarity (in the horizontal plane at least) will imho work towards giving the CS2 a much less audible transition between drivers than most conventional two-ways have. I couldn't hear any crossover issues from off-axis in the Emeral Physics room.

As far as sound source height goes, the ear is very poor at vertical image resolution down around 500 Hz and is just starting to warm up at around 1 kHz. The ear's vertical imaging ability increases from 1 kHz up to about 4 kHz where it peaks, and then declines above that point. Once again a closer driver spacing or lower crossover might be theoretically more ideal, but would drive the price up dramatically while making a relatively small audible difference.

Clayton Shaw has been around for a while, and used to be part of a team called Evett and Shaw that introduced a high-performance compact "desktop" speaker back in the late 90's. He's flying solo now. http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/300evett/

Feel free to take my any and all comments with a grain or three of salt, as I'm an Emerald Physics dealer.

Duke

"What's this suppository doing in my ear? And... where's my hearing aid?"