[sunshinedawg]

I am not the type that writes gushy reviews all the time, in fact, I think this is the second thread I have ever started. This thread will not cover what others have already said about the CS2's.

I have always been into researching the heck out of everything, not just audio gear, heavily, before I commit to buying it. I almost have to hear it, if it is going to be a audio purchase. I have been hunting for new speakers for the last few years. I am a minimalist to say the least, yet I am very demanding of my gear. I want everything to be simple, but with maximum reality. Oh, and it has to be cheap as well. The CS2's are all of the above, simple, cheap and perfect.

I start from a very wide, objective scope. My goal is to reproduce a live event, not approximate a live event. If one wants realism, they need to examen two things, what comprises the sound of a live event and how the human hearing mechanism perceives this sound. After much research, I have disovered that there are three main elements necessay to reproduce a live event:
1. sounds that come directly from an instrument to your ears
2. early reflections(usually just one reflection for me) from around the auditorium's walls
3. ambient sounds(sounds that have reflected so many times, their origin can not be detected), sometimes called reverberation.
For the human perception part in any listening room, all you have to do is recreate 1,2 and 3. The key is to make sure the sounds emanate from where they originally did and make sure they are reaching your ears in the right order. The two mistakes every one makes are, having the sounds coming from the wrong places(not where the instruments were) and having the same sound come from more than one location, ie two speakers in an equilateral setup or from multiple drivers(line array). Ideally, you also want as little interaction from your room as possible, unless your room acoustics are similar to the original venue(not likely unless you are listening to, maybe say jazz).

You can argue all you want with the above paragraph, but in the end, if you are objective, that is the reality and the psychoacoustics behind how we perceive a live event. The importance of getting all the sounds and putting them in the right places is way more important than any choice of gear. I much rather have a Radio Shack system setup properly than a megabuck equilateral system.

Given all this, I am still an audiophile, so I like better quality gear than Radio Shack. The reason why I chose the CS2's after hearing them at RMAF, was mainly for the technology of the speaker. To recreate a live event, you want a speaker that "beams" at you, not sprays. You want sounds to only come from one direction, the waveguide of the CS2's does this perfectly. Another item that intrigued me was the digital crossover. I liked the idea of doing this in the digital domain, making the speakers extremely easy to drive, plus you can adjust the crossover all you want with some easy programming. You can go completely digital from front end to speakers this way. The last detail was the OB bass, of all the things at the show, this was the easiest to judge. There were zero room treatments and the bass sounded natural, tight and powerful. It was a bit of a gamble for me, because I only got to hear them in a equilateral setup which, I can no longer tolerate. I had to guess a little what they would do in a proper setup.

I will not go into how they image and their depth. These items mainly come from first reflection and ambient channels/speakers and would need another thread. What I can say is that between the sounds that are suppose to come directly to your ears and the bass sounds, they can certainly recreate a live event. I have the most realistic system I have ever heard now.

I'd like to thank George (zybar) for setting me up with these speakers. I am glad he decided to become a dealer for Emerald Physics pretty much before he got on a plane to go home from RMAF. He was helpful in getting things setup. He's a pretty nice guy to boot, and will take care of you. I would highly recommend him to anyone. Thanks as well to Mike Galusha for helping me mod my DCX. I'd also like to thank Tom and Frank for helping me my decision and of course Clayton, for building these wonderful speakers.

Here is my related gear because I know I can't get away with out disclosing it, everything is digital:

Source: SB3 with Bolder Cable digital mods + bybee
PS for SB3: DIY Power One
Amps: Panny xr45 with Bolder Cable digital mods(low end), Panny xr25(top end) unmodified, Yamaha DSP-A3090(reflections, reverb)
PC: Bolder Cable (not sure of model)
Crossover: DCX with DIY digital output mod (3x S/PDIF)
DSP: Yamaha DSP-3000(extra reverb)
Speaker cable: Reality(lows) WireWorld Orbits(highs
Digital cables: VH Audio Pulsar, Belkin BNC's
Treatments: 10 DIY Bass traps (4" industrial insulation panels, 2'x4')
Speakers: CS2's(dipoles), Coincident Super Conquest's(first reflection), various crappy Sony bookshelf(ambient)

[mgalusha]

You're welcome Sean.

How many total speakers do you have in the system now with the DSP/Reverberation additions?

Love to see a picture of the room.

mike

[sunshinedawg]

Mike,

I have 8 speakers, but I should have 10. One of my xr25's is broken, making me lose a channel. The extra channels aren't much to see except for my first reflection speakers(Coincident Super Conquests), I'm just using crappy bookshelf speakers cause I can't afford anything better.

[Mag]

I like your approach to audio and philosophy, I have 10 speakers.
I disagree though about recreated 'live' realism in your home.
You shouldn't strive to recreate the recorded venue. Rather your own room is the venue with it unique attributes. Where the instruments are, is not that important, but having a balanced mix is. When the spl level is sufficient the room interaction blends everything together coherently just like at a bar if your sitting a few rows back and its as close to 'live' as I think is possible with home audio. However further analysis is needed to determine exactly what I'm hearing.
I doesn't matter however because you or me will never convince the 2-channel stereo purists.

[TRADERXFAN]

Well that was an strong endorsement.

But, how do you setup your speakers if not equilateral triangle?

[csero]

I'm also in the transaural/ambiophonic camp and as you may guess I totally agree with you on the psychoacoustics. 
Even my speakers are similar, just not OB but IB rather.
Attached a pic of the front of my room with the  main XTC and first reflection speakers. Not visible are the front and rear above and rear speakers.

[BrianM]

This is an interesting review.  The most interesting thing being that in laying out his listening "philosophy" sunshinedawg contradicts himself about half a dozen times.  But the CS2s sound like remarkable speakers.

[Daygloworange]

If one wants realism, they need to examen two things, what comprises the sound of a live event and how the human hearing mechanism perceives this sound. After much research, I have disovered that there are three main elements necessay to reproduce a live event:
1. sounds that come directly from an instrument to your ears
2. early reflections(usually just one reflection for me) from around the auditorium's walls
3. ambient sounds(sounds that have reflected so many times, their origin can not be detected), sometimes called reverberation.

These are the fundamentals for localization of sounds, yes. What you describe as ambient sounds are better described as late reflections. All 3 of the elements you describe are captured in a proper, well recorded 2 channel recording.

Getting as faithful a sound, in playback, as was captured during the recording, requires precise transfer function of the playback system.

The two mistakes every one makes are, having the sounds coming from the wrong places(not where the instruments were) and having the same sound come from more than one location, ie two speakers in an equilateral setup or from multiple drivers(line array).

Who's making these "mistakes"? How can someone have sounds come from wrong places? The "places" where the sounds are localized in a soundfield are captured in the recording.

I think you are improperly visualizing a line array speaker. It is creating an infinite line, a unified wavefront. No different than all the multiple points on the surface area of a single driver, just on a bigger (longer)scale.

Ideally, you also want as little interaction from your room as possible,

Yes.

unless your room acoustics are similar to the original venue

No.

You can argue all you want with the above paragraph, but in the end, if you are objective, that is the reality and the psychoacoustics behind how we perceive a live event.

I am being totally objective here.

The importance of getting all the sounds and putting them in the right places is way more important than any choice of gear.

Gear can't put sounds in wrong places. The gear only tries to reproduce an input, in the most linear fashion possible, for accurate playback.

Gear selection, and individual component performance here is paramount.

You want sounds to only come from one direction,

Physically impossible. Sounds move forward from a point source in a hemispherical wavefront.

You shouldn't strive to recreate the recorded venue. Rather your own room is the venue with it unique attributes.

If you want to hear what is on the recording as faithfully as possible, you want to remove your "room's" unique attributes "out" of the equation.

Where the instruments are, is not that important,

What? You've got to be kidding.

When the spl level is sufficient the room interaction blends everything together coherently just like at a bar if your sitting a few rows back and its as close to 'live' as I think is possible with home audio.

I don't even know where to start with that description. Suffice it to say, you cannot stray further from "Hi-Fidelity" audio reproduction with this philosophy.

I doesn't matter however because you or me will never convince the 2-channel stereo purists.

Convince them of what? Getting the science of 2 channel playback wrong?

There are a lot of fundamentals here that are being hugely overlooked, and a number of wrong conclusions being drawn on how to properly implement a 2 channel system in a room.   

Cheers

[pbrstreetgang]

For a while I thought I was reading a 08 Presidential debate with all those contradictions. I think you got yourself a fine pair of speakers but that philosophy you used to come to that purchase is massaged at best. You want the sound to "beam at you" yet you chose a speaker that radiates much information to the the rear and is specifically designed to use reflections to create an immersive experience. I hope you are happy but there simply isnt an end all approach that you are right about and everyone else is wrong about.

[sunshinedawg]

Well that was an strong endorsement.

But, how do you setup your speakers if not equilateral triangle?

The mains are 10o degrees apart, with various ambient speakers around me

I'm also in the transaural/ambiophonic camp and as you may guess I totally agree with you on the psychoacoustics. 
Even my speakers are similar, just not OB but IB rather.
Attached a pic of the front of my room with the  main XTC and first reflection speakers. Not visible are the front and rear above and rear speakers.

Wow, I've got hear your system.

The most interesting thing being that in laying out his listening "philosophy" sunshinedawg contradicts himself about half a dozen times. 

Not even sure what this means or how to respond.   

These are the fundamentals for localization of sounds, yes. What you describe as ambient sounds are better described as late reflections. All 3 of the elements you describe are captured in a proper, well recorded 2 channel recording.

Getting as faithful a sound, in playback, as was captured during the recording, requires precise transfer function of the playback system.

No, you can't get 3d playback over a 2D system. As I said before you can argue all you want, but you can't break the laws of physics.

Who's making these "mistakes"? How can someone have sounds come from wrong places? The "places" where the sounds are localized in a soundfield are captured in the recording.

Wrong. How many times do I have to say this? By using an equilateral triangle you are making all sounds from the original sound field come from a pt in space that they didn't originally come from. It is as simple as that. Did all the sounds from the original venue come from 2 pts on the stage approximating your equilateral triangle? And did the same sound come from two different places? No. The sounds come from all around you. Granted, if you built your room to have the acoustics of the original venue, you might be able to pull this off. Again you can argue all you want but you can't break the laws of physics. Humans need the right sounds in the right places for realism.

I think you are improperly visualizing a line array speaker. It is creating an infinite line, a unified wavefront. No different than all the multiple points on the surface area of a single driver, just on a bigger (longer)scale.

I'm not visualizing anything. Why would you need a line array for anything? Most every instrument I can think of has a pt source, and that is what I'm trying to replicate. I have no need for a unified wavefront.

[sunshinedawg]

For a while I thought I was reading a 08 Presidential debate with all those contradictions. I think you got yourself a fine pair of speakers but that philosophy you used to come to that purchase is massaged at best. You want the sound to "beam at you" yet you chose a speaker that radiates much information to the the rear and is specifically designed to use reflections to create an immersive experience. I hope you are happy but there simply isnt an end all approach that you are right about and everyone else is wrong about.

You can choose whatever reality you want, mine is based in psychoacoustics. What is yours based in? The sounds that I want to beam at me do, ie the ones for a proper sound field. I have extensive room treatment for the others. I love that every one chirps in but has probably never even tried what I am doing. Why is your system the way it is, because that's the way everyone else is doing it or is it based on the properties of sound and human hearing?

[pbrstreetgang]

You can choose whatever reality you want, mine is based in psychoacoustics.

Allsome

[Mag]

You shouldn't strive to recreate the recorded venue. Rather your own room is the venue with it unique attributes.

[If you want to hear what is on the recording as faithfully as possible, you want to remove your "room's" unique attributes "out" of the equation.]

Wow, I didn't think I would be critique so strongly. I feel like I'm back on the religious forum answering agnostics.
Anyways let me try to explain.
If my room acoustics are better than the recorded venue and the music is faithfully captured on the recording. Then I want to hear the music as if it were being played in my venue. Take a concert dvd for example: You can hear the effect of the arena venue in the background. Why would you want to hear that?  A studio recording would be preferable interacting in your room not an arena.
If I change or remove something in my room I may degrade what brought the detail of the recorded music out and made it sound great. Like if I cover the rafters with a false ceiling.

Where the instruments are, is not that important,

[What? You've got to be kidding.]

If your listen to concert on stage, the guitarist is on the right, drums in the middle background, keyboards on the left, bass guitar in the back right corner. Is that really what you hear? No, That is a multiple point source that can't be captured on a recording. What your hearing on a recording is the mix of all the instruments. Some instruments are mixed left some right. If your speakers are far apart then one instrument that's totally on the right sounds unbalanced with the rest of the music coming out of the left. If the mix is balance it sounds better, but you no longer have an accurate picture from the recording where they were standing on stage.
Then there's electronic music concerts. The keyboardist could be in a back room  for all that it matters. He just happens to be on a stage where you can see him. The artist mixes the performance the way he wants it to sound. In the venue people are at, it has a certain ambient affect. That same mix played in your room venue has a ambient affect as well, and maybe better than the original venue. So where the sounds are on the recording is all that matters for a balanced soundfield.

When the spl level is sufficient the room interaction blends everything together coherently just like at a bar if your sitting a few rows back and its as close to 'live' as I think is possible with home audio.

[I don't even know where to start with that description. Suffice it to say, you cannot stray further from "Hi-Fidelity" audio reproduction with this philosophy.]

With multiple speaker arrangement at low volume you can clearly discern where each speaker is. Distracting from the music. Get the volume up so the sound is bouncing off the walls. And it's difficult to locate the speaker sources, but not impossible. This makes for a more seamless coherent soundfield.

I doesn't matter however because you or me will never convince the 2-channel stereo purists.

[Convince them of what? Getting the science of 2 channel playback wrong?]

No, even if your multi-channel multi-speaker setup is clearly better than a two channel setup. The purist will say, give me two good speakers, and I'll take two channel over multi-channel any day. Just like an agnostic there is nothing you can do or say to convince them otherwise.

[Daygloworange]

You can choose whatever reality you want, mine is based in psychoacoustics.

Becoming condescending and digging you heels in, will not all of a sudden lend credibility to your theories.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here.

Your reality is based on your (erroneous) interpretation of psychoacoustics. That's where the problem is.

I applaud the fact that you've made the effort to read up on the topic, but, you've come to a number of wrong conclusions about sound propagation.

Dig a little deeper.

What is yours based in?

Proper understanding of the fundamentals of sound propagation and psychoacoustics, from over 20 years as a recording engineer and musician.

I love that every one chirps in but has probably never even tried what I am doing.

What is it that you are doing anyways?     There's only one way to properly swing a hammer. Why are you trying to find another way to swing a hammer that's been designed to be swung only one way?

Why is your system the way it is, because that's the way everyone else is doing it or is it based on the properties of sound and human hearing?

A properly set up system is designed to duplicate (in reverse) the recording (capture) of a live sound event, and is based very much on how human hearing works.

Actually, multichannel audio was prototyped as a 3 channel system comprised of Left/Center/Right (as far back as the 1930's IIRC) but the problem was the playback medium (vinyl) was only capable of L/R signals to be cut in a groove.

No, you can't get 3d playback over a 2D system. As I said before you can argue all you want, but you can't break the laws of physics.

I never implied you can get 3D playback from 2 channels. From what I gather about your system, you are merely trying to synthesize a full 360 degree from a 2 channel recording with a surround type speaker arrangement. Which would be mediocre at best.

If it becomes truly holographic, then you've succeeded at something many other's have yet to do.

Wrong. How many times do I have to say this? By using an equilateral triangle you are making all sounds from the original sound field come from a pt in space that they didn't originally come from. It is as simple as that. Did all the sounds from the original venue come from 2 pts on the stage approximating your equilateral triangle? No. The sounds come from all around you. Granted, if you built your room to have the acoustics of the original venue, you might be able to pull this off. Again you can argue all you want but you can't break the laws of physics. Humans need the right sounds in the right places for realism.

No, you are mistaken again. And your elaborations illustrate how you've come to the wrong conclusions again.

We hear with 2 ears. They capture sound independently of each other ( 2 speakers work like that as well)

We sum what our 2 ears have captured and through the functions of the brain, visualize where the sounds have emanated from, left to right, front to back.

As far as laws of physics, I'm afraid you're not getting the physics right. I tried to explain how sounds propagate in a hemispherical pattern from a point source. They do not " beam" towards you. So your illustration of a speaker needing to "beam" towards you, is pointless and moot. So you've got your "physics" wrong here, not me.

We discussed how this works a little more in depth here, not too long ago:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=49152.20

and here:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=49102.20

I'm not visualizing anything. Why would you need a line array for anything? Most every instrument I can think of has a pt source, and that is what I'm trying to replicate. There is just is simple no need of line arrays for me.

Is an orchestra a single point source?

Again, all you've done is show that you have the fundamentals of line arrays, and how sounds propagate from a point source, wrong. As well as instruments.

How many point sources on an acoustics guitar? A piano? A violin? A drum? A cymbal?



Cheers

[Daygloworange]

Wow, I didn't think I would be critique so strongly. I feel like I'm back on the religious forum answering agnostics.

I was just illustrating how you were improperly using a 2 channel system's design, in order to achieve as faithful a reproduction of the recording.

I also wanted to correct any wrong information on how sounds propagate, for those newbies who are getting into this hobby, and potentially might formulate wrong conclusions on how things work.

You earlier post, and your later post, are wrong on many levels. Your statements about multiple point sources not being able to be properly captured in a L/R soundstage, are wrong.

You hear a live sound event with 2 ears. ( ie: 2 independant channels of information sent to the brain)

Your 2 channel system plays back what was captured by 2 microphones (in a perfect example), which are also 2 channels of independant information.

What your personal goals, and preferences are, are yours, and yours alone, and I won't try and tell you that they shouldn't be what they are.

Cheers

[JLM]

Open baffles fascinate me, but don't think I'd ever own them because they don't simulate how sounds are really made.  Unless your vocalists have holes in the back of their throats (or a twin singing back to back in perfect assynchronization varying by frequency), the sound they produce only comes out the front.

Secondly the dipole sound propagation of open baffles produce a big, diffused, remote soundstaging that isn't what is heard in the recording studio.  Like it or not, we're "married" to the entire recording process and to get optimal performance our playback systems must learn within all those given parameters.

I'm confused with your position on speaker positioning.  Where do you think my two speakers should be located?  We're still talking stereo recordings, right?  Keep in mind that the number and locations of recording microphones vary by the recording and that the soundstage is usually created (depending on live/studio work and musical genre) during the mixing process, not within the recording venue.

Glad you're happy with your purchase. 

[BrianM]

This has been hilarious...

"Psychoacoustics" is the study of sound perception.  Perception is not a matter for objectivity.

A new owner of dipole speakers is banging the lectern about sound coming from one direction.

And Mag, I can't figure what on earth you're talking about:

Take a concert dvd for example: You can hear the effect of the arena venue in the background. Why would you want to hear that?

Wha?

Here's objective: if the recording was made with 2-channels, it'll always be a 2-channel recording.  If it was recorded in an arena venue, the extent to which you can hear that venue will be the extent to which it is a faithful recording.

[sts9fan]

I would like to read an article by you on this topic.  I am sure the scientific comunity would be very interested in your findings.  I am sure you could submit to both psychological and, acoustics (JASA?) journals.  Besides you listening what research (that you have corroborated on your own) are you basing your claims on?  Psychoacousticly speaking how can you PROVE that an ideal setup as you describe will cause the same results in the brain.  i.e. listening to the exact same performace at the hall and at your home.  What measurements of the brain would you (based on your research) choose to analyze the outcome of your setup.  You also claimed in a previous thread that you use this technique for studio recorded material.  All you are doing here is contaminating the source.

[zybar]

Secondly the dipole sound propagation of open baffles produce a big, diffused, remote soundstaging that isn't what is heard in the recording studio.  Like it or not, we're "married" to the entire recording process and to get optimal performance our playback systems must learn within all those given parameters.

Not all dipoles sound like you describe... aa

George

[sunshinedawg]

What is it that you are doing anyways?     There's only one way to properly swing a hammer. Why are you trying to find another way to swing a hammer that's been designed to be swung only one way?

I'm using two very close speakers, 10o apart that eliminate crosstalk between the speakers, and many ambient channels.

That's the whole point, you are not open to a new idea. Everybody thought the world was flat at one point. Forgive the bad cliche, but you are assuming there is only one way to swing the hammer. Just what if you are wrong about that? Your way misses the mark. I am open to anyway to do audio, but nothing you have said explains why your way is superior to mine. Just because you've done something so long for one way does not make it right. I'm not trying to be a jerk either. I don't understand how an equilateral triangle is suppose to be optimal when it adds comb filtering and time domain errors to the playback chain. Why do you so staunchly defend it? Have you tried anything else? Have you researched why everyone uses it? I actually have, and the reasons are mostly circumstantial and not scientific.