Emerald Physics CS-2, Opinions Please

I agree as well John. But, that said to get that 1000Hz down from the SET (IMHO) always required a horn bass. Which was big as a refrigerator and not very practical. Plus, the fact that a two way design with a passive crossover will suck up some watts. That's why anybody who have owned Altecs, older Klipsch, etc. found that they needed more power that they would have thought. I do wish the CS 2 would crossover at a lower point,say, 500Hz. Clayton's new reference he is designing will have a lower crossover I'm told. So, that will get some of that lower Hz magic from the SET amp. I would like to hear what you can build that would play the full range from the SET amp and have no compression, full resolution, and linear. I know the SET amp can do this and agree with you that it's the speaker needs to be up to it. I have no doubt that it can be done (by you or others) but, at what price tag? BTW, guys I'm not a speaker builder, designer. I'm just someone who has played with a lot of speakers trying to get the best out of a SET amp.I think we're on the same page but, just getting to the end result in a different manner.

Philefreak,
There is no doubt you need fairly efficient, and well designed bass drivers in a cabinet capable of air movement to get the magic of S.E.T. bass down as far as 10 hz. Some of the old' horns and klipsch with low excursion, not low tuned cabinets like most klipsch heritage series will not get you sub atomic bass, however I have heard 20 watt S.E.T do it on the right speaker, and totally kill 1000 watt subwoofers even, and the integration was so good that you laugh at using all the extra amps in the end..

I have done it all different ways, and found doing it right really requires one tube mono per channel, and you can get it all with some care and matching.. This is not always conventional or cheap however, so these Emerald physics can fill that void for those not blessed to use these options with full S.E.T power, and you can always force more low end response using DSP's and equalization to correct things in the design of the speaker or your room, win win, but takes more equimpment and more power switches to turn on and off!

Philefreak

While, I'm a SET advocate, I agree completely that sticking a 3 W amp on even a 100 dB speaker may not always yield the best results. This depends somewhat on the speaker,amp, room combination.

However, I do disagree about your comment that SET amps having problems below 1000 Hz. I realize the 1000 Hz number comes from the crossover point of the CS2 so it was a number that was thrown out in discussion.

The modern pitch standard for music is 440 Hz, which is A4 (the A note above middle C) and the 49th key on a piano. This is right in the middle of the piano and hardly in the bass region nor difficult for a SET amp to reproduce. The normal frequency range for the average human voice in normal conversation is about 80 Hz to 1100 Hz. Obviously, talented individuals can go much higher or lower. However, the normal vocal range is below 1000 Hz. One traditional strength of SET amps is their presentation of human voice. A soprano is expected to cover from C4 (261.626 Hz) to C6 (1046.50 Hz). So saying SETs can't handle music below 1000 Hz is a bit off. Now, getting below 40-60 Hz becomes tricky. Certainly getting to 20 Hz is downright difficult without a gigantic bass horn.

A 500 Hz lower cutoff for a compression driver is a pretty severe requirement on both the driver and the horn/waveguide if you want the driver to cover 500 Hz to 20 kHz. 800 Hz is a more reasonable and achievable goal. There are compression drivers rated down to 500 Hz and go up to 20 kHz (usually a larger 2" driver). But, you do want some head room (say 1/2 octave) below the crossover point. 500 Hz is pretty hard to do and it is debatable whether there are any advantages. At that point, going to a three-way design may be a better option.

I never said a SET amp couldn't do sub 1000Hz well. I was trying to say that I've never found a speaker that could do it correctly even though the SET amp was doing it's job perfectly well(like you said better than most other amps) I know what SETs are capable of. I beleive that power kills an any amp, tube or solid state. This is my opinion and only that. So, high power advocates please start another thread. That said all my favorite SET amps are 45, PX 4,and 2A3 output tubes. All are under 5 watts. So, It's unrelistic, and I've tried, to expect a 5 watt amp or under to run two drivers with a passive crossover to realistic levels. Realistic being 85/90 db without any strain what so ever plus, real bass and weight in the 30Hz to 1000Hz region. I know it can be done but, for goodness sakes. Look at the bass horn you'd have to have. I know and understand that a lot of you look at the CS 2 as cheating to acheive the results I'm getting or that they are capable of. I used to be one to not want any digital involvement at all or as little involvement with anything as far as that goes. Simpler was better. I just got a real digital source a couple of years ago. I've had cd players, just never took them serious. I can relate. Heck, I even got mad at tubes once and swore I'd never listen to tubes again! LOL! But, the magic (SETs) kept after me constantly as I was listening to other P/P tube designs and solid state amps. They could drive the dickens out of speakers! I could never get as involved in the music. I kept telling myself that this is accurate! So, when your talking 2 to 4 watts per channel you better have some serious speakers. After hearing the CS 2s everything just fell into place and since I've had them (CS 2) I've not bothered to upgrade anything and that's saying something for this old, never satisfied audiophile as myself!

Philefreak-I get your point. I do understand what you mean when speakers don't play to realistic levels and seem to just run out of gas. But in my experience, this usually happens at frequencies below the midrange when the speaker impedance begins to dip.

I threw out the comments about the pitch scale because I get a sense that a lot of audiophiles cannot relate a frequency given in Hz to real life. Middle C is well within the midrange and that's at 261 Hz. Human hearing is not linear.

I think a lot of the attraction that the CS2 offers based on the comments in this thread really stems from the dynamics that the CS2's offer. I find that the majority of audiophile speakers these days do a very poor job in the dynamics area and when one does find a speaker that offers dynamics the experience is eye opening. It is an experience much like the first time one hears a SET amp.

One thing that the CS2's are doing is showing the mainstream audiophile the wonders of a speaker that is not dynamically compressed. And that is a good thing.

I just find, much like Undertow, that there are plenty of speakers out there that can offer the lifelike dynamics. You just have to look in the right places.