Emerald Physics owners

So I've had a pair of CS2.3's for over a couple of months now and thought I'd post my experiences so far in case someone else has some tips in getting more out of these speakers.

I 'm using them with a VAC Ren 30/30 (6sn7->300b tubes) driving the mids and tweeters, and a DIY Class D amp I bought along with speakers, driving the bass. I have the DBX w\ microphone package, and the source is a DMHT Havana DAC with a WE JW 2c51 tube, upgraded fuse, and fed from a laptop via USB and a HiFace re-clocker. I'm using Foobar2000 and ASIO4ALL on the laptop. I'm not using a pre-amp at this time. Cables are Straightwire.

I also have a pair of Dali Helicon 400 speakers I bought about the same time. I also used to own a pair of B&W 801 s3 with a Conrad Johnson Premier 11, but sold them about nine years ago. I've been into world-class headphones between then and now.

The description of the sound that always comes to mind is 'life-like'. Vocals are so holographic and live sounding. Far more life-like than any speakers I've heard so far. In comparison, the description of the sound that comes to mind when listening to the Dali's is 'refinement' and 'powerful'. While still having good imaging, I wouldn't say it's holographic compared to the EP's. Yet voices have a delicacy and nuance about them - a sense of refinement.

While the bass of the EP's is deep and in an audible sense - very big and strong, they do not have the sense of power and movement of air that the Dali's have. The Emerald Physics have a boxless di-pole bass, and while maybe I can agree with EP's description of accurate bass, I usually do miss that impact of air from a boxed speaker. I am soon going to try a JL F110 subwoofer with them to see if that will give me that impact that I like. But, don't get me wrong, the EP's do have audible bass impact and definition, just not the tactile impact. The EP's probably have better bass imaging than the Dali's. Adding spikes is also a must in order to get the best bass, it makes a big difference in getting well-defined and accurate bass.

Emerald Physics speakers are not for the plug-and-play consumer. There was no manual to describe how to set the system up or to configure the DBX unit or how to get the best sound. So basically I've been trying with all sorts of things to see what sounds good. I've never heard a far-field setup that wasn't boring to me, and now that I think about it, except my own setups I've never heard a near-field setup that wasn't boring either. (Retailers could probably make a lot more sales if they just setup their speakers better.) But I do like to listen near-field. The best location I've found so far is with the speakers about five feet from the back wall, the distance between the inside edges of the speakers is 52 inches and the distance between my ears and the front of the speakers is about 65 inches. Closer is just more engaging to me then far away. And despite the speaker descriptions about lack of wall interaction, speaker location IS critically important and my speakers are nowhere near the walls for my best sound. All other speakers I've tried have sounded best with just a slight toe-in, but these CS2.3's sound far superior when they are focused about a foot or two in front of my face -- so massive toe-in. And due to the narrow field-of-sound they emit, every millimeter counts when finding the correct toe-in. But once dialed in, it's holographic bliss.

I read elsewhere on this forum about an expericed audiophile visiting someone with Emerald Physics speakers and commenting about all sorts of missing frequencies. I can believe it. Any two calibrations with the microphone are different, even with the microphone in the same place. However, you just have to play with different microphone placements, height, and direction, in addition to the loudness of the pink noise. I found the best calibration I got was to put the mic at the height of the tweeter, about where my ear is and point it directly at one of the speakers. However, even with that, the sound is definitly on the brighter side to my ears. So I go in the equalizer on the DBX unit and increase the last four bars of bass (20-80Hz) about 4dB, and then adjust a few of the other bass and mid frequencies by ear until it sounds right (or at least how I like it best), and every .5dB is important to get the best sound. I found decreasing the highs, rather than increasing the bass and a little bit of mids, ruined a lot of the excitment of the music.

It is so easy to get a crappy calibration and the DBX unit UI is not for the faint of heart, that I can imagine a lot of EP owners listening to sub-par sound. I can't imagine what the owners of the Behringer unit hear (with no microphone), as not only is the calibration extremely critical, but even once you get a good calibration, small manual adjustments of the EQ can enhance or ruin the sound balance, the image, the distance of the image, etc. But the calibration does make a big difference if you get it right. One scary thing is that it is very easy to mess up the base Emerald Physics DBX configuration if you don't know what you're doing and start modifying things in it.

These are very efficient speakers and unfortunately produced too much hiss for me. I bought a pair of XLR 10dB attenuators from Clayton that I put on the DBX mid\tweeter outputs and that reduced the hiss to a barely audible amount, and luckily balanced out the gain differences between the VAC and Class D amps vs. the sensativity differences of the bass drivers and mid\tweeter drivers. The electronic crossovers in the speakers have been upgraded to the latest version -- apparently there was an earlier version of the internal crossover on earlier releases of the CS2.3. (They should change versions when they change things like that. e.g. CS2.3.0, CS2.3.1, etc.)

Another unfortunate aspect of the narrow field-of-sound is that the sweet spot is very narrow. The sound changes when I move my head inches left or right, up or down, or forward or back. I find I like the sound the best with my ears about the height of the speakers. The image is more three-dimensional than with my ears at the level of the tweeters or lower.

Also, despite the marketing, quality electronics and cabling do matter. Using the Class D amp for both bass and mids\tweeters makes the music sound sterile. A tube amp is defintely a must for me. I like my Havana DAC better than my Empirical-modded Benchmark DAC1 in this system. And as in my headphone systems, ASIO4ALL and Foobar 2000 settings make a big difference in soundstage, PRAT, liveliness, etc. EVERY retail system I heard when trying to decide on which speakers to buy, had little to no life in them. I usually just sat there trying to listen but wondering when I could move on to the next system and wondering if these salesmen know what good music and stereo systems sounds like. If the music does not either move me, get my foot tapping, or get me to want to get up and dance, I see little point in listening to it, let alone spending thousands of dollars for it.

I was quite disappointed with them when I first got them, but once I figured out the placement, calibration, and EQ modification, these are increadable speakers that can produce life-like music, and CAN sound better than anything I've heard. But then again, I haven't exactly heard a whole lot of different componants and systems.

There's plenty of things I still need to try -- I'll see what the sub-woofer does soon, I need to try changing 6sn7 tubes on the VAC, I need to get my record player out of the garage, and I would love to try the Spatial source at some point. And of course I'd like to try the CS1.3's.

Anyway, what have you owners of Emerald Physics speakers found to get the best sound out of them?