CBT-24 "Epique" at CES 2017

[Pallas]

http://www.soundandvision.com/conten...QPm3ish73Kx.97

"Walk around the room and there is virtually no change in the musically coherent tonal balance."

The pricing on these is fantastic, too. I wonder how tall they are.

[tomzarbo]

Is that what we heard at MWAF? I didn't get to really hear it for long, but in the burst I heard they were pretty loud and pretty clean.
I know John H was eyeing those drivers something fierce. I was half-afraid that he was planning a midnight drop-line entry 'Mission Impossible' style to grab a few. Seems much simpler than the current, or I guess now the last version of this array speaker. I wonder if they'll sound nearly as good as Kevin K's array when he gets it finished?

TomZ

[Patrick Bateman]

I had an opportunity to hear the original CBT speakers at CES a couple of years ago. IMHO, these new ones are better. Here's why:

The way that the CBT array works is that it's basically recreating the wavefront of a speaker that's located about ten feet BEHIND the speaker location, and with directivity.
IE, if you put a loudspeaker in a room, the wavefront will expand spherically. The CBT creates the wavefront of a 'slice' of that spherical wavefront. This gives you a lot of the features of waveguides:
1) directivity control
2) efficiency
3) high output

But CBTs aren't perfect; IMHO, their Achilles Heel is that they're one dimensional. What I mean by "one dimensional" is that CBTs only have directivity control in the vertical axis. In the horizontal axis, they're basically omni.

This Achilles Heel means that the *horizontal* response of a two-way CBT is not very good at all. (You can see this in the published horizontal polars of the CBT36. The vertical polars are very good, the horizontals are not.)

So... How to fix this?

Use a single driver.

Which is exactly what the new CBTs do.

They were so good that I had to listen twice, and I'm thinking seriously about replacing my reference speakers with these.

Before you run out and buy these, I have to admit they weren't the best speakers I heard at CES. For instance, I heard some $4000 Vandersteens that offered more extended highs. I heard some $10,000 Revels that had more pinpoint imaging. There's a couple of things I really like about these new CBTs:

1) To me, overall, they sound better than the original CBTs
2) Although the Vandersteens sounded cleaner in the very top octave, I don't personally listen to a lot of music that needs that. (If you listen to a lot of well-recorded music, the highs might bug you. I don't, so they don't)
3) For me, the thing that really sets the CBT apart from everything else that I listened to at the show is that they sound good nearly anywhere in the room. I know we're supposed to be audiophiles, and sit in our listening chair, and focus 110% on the music. But sometimes it's just nice to have a speaker that offers an audiophile experience to everyone in the room. And these new CBTs really do that; you can stand up, sit down, walk to the left, walk to the right. The sound just doesn't change much at all. This reminds me a bit of a Danley SH-50 or my old Gedlee Summas. That effect that you can park yourself in front of the left speaker, and the soundstage is still in the center of the speakers. It's a weird effect, but constant directivity speakers can do it.

Highly recommended, and a STEAL at this price.



BTW, if anyone wants to read my opinions on the original, it's buried somewhere in this thread : http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi...ay-vs-cbt.html

[Patrick Bateman]

BTW, I think there's some things that can be done to make the CBTs sound better. Here's why:

In my home, the Danley SH-50s had pinpoint imaging like nothing you've ever heard. I believe this is largely because of their narrow horizontal and vertical directivity. The SH-50s offer directivity control all the way down to 450Hz.

The CBTs offer directivity control down to 225Hz, an octave lower, but only in the vertical plane. That means that the CBTs 'throw' a lot of sound into the sidewalls. Even worse, they're a FOCUSED ARRAY to the back wall.



If you look at the side view of a CBT, you'll see why; in front of the CBT, the sound is expanding. But to the back? It's actually focused at a point about eight feet behind the speaker. Due to that, it's going to generate a tremendous reflection off of the back wall.

So... Treat those side walls and treat that back wall.

I think the CBTs could get closer to that Danley holographic imaging if those two reflections were addressed.

If you have high ceilings, you might consider putting the CBTs on their sides. (The CBTs will work perfectly well as a horizontal array or a vertical array.)

[ani_101]

Can't find it on PE. Any more info?

[Patrick Bateman]

24 drivers per side
CBT shading and curvature
The drivers are the Dayton ND65

The shading is done via resistors, the constant directivity equalization is done via MiniDSP

[isaeagle4031]

What about the horizontal plane un front of the array (the floor)?

[Pallas]

Does anyone have dimensions?

[tomzarbo]

24 drivers per side
CBT shading and curvature
The drivers are the Dayton ND65

The shading is done via resistors, the constant directivity equalization is done via MiniDSP

I don't think the drivers are the standard Dayton ND65. I think they have a little more magic going on.
Possibly they are what the ND91 is to the ND90, but I don't think they're exactly the same.

TomZ

[Kevin K.]

24 drivers per side
CBT shading and curvature
The drivers are the Dayton ND65
The shading is done via resistors, the constant directivity equalization is done via MiniDSP

Although the driver looks like the ND65, it is not one of the one's PE currently carries. This one was specifically designed for these arrays. It wasn't clear whether PE would offer the driver by itself.

Does anyone have dimensions?

Here's a flyer I picked up from MWAF last year. Don demoed them briefly and they were very impressive IMHO. Sorry for the poor picture quality. Looks like they are about 61" tall. The column is 3.5" wide. The bottom foot plate is 13.5" wide and 25" deep.

[Pallas]

Darn. Footprint too big for surround side/surround back speakers in our living room.

[Kevin K.]

Darn. Footprint too big for surround side/surround back speakers in our living room.

This could be viewed as the Achilles' heel of the CBT arrays. They do take up more space than a traditional tower. I was able to reduce this somewhat on my array build by using a hexagonal base/enclosure. This helped the stability and didn't require as much depth.

[jhollander]

I forgot who I spoke with besides Don Keele at MWAF, he had designed the new ND65. The new ND65 has a better top end. As I recall there was only a small bit of eq'ing near 10K. The ND65 was suppose to be available in November last year. Not sure why the delay.

Should be similar to the SB65 but with a lower FS, they are on my list to model for a 2-way synergy type horn

[rickcraig]

Is that what we heard at MWAF? I didn't get to really hear it for long, but in the burst I heard they were pretty loud and pretty clean.
I know John H was eyeing those drivers something fierce. I was half-afraid that he was planning a midnight drop-line entry 'Mission Impossible' style to grab a few. Seems much simpler than the current, or I guess now the last version of this array speaker. I wonder if they'll sound nearly as good as Kevin K's array when he gets it finished?

TomZ

Yes, same speaker from the MWAF. I look forward to the comments on Kevin's arrays.

[JavadS]

Got to hear these quite a bit at CES, very impressive especially considering the kit will be something like $1400 and they easily sounded better than speakers costing 10 times more in rooms near by and then some.